mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is a good explanation. You do it well.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How did the Big Bang happen?
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
That is a good explanation. You do it well.
My model says the contents of the Big Bang were mass-energy.
What are quarks made of?
In the Casimir effect, what are the particle-antiparticle pairs occurring in the energy of the vacuumj made of?
A detail yet to be settled. However I assume that the prior universe in which the mass-energy of the Big Bang originates (ex hypothesi) has rules of physics, sufficiently like ours to form our universe.
I don'[t think time can be merely a temporal version of North. Subjectively the one-speed action of time is readily analogous to movement. The best definition as at 2020 that science can manage is that time is what clocks measure, so the nature of time as a phenomenon is still wide open, and at various times I've favored these ideas and those ideas.
But then, in science the definition of the spatial dimensions is a mathematical model that's meaningless if you don't already know what a real 3-space is.
Do you see anywhere in my post that you've replied to, where I used, "science or scientific?"
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Quantum fields is the best theory we have in this respect. Regardless, you can't turn a property of something into a thing. Tomatoes can't be made of red.
What we have is a very well tested theory that treats space-time as one manifold and different clocks measure different times depending on their frames of reference (this is used in practice by the GPS system). The theory may well be an approximation to some more fundamental theory but just ignoring the evidence that supports it seems more like faith than scientific speculation.
It's not, by any means, impossible that there was a 'before' the big bang and a previous universe, but that just moves the problem. Treating time intuitively, by how it feels to us, goes against the evidence that supports relativity.
If you want to go to the extremes of speculation, you could look at Julian Barbour, The End of Time (time doesn't really exist at all) or, at the other extreme, Lee Smolin, Time Reborn (time is pretty much all that exists) but even in those cases just using human intuition about it makes no sense. Why would humans have evolved any intuition that is applicable to these kinds of questions?
What we know (from direct evidence) is that time isn't the immutable background that Newton suggested, it is a part of the universe. The universe cannot have just appeared ex nihilo because that would need time (a part of the universe) to exist 'before' the universe did, which is nonsensical - but our best tested theory of space-time suggests that it might be finite in the past direction.
I believe you need to distinguish between continuous time in the time/space existence, and Quantum time in the Quantum World.
At the plank Quantum scale the Chronon is proposed as a unit of time. I would describe time on the Quantum scale as not continuous and relatedto Quantum events, nor the same as the existence of time with a time arrow in a time/space universe. If the universe is cyclic than time is continuous with the collapse and rebirth of the universe. There is not problem with either a chain of cyclic universe, nor a infinite eternal multiverse.
If our universe did begin as a singularity the time likely began with the Quantum World collapse to form the singularity or a black hole. Both the collapse and expansion would have a time arrow.
Last edited:
If you do not need to know the science behind the big bang, why did you ask the question? Isn't honesty a better strategy?No I do not need to know the science behind big bang theoryI don't believe the science theory to be true. I just want science believers to realize that just because they can not see a God does not mean it is not there. What this OP is all about
If you did, then there wouldn't be a need for the OP. When one really wants to know something, they ask questions and will usually receive responses with answers to their questions that are satisfying. When one asks a question just to make a point, they usually get responses that can be humiliating to the questioner's ego because their arrogance/ignorance is being displayed for all to see, including themselves. Their arrogance is being shown because upon learning something new, they rush out and with enthusiasm and excitement, they tell others what they have just recently learned. They will usually display their arrogance by assuming that they're special and gifted for knowing that information.No I do not need to know the science behind big bang theory
All that usually results in displaying their ignorance because a lot of people's responses answered the question that was asked, shows that, if the questioner weren't so ignorant about the topic he/she would have known that their point that they were making, has already been considered/discussed/addressed/dealt with throughout the topic's history.
Mark "liked" or "winner" if you agree that this is a fairly accurate description of what had happened in this thread regarding the OP and its author.
You need to, because the subject of the thread concerns whether the Genesis account of Creation reflects the scientific version of the Big Bang.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I believe that you need to distinguish between tested theories and speculation or untested hypotheses.
Failure to respond.
For on thing the existence of Quantum time is testable.
I believe you need to distinguish between continuous time in the time/space existence, and Quantum time in the Quantum World.
At the plank Quantum scale the Chronon is proposed as a unit of time. I would describe time on the Quantum scale as not continuous and relatedto Quantum events, nor the same as the existence of time with a time arrow in a time/space universe. If the universe is cyclic than time is continuous with the collapse and rebirth of the universe. There is not problem with either a chain of cyclic universe, nor a infinite eternal multiverse.
The hypothesis for Quantum Machanics, and those related to the possibility of a multiverse are testable. but of course, work in progress,
If our universe did begin as a singularity the time likely began with the Quantum World collapse to form the singularity or a black hole. Both the collapse and expansion would have a time arrow.
Last edited:
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
The current Space/time also began at that instant, so it wasn't "in" space. It was space, or the beginning of space, which is a component of time. It didn"t "go bang". that is an unfortunate turn of phrase, but we're stuck with it, I guess.
