Is All Motion Linked to the Big Bang?

[mikesvenson]

Without motion, there is no time. Without time, there is no motion, no cause and effect, no change. Motion 'causes effects'. Therefore, without motion, there is no cause and effect. So, then, is it still possible that motion has a 'cause' ?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Without motion, there is no time. Without time, there is no motion, no cause and effect, no change. Motion 'causes effects'. Therefore, without motion, there is no cause and effect. So, then, is it still possible that motion has a 'cause' ?

I wonder if it's necessarily so that without time there can be no motion. If time is considered the overall rate of entropy in our universe (i.e., the rate of its "passing"), I could imagine a situation where some sort of pure vibrancy was all that was left after the universe completely runs down. If that condition existed, there would be the motion of vibrancy, but since no entropic change would be taking place there wouldn't be time.

But it seems mainly you were saying motion itself is cause, and so is not itself caused. If that is what you meant, then motion would have to be inherent in the nature of reality, or a "given." Assuming that, then there still remains a tough question.

Since the universe does appear to be winding down, it means motion itself is changing and could mean its heading for some state of equilibrium. Assuming that ground state is where the motion we observe originates, then what caused that motion to be in the excited condition we see now? It doesn't seem ordinary motion alone can be its own cause.

 

[wuliheron]

Right now it remains fundamental until something like superstrings manages to explain it with a more basic theory. I doubt we shall ever be truly satisfied with an explanation for something so intrinsic as motion.

Oh, we might be satisfied eventually.

Einstein pointed out that space without time and mass without energy are quite meaningless terms, and functional contextualists have pointed out much the same thing. Physically, mentally, and linguistically it seems these terms are meaningless without reference to each other.

If a theory of everything is found that no other theory can replace for centuries, then eventually people will just accept it as the way things are, just as they used to believe the Earth was flat.

 

[p-brane]

Wuli: "Einstein pointed out that space without time and mass without energy are quite meaningless terms, and functional contextualists have pointed out much the same thing. Physically, mentally, and linguistically it seems these terms are meaningless without reference to each other. "

In a relativistic universe this holds true.

In a quantum universe motion is quite probably an illusion created by quantum excitation of homogenous and semihomogenous elements in various regions of a simultaniously existing field. The Cubists, Gertrude Stein, Braques, and Piccasso had an uncanny understanding of this illusionary phenomenon.

 

[p-brane]

And I use the term "regions" lightly. Moreover, that term could better be described by a wave theorist.

edit: The "illusion" of motion is caused by our inherent perspective and by our learned perception. These factors place us in a fixed and isolated position within a relativistic universe.

 

[wuliheron]

You are correct, motion could be illusory according to QM. However, this is not an explanation of motion, but rather, a lack of an explanation.

To say something is random, chaotic, or indeterminate is to assert that we cannot perceive any pattern. It is impossible to prove a negative, hence you can never prove the indeterminacy of QM, the best you can do is demonstrate that no explanation is necessary.

 

[p-brane]

To say something is random, chaotic, or indeterminate is to assert that we cannot perceive any pattern. It is impossible to prove a negative, hence you can never prove the indeterminacy of QM, the best you can do is demonstrate that no explanation is necessary.

On the contrary, QM is highly determinate. It has an intrinsic reliance on a synergistic state to exist. When a "motion" occurs in QM it is omnidirectional and in accordance with laws of realized potentials. It really requires a wave theorist's view.

 

[wuliheron]

On the contrary, QM is highly determinate. It has an intrinsic reliance on a synergistic state to exist. When a "motion" occurs in QM it is omnidirectional and in accordance with laws of realized potentials. It really requires a wave theorist's view.

Wave theory has not banished the Indeterminacy of QM. There are any number of self-consistent and nontrivial explanations for quantum weirdness, but none of them have proven to provide any better results than merely accepting the observational evidence that the motion of quanta are fundamentally random.

To assert otherwise is the height of hubris.

 

[p-brane]

Wave theory has not banished the Indeterminacy of QM. There are any number of self-consistent and nontrivial explanations for quantum weirdness, but none of them have proven to provide any better results than merely accepting the observational evidence that the motion of quanta are fundamentally random.

To assert otherwise is the height of hubris.

I assert that all motion is part of a chain of reactions to the initial action of the BB. It would be safe to assume that upon one's observation of a motion, quantum or otherwise, its vibratory frequency is essencial and integral to maintaining the balance of the existing overall field. Otherwise it would not happen.

Randomeity is an anthropomorphic construct created by the limited scope of observational powers excercised by most humans.