Author Topic: Physics and t=0  (Read 47 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7746
  • Darwins +1027/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Physics and t=0
« on: September 13, 2016, 05:49:47 PM »
Okay, Foxy, I did some additional reading and thought about the whole quantum mechanics and the "beginning of time" you mentioned for a while.

So, my understanding of quantum physics is that it operates something like a computer program[1].  The underlying rules are like the code itself, while the universe is more akin to a running instance of the program.  Well, time is going to be implicit in the code itself - since the universe around us seems to have time tightly integrated into itself - but for purposes of the universe 'instance', t=0 is not going to be useful (because it describes the starting condition; it can be described but is not something we can make use of) and t<0 is downright meaningless.

What I was trying to get at earlier was that as far as the universe itself is concerned, the laws of physics were already in place when time 'began'; in other words, the laws of physics themselves are effectively outside of time[2].  It is true that we can coherently describe things at t=0, but it's a description that we cannot verify, for obvious reasons.  I am not satisfied with the resulting discontinuity that exists in our description of the 'beginning' of the universe because of how it suggests that our understanding of physics is incomplete, but I am not a physicist so I cannot go any further than that.

Anyway, my initial objection was based on a misunderstanding of what you meant by 'structure'.  I was already aware aware of reality's stochastic nature, so to me, that is the structure of the universe - not structure in the the sense of quarks and photons and so on and so forth, but structure as in the underlying basis that allows the universe to work.  When you said that there was no structured reality at t=0, I took it to refer to that, which was a mistaken assumption on my part.  I should have checked what you meant by it before I objected.
 1. given that it isn't actually a computer program, but I think the analogy is reasonably close
 2. I am aware that we disagree on other aspects of quantum physics, but I would just as soon not get into that here, so I am not going to go any further
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2654
  • Darwins +298/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2016, 10:07:29 PM »
What I was trying to get at earlier was that as far as the universe itself is concerned, the laws of physics were already in place when time 'began'; in other words, the laws of physics themselves are effectively outside of time.

This is where the Higgs comes in. Think about how the laws of the universe were assembled after the Big Bang.

Quote
I am not satisfied with the resulting discontinuity that exists in our description of the 'beginning' of the universe because of how it suggests that our understanding of physics is incomplete, but I am not a physicist so I cannot go any further than that.

It depends what you mean by incomplete. If the laws themselves become merely statistical fluctuations, there is only a statistical description, no laws.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4100
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2016, 10:22:24 PM »
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Last year, I think someone faced the bleedn obvious that if something comes out of a singularity, then it has infinite age, so you might as well make a meal out of it.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2654
  • Darwins +298/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2016, 10:38:12 PM »
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Last year, I think someone faced the bleedn obvious that if something comes out of a singularity, then it has infinite age, so you might as well make a meal out of it.

I am not in favour of falling into singularities or coming out of them.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7746
  • Darwins +1027/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2016, 07:08:44 AM »
This is where the Higgs comes in. Think about how the laws of the universe were assembled after the Big Bang.
Except that they weren't assembled after the Big Bang.  They were initially unified and then separated out as the temperature and pressure went down.

Quote from: Foxy Freedom
It depends what you mean by incomplete. If the laws themselves become merely statistical fluctuations, there is only a statistical description, no laws.
This would be where you present evidence to support your hypothesis...except that no evidence is forthcoming, due to the nature of the universe at that point in time.  No doubt you can show that the laws could have taken that form, but that isn't exactly convincing.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2654
  • Darwins +298/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2016, 07:35:51 AM »
Check what is being unified and what its properties are.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7746
  • Darwins +1027/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2016, 08:18:19 AM »
That isn't how it works, Foxy, and you should know better by now.  You are the one making the argument, so you are the one who gets to support the points you are making.

If you want to argue that the laws of physics were assembled - your word, not mine - after the Big Bang, then you are obligated to show your work if you want other people to take you seriously.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2654
  • Darwins +298/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2016, 07:28:34 PM »
You are expecting me to give highly technical explanations which you can find more easily elsewhere at a level which suits yourself.

Quote
I was already aware aware of reality's stochastic nature, so to me, that is the structure of the universe

This is what is being unified.

It includes Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Gravity to produce a quantum waveform for the universe.

Quote
They were initially unified and then separated out as the temperature and pressure went down.

They did not exist before they were separate.

I think we have an underlying difference of context. If I am reading your ideas correctly, you are assuming a deterministic multiverse as background.

I am only assuming what we can see in our universe, even if the description is more complex.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4100
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2016, 03:20:54 AM »
https://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse?language=en

Sean Carrol was asked to make a sensational prediction to end his TED talk: that the universe had low entropy at the beginning, because it was laid by a chicken.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7746
  • Darwins +1027/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2016, 09:58:33 AM »
You are expecting me to give highly technical explanations which you can find more easily elsewhere at a level which suits yourself.
No, I am expecting you to show that this is more than just your opinion.  You do not need to provide highly technical explanations, but you do need to provide things to substantiate what you're saying here, not make excuses as to why you shouldn't have to.

Quote from: Foxy Freedom
This is what is being unified.

It includes Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Gravity to produce a quantum waveform for the universe.
This is nothing more than a restatement of what you already said, Foxy.  Please do not mistake reiterating what you already claimed for providing support for those claims.