I don't think anybody knows what what happened in the instant before the event. It has been pointed out innumerable times that to say that because nobody can answer the question, that means it was a god or gods. To hold that belief without sufficient evidence for the presence of a god in the first place, it is nothing but wild conjecture. You are just using the belief as a placeholder for your ignorance.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
In principle, perhaps, but it has not actually been tested. I was talking about the very well tested theory of general relativity, to which any notion of quantum space-time would actually need be reducible to as a good approximation.
If have a reference to an actual paper that gives evidence for quantized time, I'll happily change my mind but this isn't the first time you've confused hypotheses with tested theories, regarding quantum mechanics.
AC Josephson effect between two superfluid time crystals | Nature Materials
AC Josephson effect between two superfluid time crystals
S. Autti, P. J. Heikkinen, J. T. Mäkinen, G. E. Volovik, V. V. Zavjalov & V. B. Eltsov
- Nature Materials (2020)Cite this article
Quantum time crystals are systems characterized by spontaneously emerging periodic order in the time domain1. While originally a phase of broken time translation symmetry was a mere speculation2, a wide range of time crystals has been reported3,4,5. However, the dynamics and interactions between such systems have not been investigated experimentally. Here we study two adjacent quantum time crystals realized by two magnon condensates in superfluid 3He-B. We observe an exchange of magnons between the time crystals leading to opposite-phase oscillations in their populations—a signature of the AC Josephson effect6—while the defining periodic motion remains phase coherent throughout the experiment. Our results demonstrate that time crystals obey the general dynamics of quantum mechanics and offer a basis to further investigate the fundamental properties of these phases, opening pathways for possible applications in developing fields, such as quantum information processing.
More to follow . . .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So where's the evidence for time itself being quantised?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Meanwhile, theorists working on the problem I actually was talking about are putting bounds on what the size the possible quantisation might be:
Theorists calculate upper limit for possible quantization of time
A trio of theoretical physicists at the Pennsylvania State University has calculated the upper limit for the possible quantization of time... [my emphasis]. Paper: Physical implications of a fundamental period of time (pdf)
Theorists calculate upper limit for possible quantization of time
A trio of theoretical physicists at the Pennsylvania State University has calculated the upper limit for the possible quantization of time... [my emphasis]. Paper: Physical implications of a fundamental period of time (pdf)[/QUOTE]
One of many I will cite. Selective citation to justify your agenda does not cut the mustard. Yes they are 'working on the problem' of observed Quantum Time.
Your neglecting the fact that, despite the unknowns, things are observed to happen on the Quantum scale, there for it is in time that things happen.
A weak values approach for testing simultaneous Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen elements of reality for non-commuting observables | Communications Physics
- A weak values approach for testing simultaneous Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen elements of reality for non-commuting observables
- Communications Physics volume 3, Article number: 117 (2020) Cite this article
- 550 Accesses
- 8 Altmetric
- Metricsdetails
- 550 Accesses
In questioning the completeness of quantum mechanics, Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) claimed that from the outcomes of local experiments performed on an entangled system, it was possible to ascribe simultaneous reality to the values of certain incompatible observables. As EPR acknowledged, the inevitable disturbance of quantum measurements prevents the precise verification of these assertions on a single system. However, the EPR elements of reality can still be tested at the ensemble level through weak measurements—which minimally disturb the measured system—by interpreting the EPR assertions as assertions about weak values that follow from the outcomes of projective measurements. Here, we report an implementation of such a test through joint weak measurements followed by post-selection on polarization-entangled photon pairs. Our results show that there is a correspondence between the obtained joint weak values and the inferred elements of reality in the polarization version of the EPR assertions.
Introduction
The seminal 1935 paper of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen1 (EPR) is without question one of the most important and controversial papers in quantum mechanics, given the variety and intensity of discussions on foundational aspects that it triggered. Interestingly, while hidden variable theories2 and quantum nonlocality3,4 are perhaps the topics that historically have most commonly been associated with the EPR paper these two aspects are not explicitly addressed in the paper itself. Rather, EPR intended to question the completeness of quantum theory by proposing that, within what they claim is a reasonable criterion of reality, one can make predictions with certainty about the values of two non-commuting observables in any one of two subsystems described by a continuous variable version of what is now called the EPR state."
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You seem to have totally missed the point. I have never disputed that they are working on the problem of observed quantum time. In fact, I'd make a modest bet that space-time is quantised. The fact remains, that the only tested theory of space-time we have is general relativity. I was making a point about the implications of that (#144) when you posted some irrelevant stuff about "Quantum time" as if it were something that is established.
If space-time is quantized, then it's far from clear it would make the slightest difference to what I said, as it would have to make GR a good approximation anyway (because of all the supporting evidence we already have). I even went so far as to quote some even more extreme speculations.
You then made the claim "...the existence of Quantum time is testable." - which (while it may be in principle) currently isn't.
I suggest paying more attention to what has been said - rather than quoting endless utterly irrelevant papers.