Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why logic and reason fail when we try to trace back the origin of universe

  1. May 27, 2004 #1
    Why logic and reason fail when we try to trace back the origin of universe!!!

    When we try to think what might have created the universe,when was it created,how,why,where etc etc, the parameters we are looking at are TIME when we say WHEN and SPACE when we say WHERE,HOW,WHAT,WHO.
    Out of the ten or so dimensions that were created simutaneously space and time constitute four.That is why we cannot imagine of anything before the big bang because there was no time before the bigbang.Time itself was created at the moment of bigbang.We fail to imagine or guess what existed before bigbang because we imagine things in terms of matter or energy.both of them did not exist before bigbang.
    So,to conclude :
    We do not know what existed before bigbang simply because we have not come across anything like it ,as of yet.
    so,keep looking and dont simply say it was the hand of GOD!!!
  2. jcsd
  3. May 30, 2004 #2
    Well theyve already imagined possibilities before the bigbang.. thats what string theory is for apparently.
  4. May 30, 2004 #3
    Time is relative. Perhaps time even accelerated as the universe accelerated.

    For a big bang to occur, there had to be movement, change. Movement/change require time. Even if things happen simultaneously, in a billionth of a second, the moment in which they occur is a unit of time.

    Time cannot be tied solely to our universe if you believe in the existence of multiverses. Do you believe that multiverses all banged into existence simultaneously? If so, then what brought that about?
    Observation should tell you that the big bang probably had to have a cause- God, nature or both.

    If you postulate that absolute nothingness existed pre-bang, then you must propose a model, some kind of theory that can explain the possibility of how nothingness can evolve into a big bang.
    Even Kaku gets stuck on that question ("What happened moments before the big bang?")
    At least I can tell you that in all of the doctor's seminars and interviews, I've not heard him once give any description of what theoretical physicists think happened one second before the Big Bang.
    I don't believe that the Big Bang created cause and effect.
    Last edited: May 30, 2004
  5. May 30, 2004 #4
    Which Big Bang are you refering to?

    I guess I can assume you are refering to the most recent BB. Some of us are convinced that the last BB was preceeded by the last Big Crunch. We are probably in the minority in this case.
  6. May 30, 2004 #5
    Maybe that means it never really happened.

    One of them boobytrap theories designed to keep the sons of the Nephilem stroking their peachfuzz and buying pipe tobacco.
  7. May 31, 2004 #6
    This ,I think ,is possible.

    Whats probable,I think is that,some where back in time,there was a point where in, cause and effect were simultaneous,not seperated by time.It is possible that cause as well as effect are happening simultaneously.
    Now,in this case the multiverses are possible,each being the cause for the other and also an effect of the other.Its as if multiverses are in a state of equillibrium.
  8. Jun 1, 2004 #7

    Not meant to offend, but there is a lot of thinking, but less proof. we could spout off what we think till the "cows come home" and we would end up where we started... Anyone with scientific proof???
  9. Jun 2, 2004 #8
    I know ,but this is just the beginning of the thread.There is a lot more to come.
    The string theory for instance.We can talk bout that.
  10. Jun 2, 2004 #9
    Im sorry, but the string theory is incorrect. its unconventional and false.
  11. Jun 2, 2004 #10
    The logic we use to reason about reality is simply the most general relations we have observed about reality. We came to know the principles of reason and logic by generalizing on our observations about the universe. Therefore, logic only applies where there is a universe to consider. The beginning of logic in the universe would have to be where the very first point of exitence came into being. Nothing logical can be considered about nothing. But with the first point (or perhaps region), we see how something that truly exists can be derived from something that that does not. The next point coming into being shows that something true gives rise to true consequences. This is why the search is on to understand the logic and causality of spacetime itself.
  12. Jun 2, 2004 #11
    I agree with you mike2.

    But something happens if you consider the probabilistics determination of reality. Then indeed, it is a wide open field.

    So how in this logic, could you explain something before it ever existed, but by assuming that there was something existing before all this( reality) came into expression. Through that point.

    Venn logic sometimes ties our hands, in the way we can look at the world because it is logical, but when it comes to seeing how energy could contain any particle, you have to wonder then about the nature of the universe and the reaity of energy, at it's very basis. How would you label this?

    As Harmonic oscillations :smile:
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2004
  13. Jun 2, 2004 #12
    If it is impossible to determine something, then you have to consider every possible alternative. It seems quantum mechanics is a formulation where you must consider every possible alternative (path) to determine how things will proceed. You must consider every possible alternative at once, and so the possibilities interfere with one another. That also seems like a logical method of reasoning.

    Logic does allow a true conclusion from a false premise; it may be true for other reasons besides the false premise. However, I consider the possibility that spacetime goes back to an infinite time in the past. If the root of causality is that space produces space, then the universe expands at a rate proportional to its size; it would expand at an exponential rate. And this means that you would have to have minus infinity to get zero space.