Quote from: Foxy Freedom
They did not exist before they were separate.
This is one of the statements you need to provide support for.

Quote from: Foxy Freedom
I think we have an underlying difference of context. If I am reading your ideas correctly, you are assuming a deterministic multiverse as background.
If that's what you think, then you are not reading my ideas correctly.  I know better than to assume that a multiverse exists, deterministic or otherwise.  However, I'm also not ruling it out (that is, assuming it doesn't exist).  That would require me to claim knowledge I don't have and have no way of getting.

Quote from: Foxy Freedom
I am only assuming what we can see in our universe, even if the description is more complex.
Ah, here's a problem.  We can't actually see past a certain point in our universe's timeline - 380,000 years after the Big Bang.  We've extrapolated backwards from that, sure, but it's not the same thing as being able to directly observe.  In short, if you're taking anything into account that precedes that 380,000 year mark, then you most certainly are assuming things beyond what we can see in the universe.  Not to mention the known problem with extrapolation - error. 

Plus, when you get right down to it, once you get back to around 10-43 seconds, even extrapolation fails, leaving only speculation.  Even abiding by Occam's razor, even being able to provide mathematical descriptions, gives no guarantee that the speculation will actually be correct.  So while you can reasonably assert the possibility that things are as you say, it is not reasonable to say "it is this way".  And given the nature of the problem, it's more than a little difficult to quantify just how probable it is.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2654
  • Darwins +298/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2016, 10:52:15 AM »
I think the problem we are having is one of what Hawking calls model dependent reality. It is a bit like SPAG with gods. The way someone reads the development of the universe depends on their assumed model. The reason for using one of these models is that it makes thinking easier for a particular problem even if the model is more generally proved to be false. It is like the way the atom is taught in school.

I am still struggling with which model you are using. If you are using the many worlds model, this comes from the deterministic total waveform and not from any pre-existing deterministic laws.

Okay, Foxy, I did some additional reading and thought about the whole quantum mechanics and the "beginning of time" you mentioned for a while.

So, my understanding of quantum physics is that it operates something like a computer program[1].  The underlying rules are like the code itself, while the universe is more akin to a running instance of the program.  Well, time is going to be implicit in the code itself - since the universe around us seems to have time tightly integrated into itself - but for purposes of the universe 'instance', t=0 is not going to be useful (because it describes the starting condition; it can be described but is not something we can make use of) and t<0 is downright meaningless.
 1. given that it isn't actually a computer program, but I think the analogy is reasonably close

That sort of agrees with your many worlds model. Except the code would be written by the running of the program. T=0 would be a loop which generates code until the code by chance says "leave loop now".

Quote
What I was trying to get at earlier was that as far as the universe itself is concerned, the laws of physics were already in place when time 'began'; in other words, the laws of physics themselves are effectively outside of time[2].  It is true that we can coherently describe things at t=0, but it's a description that we cannot verify, for obvious reasons.  I am not satisfied with the resulting discontinuity that exists in our description of the 'beginning' of the universe because of how it suggests that our understanding of physics is incomplete, but I am not a physicist so I cannot go any further than that.
 2. I am aware that we disagree on other aspects of quantum physics, but I would just as soon not get into that here, so I am not going to go any further

If you are using the many worlds model, the laws of physics are created by the waveform and do not exist outside of it. You must have heard of the phrase that the laws of physics breakdown near the beginning of the universe. The quantum fluctuations at the beginning of this diagram do not need any laws or time or space.

The black area around the edge of this diagram often confuses people. The black area is not part of the diagram. It is just the page of the book or background of the diagram being used for dramatic effect. People often think that the black means that there was something else existing around the universe in normal physical space. There wasn't if you are using this model.



Quote
Anyway, my initial objection was based on a misunderstanding of what you meant by 'structure'.  I was already aware aware of reality's stochastic nature, so to me, that is the structure of the universe - not structure in the the sense of quarks and photons and so on and so forth, but structure as in the underlying basis that allows the universe to work.  When you said that there was no structured reality at t=0, I took it to refer to that, which was a mistaken assumption on my part.  I should have checked what you meant by it before I objected.

Some model dependent realities are more useful for theists to misuse than others which is why I always prefer the most minimalist model available.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2654
  • Darwins +298/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2016, 11:43:27 AM »
I am expecting you to show that this is more than just your opinion. 

So you don't trust me,  ;D well I can do that. see roughly 8;00 in this interview. The next two or three minutes deal with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 12:00:36 PM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7746
  • Darwins +1027/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Physics and t=0
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2016, 03:38:14 PM »
I might not be able to write a proper response till tomorrow or possibly later than that, but I did want to address one thing.

I don't actually have a particular model that I'm holding to.  I know that might sound odd, but it is the truth.  It's because I'm the kind of person who likes to go with what is most probable, but as I said before, this isn't something where the probabilities can really be evaluated.  And also, I'm not the most conversant with the math involved.  So therefore, I'm making a very assiduous effort not to wed myself to a particular model, so as to minimize the likelihood of Dunning-Kreuger moments.

I hope that helps you out, at least well enough to be able to more accurately write your responses to me.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.