The Glade 4.0

When you consider the initial state of the universe was smaller than a proton, simply a massive concentration of energy, that's quite logical -- especially, as the universe is both matter and antimatter, energy and antienergy, the total sum of the universe could still be zero.

Think of it this way. You can rearrange nothing to have -1 and +1, and it's still zero. Or -100 and +100. Or -1000 and +1000. or -10^1000000 and +10^1000000. There's no complexity there yet, no elements have formed, etc. The initial singularity would be rather simple, if massive beyond human measure.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

A unit of energy is kg * m^2/s^2. Call me ignorant but I don't see how this could possibly be negative.

Right so summing up: First there was nothing, including no time. Then, a universe!

This is scientifically acceptable because the words god or miracle is not used.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

I think the point is that there is still a NET nothing.

There's net negative entropy involved, though. That's **** weird, at the very least, and certainly not "net nothing."

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I'm not sure how you're getting at negative entropy.

Entropy is Energy/Temperature.

With no energy, no mass, no temperature at best the Entropy value 'before' the Big Bang would be undefined.

From that moment on, Energy is fixed, temperature decreases yielding an ever increasing entropy.

Sounds like the second law of thermodynamics holds to me.

Physics gets strange.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

So, where did that energy/mass come from? How did the entropy come to be defined? Where did the Second Law of Thermodynamics come from?

These are questions science cannot answer, and really, doesn't need to. We have this entire universe that is the purview of science.

The reason scientists try to answer it is that they don't want there to be anything that is outside the purview of science.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A number of theories have been postulated. I'm a bit behind on my cosmology, but as I recall possible origins of the Big Bang also include:
leaked de Sitter space into our own universe
quantum vacuum collapse from a previous higher energy vacuum
random quantum flux -- in an infinite universe over infinite time, and it will type out shakespere

And what is the basis for any of these?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

SCIENCE!

Edit - for more explanation please refer to a quantum physicist or a book.

"Science" isn't much of a basis for speculation about what happened "prior to" or "outside" of the universe in order to allow the Big Bang to take place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The only question is which question do you answer to - (a) can you perpetually accept never knowing the endpoint of a perpetual attempt at discovery, and admit it, or (b) do you have some need to provide a final answer, for whatever reason, to a question that there will never be a proven answer to.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Yes, well, at least it strives for an answer instead of being happy in ignorance.

Attempting to answer questions that are inherently unanswerable because the information needed for an answer is outside the realm of the observable is not "striving for an answer". It's speculating, and dressing that up as science.

All the "uh.. well.. quantum physics!" in the world can't get around this. If science is to be based on observation, then it needs to be based on observation, not trying to dress wild-ass guessing up as science because the scientists don't want to accept that there's a hard limit on how far they can go.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So once again it is believe in God or believe in nothing?

I still talk to the big guy daily. If I'm crazy, I'm crazy but I like to believe he exists. I don't think anyone living on this planet can fully understand either God or nothing, whichever it was.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Quantum physics exists because of observation. It's an attempt to explain why the "laws" of our universe don't seem to apply at sub-atomic levels. Turns out it's a correct model in a TON of experiments, too!

I have a firm belief that on an unlimited timeline there is nothing that is "unknowable". Everything can happen. Everything will happen. Thousands of years ago many things were unknowable or unobservable. Don't pretend to know what technology is going to be like in another hundred, thousand or 20 thousand years. You can't know, and it makes you look ignorant to make blanket statements.

I can't express how funny I find it that quantum mechanics and years of study seem like hocus pocus to you, but zombie Jesus isn't a problem.

But there is no universe to be infinite "before" the singularity, nor is there infinite time for it to do so.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

That is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

The problem with quantum physics is that suitably advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so it all looks like Jesus. Ultimately, the argument boils down to which funny man in a funny suit and funny hat got to you first.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Quantum mechanics can be used to help make powerful, energy efficient processors. Zombie Jesus can't.

I wasn't talking about quantum physics, nor taking issue with it.. and no matter how correct a model for anything in the universe it is, it's no more than pure speculation about anything outside or before, ((or whatever you want to call it)) the universe existed. It doesn't matter how many experiments its correct in; all of them take place in our universe, according to the laws of our universe, and are observed with the laws of our universe. In fact, the claim that it attempts to explain why the laws of the universe don't apply at sub-atomic levels is inherently not supportable; they do apply. They just change at that level, or different laws apply, or whatever, but it's not as if they somehow aren't laws of our universe or don't apply.



You can have a firm belief of whatever you like. I find the unlimited timeline thing amusing, however, in light of the fact that there was no time "before" the universe existed. It certainly, however, does not make anyone look ignorant to point out that there is a firm limit to what science can do just by its own definition. No one is pretending to "know" what technology will be like at any point in the future. We can, however, make certain reasonable predictions, which does not make anyone look ignorant. What makes one look ignorant is making comments like SCIENCE! and telling people to look in a book, when in fact the issue at hand is something so fundamental a 6th grader should be able to intelligently discuss it: Can something that is outside the observable universe be scientifically determined? No, it cant.



I can't express how funny I find it that you feel a need to pretend that anyone was taking issue with quantum physics, and need to use snide little prejudicial language remarks like "zombie jesus". I hate to break it to you, but there have been years and years and YEARS of study about Jesus, and there is, quite frankly, absolutely no good reason whatsoever to believe He didn't exist or do exactly what was related in the NT except "I don't find it convincing." It's simply a matter of whether the evidence is sufficient for you or not, but if you think it's somehow funny that other people find it more convincing than you, that speaks to childishness and insecurity.

All of this is really just an attempt to make speculation that doesn't use the word "God" or anything connected to it appear more scientific than speculation that does.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

While your point is generally valid, there are exceptions. A singularity and everything within its event horizon lies outside of our observable universe. We can determine they exist by following mathematical rules that apply in other situations to their logical conclusions, we can see the effects of their existence in the night sky, but we cannot observe the singularity itself.

Then again, to quote one of my favorite fictional scientists...

"What actually transpires beneath the veil of an event horizon? Decent people shouldn't think too much about that."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Assumign you're correct that the singularity itself does exist outside the universe, we can determine observationally it's effects, but once we start applying mathematical models from other situations, we are assuming. We do not and cannot know that the mathematical models hold once we pass "outside" our universe.

The best we can do is observe and record the observable parts of these events. Not unlike certain other events that have been observed and recorded, but the basis for which is outside the known universe.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Of course, the ability to measure things changes what is "outside our observable universe." Two centuries ago we had no concept of EM radiation outside of the visible spectrum of light. Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Ultraviolet, Infrared, Microwaves, Radio Waves...these things were all undetectable and unknown by our level of science. A mere century ago, we had no concept of subatomic particles. Our ability to see the far reaches of the night sky was far more limited.

Our "observable universe" gets far more vast with our scientific progress. Will it slow down or stop? Is there a limit to what we can know? Our current understanding of the universe says yes...some things are impossible for us to know. And it's probably right. However, so many things formerly thought impossible have been made possible by scientific progress, and so science keeps looking.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █