Fundamental Existence Of Matter/Energy

[abhiroop_k]

the big bang theory suggests that all the matter around us was once infinitely concentrated at some particular high density region...this matter then spread out across the universe following the big bang...
but how did this energy/matter come into existence in the first place??..

 

[Robin]

the big bang theory suggests that all the matter around us was once infinitely concentrated at some particular high density region...this matter then spread out across the universe following the big bang...
but how did this energy/matter come into existence in the first place??..

Your question contains the phrase 'coming into existence' which involves time.
Time didn't start until the big bang occurred.

 

[abhiroop_k]

yes...but where did all this energy come from;how was it 'created'??...
and also,what triggered the big bang?why is it that everything began expanding...as in why did the big bang happen back then and not before or after??

 

[Robin]

yes...but where did all this energy come from;how was it 'created'??...
and also,what triggered the big bang?why is it that everything began expanding...as in why did the big bang happen back then and not before or after??

Creation implies that at sometime it did not exist. It implies it had to have a beginning.
What if there is a source of energy outside space & time & thus eternal.
Except since it's outside space & time it's beyond the eternal. Because eternal implies travel through time for ever. But as I say, if it's outside space & time then there's no need for a beginning or a creation or indeed the question what brought it into existence.
Nature is above & beyond time yet for some reason not understood spawns universes consisting of space & time.

 

[abhiroop_k]

okay...don't think i could comprehend it perfectly,but nevertheless its a bit clearer now...thanks.

 

[yrreg]

The real issue here is whether there is existence without time and space and matter and energy.

There logically is otherwise where do time and space and matter and energy and everything that is examined by scientists come from?

But if you delimit existence to that within time and space and matter and energy and everything else that is examined by scientists, then you by definition already exclude existence without time and space and matter and energy.

In which case you have no explanation for the existence of time and space and matter and energy and everything that is examined by scientists.

More logical is the thinking that existence comprises two parts, the part without time and space and matter and energy and everything examined by scientists, and the part within time and space and matter and energy and everything examined by scientists.

And the origin of the existence of the part within time and space, etc. is the existence without time and space, etc.

And this part which is the origin of the part within time and space, etc. cannot be accessed by science and mathematics, but can be accessed by the mind of man with his thinking faculty.


Yrreg

 

[e^(i Pi)+1=0]

the big bang theory suggests that all the matter around us was once infinitely concentrated at some particular high density region...this matter then spread out across the universe following the big bang...
but how did this energy/matter come into existence in the first place??..

The short answer - nobody knows.

 

[marcus]

Your question contains the phrase 'coming into existence' which involves time.
Time didn't start until the big bang occurred.

I can't think of any scientific reason to believe that. There is the classic 1915 model that breaks down right at the beginning of expansion (has a "singularity" or breakdown there) and which is unable to go any farther back into the past. And there are one or more other models that fit data equally well that do not break down, they go back farther.
At present we can't choose, more data may favor one model or another.

Creation implies that at sometime it did not exist. It implies it had to have a beginning.
What if there is a source of energy outside space & time & thus eternal.
Except since it's outside space & time it's beyond the eternal. Because eternal implies travel through time for ever. But as I say, if it's outside space & time then there's no need for a beginning or a creation or indeed the question what brought it into existence.
Nature is above & beyond time yet for some reason not understood spawns universes consisting of space & time.

No need to postulate such an "eternal source of energy outside space and time". No scientific reason to require such an extra complication.
Your "Nature is above&beyond...spawn universes...etc" sounds like your own personal theory. Eloquent and poetic but not proper cosmology, IMHO.

 

[marcus]

The short answer - nobody knows.

The aim of a mathematical science like cosmology is not to KNOW. Basically it is to find explanations for what we observe and test them. At any given time to offer the simplest best fit to past data, and the most reliable predictions about future data.

There is no certain knowledge. After enough time, as a rule, every explanation, every equation depicting the world is eventually found flawed and either emended or replaced.

One thing that fools a lot of people is that they confuse the "Big Bang" (which is simply the start of expansion according to the current cosmological model) with the "coming into existence" of space and time and matter and energy.

There are really two very different questions: understanding what was going on around the start of expansion of this universe, which is before our eyes and we want to understand, and (on the other hand) the grander more speculative and philosophical question of why space time matter energy exist.

I don't know of any research into the latter question that I would waste 5 minutes on. Humans are not ready to try to answer questions like "why does existence exist and why do we have these laws and not others?"
But let's not confuse that with understanding the Big Bang. there is quite a bit of good research being done on understanding the start of expansion, in ways that avoid the earlier theoretical breakdown or "singularity".

I'll hunt up a link to a research paper in case anyone wants an example of what I mean. Don't want to be speaking about this in a vacuum. Maybe a paper by Agullo and Parker would be a good example. Inflation does not wipe out the past inhomogeneities---doesn't give you a clean slate. Just one corner of the research effort, but an interesting one.