    It is hoped that if the nature of the causality of space-time itself can be derived from logical considerations, then this would lead to a more fundamental definition of physical quantities such as matter and energy. Then we will have derived physics from logic, and we will know the righteousness of all things.
  14. Jun 2, 2004 #13
    No offense taken. However if we had conclusive proof of the exact nature of the universe, we'd have no need for discussion, now would we? :biggrin:
    Many of us here have to base most or all of our theoretical physics knowledge upon what doctors like Michio Kaku or Brian Greene teach. We have to rely upon their ability to correctly note all recent/past scientific findings and trust that this information is being conveyed to us accurately.

    What I really meant to say to Naveen was that I understood part of her statement (about not being able to imagine what was before the Big Bang). By claiming that time/space/matter/energy did not exist (in any form) before the bang occured, she was essentially implying that "nothingness" existed pre-bang.
    So perhaps in the statements that followed that, she meant that we cannot imagine "nothingness" because we've never seen true nothingness; therefore, we tend to reject the idea that "nothing" could have existed pre-bang.

    I try not to reject any hypothesis out of hand but there are practically an infinite number of possible scenarios that we can imagine pre-bang (as your post alluded to, Shadowman).
    Because of that, the point I was trying to make is that she needs to follow through with her proposal (that nothingness might have existed before the Big Bang) by giving us something to grasp.
    There's got to be some kind of an example given. Anything. Even a non-sensical, illogical description or rough analogy would do.
    I personally believe "nothingness" is an impossibility- that it exists only as a concept and not as an actual entity but if someone is going to propose "nothingness" to me as one possible pre-bang scenario, I need some kind of foundation to start from if I'm going to contemplate how a void (a nothingness) might connect to or lead to the invisible, mysterious factors which culminated into the big bang.

    Hope that was clearer than my previous post.
  15. Jun 3, 2004 #14
    Dont mind,if I clarify that I am a HE and not a SHE.
    Yes ,you can call it 'nothingness' but this nothingness is not the same as vacuum because vacuum has the dimension of space included.
    So,if you can get some idea about what I am saying then I ll be glad.
    I beleive,that it is this "nothingness" ,from which the universe is created and it is this entity that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
    I have some vague ideas also.If the symmetry is to be taken into consideration,I think,"nothingness" split itself into "universe" and
    "anti-universe",their coming together cane give back "nothingness".
    Its just a vague hypothesis,alright!
    Comments invited.
    That was much clearer,indeed!Thankyou.
  16. Jun 4, 2004 #15
    I can't get away from the fundamental law that states that "energy can not be created or destroyed". And primarily because of this fact, there must have been some process of transformation.
  17. Jun 5, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Force5, you are correct to appeal to conservation of energy, but why do you think a "process of transformation" would help violate it? The energy going into such a process would have to equal the energy coming out.

    The Ultimate Free Lunch hypothesis holds that the negative potential energy of the universe equals the positive kinetic energy, so there is zero energy to create. Then a quantum fluctuation in the virtual vacuum could start the ball rolling, and eventually the potential and kinetic energy would start to separate out, staying in balance.
  18. Jun 5, 2004 #17
    This post raises the question not only for me, but in context of others as well.

    This post was written in regards to what you are saying. Mike2 recently read Three Roads. If I'm not mistaken, you have just recently read this as well?

    So having recounted the history here of previous discussions ( in supertstringtheory) how now do you see this response in terms of reason and logic?

    Having understood the implications how shall we deal with this? Strings or LQG? Can we make this distinction?
  19. Jun 5, 2004 #18
    Self, sorry, once again i did not express myself clearly.

    I should have written my comments so as to state that;

    In order to conserve energy, the energy had to transform its previous state to a state necessary to cause the beginning of the BB.

    Again, thanks for making me think more about how I express myself.
  20. Jun 23, 2004 #19
    So your saying that our universe is finite, because there is an "anti-universe" which cancels out our universe "giving back nothingness"? If nothingness existed pre-bang, then what would have caused it to split forming our universe and the "anti-universe"?
  21. Aug 17, 2004 #20

    I think Naveen means that 'nothingness' is simply a nodal point, as in two sinusoidal waves that are 180 degrees out of phase. One wave extends above the plane of symetry, the other extends below, when they meet again they form a node (null amplitude). Our universe extends upwards, the anti-universe downwards, if and when the two meet up again after the big crunch, they will form a singularity (nodal point).

    Of course, as you intelligently suggested, this still does not describe what force(s) catalysted the deviation of both Universes from the nodal point in the first place. I am open to suggestions.

    P.S. What does your name mean?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Why logic and reason fail when we try to trace back the origin of universe
  1. Why we can't go back . (Replies: 182)