- #1
FizixFreak
- 154
- 0
for what reason did the big bang took place?
Delta² said:It took place because God wanted to create something :)
What? That's absurd. Calling something a "flaw" is a subjective judgment. As is meaning and making things more interesting. Reality cannot conform to these subjective judgments. The only way you can think it's true is if you bend your subjective judgments to conform to reality.Delta² said:I don't see any bugs in the universe, universe does not appear to be perfect to the common human sense but it is in fact very perfect (For every flaw we observe in the universe if we carefully think it over we ll see that it is not a flaw but it exists to give more meaning and make it more interesting) and this perfection proves that it is the creation of a supreme being which is what we refer as God.
Whats the problem with subjective judgements? Life is not only science we don't have to consider only facts and objective truth. Universe supports life and life supports subjective judgements.Chalnoth said:What? That's absurd. Calling something a "flaw" is a subjective judgment. As is meaning and making things more interesting. Reality cannot conform to these subjective judgments. The only way you can think it's true is if you bend your subjective judgments to conform to reality.
Again life is not only science. We don't have to see everything in a scientific context and how it relates to science and if it carries an objective truth. Ofcourse you might argue that this is a science forum so u imply that we may discuss something only if it relates to science but that's another subject.For this reason, asking "for what reason" something takes place is usually, in science, a completely bogus question. It is reasonable to ask how the big bang started, how often such a thing might happen, and what sorts of universes are produced in your typical big bang. We don't know any of these answers yet, but they're still reasonable questions. Asking for the "purpose" of the big bang, however, is just an invalid question: there is none. It just is.
FizixFreak said:for what reason did the big bang took place?
Delta² said:Saying that the purpose (or the cause ) of the big bang is none might stand from a purely schientific point of view but from a subjective point of view we expect things to have a meaning thus they must have a cause and probably serve a purpose.
jackmell said:I believe we can know how it happened just not now. Think about the history of Astronomy: we thought the Earth was flat, that changed, that we were the center of the Universe, that changed, that the sun and moon "moved" around the earth, that changed, that all we could see in the sky (mostly) was all that there was. I mean it was less than 100 years ago that we believed the entire Universe was the Milky Way. I believe our understanding is still incomplete and we do not at present have adequate tools to understand origins.
However I am comforted in reaching my own personal conclusion based on the "discontinuous" nature of phenomena in the Universe, that the reason it emerged was due to some larger system reaching a critical point like when a supersaturated solution of sugar is slowly cooled, it reaches such a critical point rapidly precipitating the sugar out of solution. In the same way, I suspect this larger system reached a critical point, and our Universe "precipitated" into existence.
DaveC426913 said:Ah, but all you've done then is push back the point of creation. OK, so the BB is simply an effect of a larger cause.
To borrow the OP's words, for what reason did the larger cause took place?
I'm not saying that subjective judgments are bad, merely that they should be used properly. Subjective judgments cannot be statements about the nature of reality. Instead, subjective judgments are statements about the person making the judgment.Delta² said:Whats the problem with subjective judgements? Life is not only science we don't have to consider only facts and objective truth. Universe supports life and life supports subjective judgements.
That is completely invalid reasoning. You're basically saying that reality must conform to your whims. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.Delta² said:Saying that the purpose (or the cause ) of the big bang is none might stand from a purely schientific point of view but from a subjective point of view we expect things to have a meaning thus they must have a cause and probably serve a purpose.
If it does not appear perfect to the common human sense, and assuming that you are, in fact, a human yourself, how do you know that it "is in fact very perfect?" Do you talk to God?Delta² said:I don't see any bugs in the universe, universe does not appear to be perfect to the common human sense but it is in fact very perfect (For every flaw we observe in the universe if we carefully think it over we ll see that it is not a flaw but it exists to give more meaning and make it more interesting) and this perfection proves that it is the creation of a supreme being which is what we refer as God.
OK well, in his defense, we was the first person to acknowledge that:bapowell said:This is a physics forum where people discuss science. Your assertion is non-empirical, objectively useless, and has no place here.
Delta² said:Ofcourse you might argue that this is a science forum so u imply that we may discuss something only if it relates to science but that's another subject.
Whoops. I didn't have the will power to read the second post. Apologies. Although I am still interested in finding out if Delta^2 is a prophet.DaveC426913 said:OK well, in his defense, we was the first person to acknowledge that:
Delta² said:I don't see any bugs in the universe, universe does not appear to be perfect to the common human sense but it is in fact very perfect (For every flaw we observe in the universe if we carefully think it over we ll see that it is not a flaw but it exists to give more meaning and make it more interesting) and this perfection proves that it is the creation of a supreme being which is what we refer as God.