 

[marcus]

Fascinating paper. The Gravity Research Foundation awarded it their first prize in 2011. If inflation were preceded by a period of contraction, for example, traces of the past would be expected to survive inflation---IOW could not be stretched out to featureless uniformity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4240
Stimulated creation of quanta during inflation and the observable universe
Ivan Agullo, Leonard Parker
(Submitted on 21 Jun 2011)
Inflation provides a natural mechanism to account for the origin of cosmic structures. The generation of primordial inhomogeneities during inflation can be understood via the spontaneous creation of quanta from the vacuum. We show that when the corresponding stimulated creation of quanta is considered, the characteristics of the state of the universe at the onset of inflation are not diluted by the inflationary expansion and can be imprinted in the spectrum of primordial inhomogeneities. The non-gaussianities (particularly in the so-called squeezed configuration) in the cosmic microwave background and galaxy distribution can then tell us about the state of the universe that existed at the time when quantum field theory in curved spacetime first emerged as a plausible effective theory.
9 pages. Awarded with the First Prize in the Gravity Research Foundation Essay Competition 2011

 

[yrreg]

Well, of course if anyone adopts the attitude and the position as to be absolutely non-compromisable, namely, that we don't know, period; then that is a cop-out.

You are talking about the world as known to scientists and their world is already compromised as to not go into questions which are not delimited to matter, energy, time, space, etc. which are the realm of examination by scientists.

But the mind of man is not inclined to be delimited to such self-imposed borders of scientists, because there is still the question whence come matter, energy, time, space, etc., the stuffs of scientists' examination?

So scientists who dare to go without, meaning outside of, as opposed to self-enclosing oneselves to within, meaning inside of: matter, energy, time, space, etc., have to maintain as an unquestionable position but from self-choice of the will rather than from cognitive open-ness to ideas, the insistence as to be not subject to further questioning that matter, energy, space, time, etc. have always existed or always exist, only not always in a domain accessible to investigation by man with the aid of mathematics: take note of always, therefore time has always existed or always exists.

However, that matter, energy, time, space, etc. are always existing is not science but anything like metaphysics than science.

The more rational and worthy of the human mind position is that there is a domain of existence that is not subject to scientific investigation with aid of mathematics, but still is accessible by the thinking mind, which thinking mind leads man to know the existence of things not subject to scientific investigation even with aid of mathematics distinctly different to matter and energy and time and space, etc.

You will ask, how does the human mind prove the existence of such a realm?

Of course you understand proof as scientific proof, and that is precisely what science cannot prove, but the thinking mind has access to and by virtue of its innate direct access as from one that is not bound to matter, energy, time, space, etc., it can and does come to acquaintance with the domain or the world of the things that are not bound to matter, energy, time, space, etc.

Otherwise the question of existence is not completely answered, but the mind of man is subject to violence by the imposition of the man of self-limited science also man's tool but delimited in its horizons, to not ever go outside of this self-imposed dungeon.Now, the question is whether science will suffer because of reason's access to, and reason's certainty of, the realm of existence that is not of matter and energy and time and space and all the stuffs of scientists' investigation.

Suppose we ask ourselves in answer to that question we ask this question, namely, give one instance how science will suffer owing to the fact that reason has come to the certainty of the realm of existence that is not of matter, energy, space, time, etc., all the stuffs of self-delimited investigation of scientists?

Is it a valid way of answering a question by asking the question-poser to give an instance which is founded on the ground purportedly giving validity to his question.

Like this by way of illstration: to the question "Will not the family suffer if a man is allowed to have two wives?"

Answer: "Can you give an instance of how the family will suffer if a man is allowed to have two wives."Well, I guess this thread will get locked up now.
Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by abhiroop_k
the big bang theory suggests that all the matter around us was once infinitely concentrated at some particular high density region...this matter then spread out across the universe following the big bang...
but how did this energy/matter come into existence in the first place??..
​

The short answer - nobody knows.

Well, if I may voice my heart and mind, I am glad that this thread has not been locked up, notwithstanding that I already expressed my fear in the last post here prior to the present one which is also from myself in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3951762&postcount=11.



"We don't know" is the standard answer from people who are not really incapacitated to think, but who forbid themselves from thinking beyond time and space and matter and energy and everything that is susceptible to scientific investigation, meaning empirical observation and testing.


That is what I might call a self-imposed taboo by these people on themselves.



But if they would liberate themselves from this taboo, there is only one option which thinking people cannot turn a blind eye to, namely, there is the existence that is not bounded by space and time and matter and energy and whatever else that scientists investigate, namely, anything which to them is subject to empirical observation and experimentation, or also accessible to evidence but still understood as empirical evidence.

Now, that is the realm of existence which we might call metaphysics, or which we might call the transcendental domain of existence, above and beyond and outside matter and energy and space and time and etc. -- everything scientists limit themselves to investigating by yes again empirical observation and empirical testing.


I want to ask scientists: Can you insist that the universe, that is the one investigated by yourselves with your empirical observation and laboratory testing, is that the whole and nothing else universe, that is what is called the physical universe?