Delta² said:Ofcourse you might argue that this is a science forum so u imply that we may discuss something only if it relates to science but that's another subject.
Yes, so, as required by the Physics Forums Rules,bapowell said:This is a physics forum where people discuss science. Your assertion is non-empirical, objectively useless, and has no place here.
Greg Bernhardt said:Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.
Well, that's more a statement about certain very specific models of the big bang, not necessarily a statement about reality.FizixFreak said:why is it that before big bang TIME could not exist?
Chalnoth said:Well, that's more a statement about certain very specific models of the big bang, not necessarily a statement about reality.
Basically, in some models, such as in Stephen Hawkings' no boundary proposal, there simply isn't any time before the big bang. Asking "what came before the big bang" is analogous to asking "what lies north of the north pole." This is because in his no boundary proposal, the space-time manifold doesn't actually have any sort of edge, just like there is no end to the surface of the Earth (in the sense of people who thought the Earth was flat thought of an edge). It is, however, finite, wrapping back on itself in a very specific way. Thus what we see of as "time" has a beginning of sorts, but there is nothing "before" it (just as the Earth has a point that is furthest north, but with nothing north of that point).
It depends upon the model. We don't yet know which model is an accurate description of reality.FizixFreak said:so time was ''created'' after the big bang .
cant i say that the big bang actually triggered the creation of the ''things'' that could experience time rather than saying that big bang caused the creation of time (as before it there was nothing or none that could measure or evaluate time)??
Chalnoth said:It depends upon the model. We don't yet know which model is an accurate description of reality.
No, not at all. You don't need an observer to experience time. But space and time themselves exist on what is called a manifold. Without a manifold, you have no space, no time.FizixFreak said:if we say that time was ''created'' after big bang wouldn't that imply that time only has existence when there is some one or some thing that can feel it but relativity gives a different picture of time to us?
Chalnoth said:No, not at all. You don't need an observer to experience time. But space and time themselves exist on what is called a manifold. Without a manifold, you have no space, no time.
No. Time is a direction within the manifold. There is no "before" or "after" outside of it.FizixFreak said:so before the big bang that manifold existed the bang just expanded it right? (or that is what i understood when i did some research on string theory).
Chalnoth said:No. Time is a direction within the manifold. There is no "before" or "after" outside of it.
Yes. In the same way that up/down, east/west, and north/south are directions.FizixFreak said:time is a direction?
i didn't quite understood that.
Chalnoth said:Yes. In the same way that up/down, east/west, and north/south are directions.
No, because the direction only has meaning within the manifold. It doesn't have meaning outside of the manifold.FizixFreak said:but if you call time as direction it means it existed before the big bang?
and does the time represents all known direction or just one specific direction.
Well, obviously there's ambiguity as to which sort of direction on the manifold we can identify with time. There is no definitive direction that is associated with time, and different observers will see time as being different directions on the manifold. But then, this is the same with all other directions as well, so time isn't exactly special in regard to this ambiguity.Passionflower said:To address a common misunderstanding: time is not an actual dimension on the manifold.
The confusion arises because often a coordinate chart is used where an observer's x0 (or sometimes denoted as t) is identical to his proper time. For instance a rest frame in Minkowski spacetime using Cartesian coordinates or Fermi normal coordinates in curved spacetimes.
Curved spacetime is a four dimensional manifold but no single dimension is explicitly time.
So what is time? Well for any timelike observer time is the metric distance between two events on his worldline.
In GR worldlines can simply end (at a singularity), by time symmetry (and GR is time symmetric) that implies that worldlines can simply begin as well. Hence according to GR it is possible that for a given observer time can have a begin and an end.
Chalnoth said:Well, obviously there's ambiguity as to which sort of direction on the manifold we can identify with time. There is no definitive direction that is associated with time, and different observers will see time as being different directions on the manifold. But then, this is the same with all other directions as well, so time isn't exactly special in regard to this ambiguity.
No, time is definitely separate from the three dimensions of space. Which direction in space-time you see as time depends upon things like your velocity and acceleration.FizixFreak said:so may i say that time is a direction but the answer of WHICH DIRECTION changes with observer?
or may be that time exists within the three dimensions of space occupying some part of all three dimensions?
If you read what I wrote before:FizixFreak said:so may i say that time is a direction but the answer of WHICH DIRECTION changes with observer?
or may be that time exists within the three dimensions of space occupying some part of all three dimensions?
Again, time is the metric distance between two events on a worldline.Chalnoth said:Mathematically, time is exactly the same as the other dimensions, except that the sign of a metric component associated with time is opposite from the spatial dimensions. For example, if the spatial dimensions have positive metric components, then time has a negative metric component.