As one of yourselves says: "The universe [physical] is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Carl Sagan.*

But scientists also tell us that the universe [physical] is winding down.

On the other hand that does not prevent them from speculating about many universes [physical], still when in court they know they cannot bring in speculations.



Well, I guess this thread will now be definitively locked up.





Yrreg

*This quote is supposed to be found in Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4.​

 

[Bobbywhy]

Yrreg, I’ve read your posts numbers eleven and twelve above and have decided that you are so far advanced that it’s impossible to comprehend your meaning(s). Your obvious mastery of scientific investigations, cosmology, the philosophy of science, scholastic metaphysics, and the functioning of the human mind puts you light-years ahead of the mere normal folks here like myself.

Why not create a website and fill it with all your wisdom and knowledge? Then others could go there and drink from your delimited perceptions of our natural world. Imagine, there would be acolytes lining up to absorb small bits of your seemingly unlimited intelligence and understanding!

 

[Drakkith]

"We don't know" is the standard answer from people who are not really incapacitated to think, but who forbid themselves from thinking beyond time and space and matter and energy and everything that is susceptible to scientific investigation, meaning empirical observation and testing.

No, answering something with "we don't know" is simply a statement of fact. There are PLENTY of scientists that will tell you that they don't know, but will immediately give you their opinion or belief on the matter. Many people, including many scientists, believe in non-empirical things.

I want to ask scientists: Can you insist that the universe, that is the one investigated by yourselves with your empirical observation and laboratory testing, is that the whole and nothing else universe, that is what is called the physical universe?

We could insist that it is the only possible one, but we don't know. We CAN say that the scientific term for the universe matches your description and perform observations on it. Since science deals ONLY with empirical data, which of course it must, as if it isn't empirical then it isn't observable and testable by definition, then we are forced to only investigate the "empirical" universe.

But scientists also tell us that the universe [physical] is winding down.

On the other hand that does not prevent them from speculating about many universes [physical], still when in court they know they cannot bring in speculations.

Nonsense. Speculation is a necessary part of science. The key is to realize that speculation means nothing until it is observed, evidence is provided, etc. Anyone who uses speculation as if it were true when they don't have a shred of evidence is wrong.

 

[twofish-quant]

Well, of course if anyone adopts the attitude and the position as to be absolutely non-compromisable, namely, that we don't know, period; then that is a cop-out.

We don't know != we'll never know

The first step in figuring stuff out is to come up with as many ideas as you can, and then try to figure out the consequences of those ideas. That's the stage that we are at right now with respect to "event zero."

However, that matter, energy, time, space, etc. are always existing is not science but anything like metaphysics than science.

Depends if you can get something observable out of it. Something that is encouraging is that we are getting so much new data, that it's not out of the question that someone will be able to come up with something that we can put observational constraints on.

Non-scientists often misunderstand the hard part of science. The hard part of science is not to come up with new ideas. That's usually the easy part. The hard part is to come up with some way of showing that those ideas are wrong. Part of it is to come up with specific ideas, since it's easier to show that a specific idea is wrong than a general one.

People are coming with a *lot* of ideas right now. This is because we are getting lots of data that can rule out incorrect ideas.

 

[twofish-quant]

That is what I might call a self-imposed taboo by these people on themselves.

Sure, but there is a reason for this. Let's suppose I argue with another astrophysicist. He might be a member of the church of Satan and vote Trotskyist. But because we agree on some basic philosophy, we can argue about say the implications of WMAP observations and come up with some conclusion.

If we talk about which beer tastes better, then we'll never come up some conclusion, and the method of argumentation that we agree on concerning the WMAP observations just doesn't work for those questions.

But if they would liberate themselves from this taboo, there is only one option which thinking people cannot turn a blind eye to.

That's the problem. There isn't one option. Once you remove the restrictions there are a huge number of possibilities.

I want to ask scientists: Can you insist that the universe, that is the one investigated by yourselves with your empirical observation and laboratory testing, is that the whole and nothing else universe, that is what is called the physical universe?

I don't think it is.

As one of yourselves says: "The universe [physical] is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Carl Sagan.*

Well, that illustrates my point. In making that statement Carl Sagan was making a personal philosophical statement, which many people disagree with. Sagan was an extremely gifted astronomer and Cosmos was an excellent book, but it's a book about Carl Sagan (nothing wrong with that). He called his television series "A Personal Voyage" which it was.

 

[CCWilson]

Time didn't start until the big bang occurred.

Not necessarily. Our version of time presumably didn't start until the big bang occurred, but there may have been other universes, each with its own version of time. Not impossible that within certain of the black holes in our own universe, new universes might be created, each with a version of time and space forever divorced from ours. We may have come from a mother universe. As somebody said, nobody knows, and I suspect that nobody ever will. But you never know.

I'll be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that there is anything in existence. Since we are, there's a concept that I and everybody else are missing.