If the universe supposedly came from a singularity which has no dimensions so practically it doesn't physically exist, does that mean that the universe came from an infinite nothing or is there something else to it?
QUOTE (Inflaton+May 13 2006, 03:36 PM)
If the universe supposedly came from a singularity which has no dimensions so practically it doesn't physically exist, does that mean that the universe came from an infinite nothing or is there something else to it?
The singularity Made the particle that made the atom that made the Big Bang that made the universe that made US.
Bye Bye,
neurohacker@gmail.com
The singularity Made the particle that made the atom that made the Big Bang that made the universe that made US.
Bye Bye,
neurohacker@gmail.com
QUOTE (Inflaton+May 13 2006, 03:36 PM)
If the universe supposedly came from a singularity which has no dimensions so practically it doesn't physically exist, does that mean that the universe came from an infinite nothing or is there something else to it?
Depends on how you view a singularity...I raised this question in another thread.
I'm currently constructing a model for our Universe, in which it exists as a transdimensional field no different from ones which produces particle pairs.
The great scale differences of size & cycle lead me to postulate that our universe was once a particle within itself, but now it exists as a wave passing into higher dimensional space back to its beginning.
Depends on how you view a singularity...I raised this question in another thread.
I'm currently constructing a model for our Universe, in which it exists as a transdimensional field no different from ones which produces particle pairs.
The great scale differences of size & cycle lead me to postulate that our universe was once a particle within itself, but now it exists as a wave passing into higher dimensional space back to its beginning.
Time zero was a singular 4sphere or hypersphere that then expanded.
QUOTE (Nick+May 28 2006, 04:07 AM)
Time zero was a singular 4sphere or hypersphere that then expanded.
For me time zero for our brane (hyperfield collective) was the instances whereby they 'collapsed' from higher dimensional wave envelopes.
Our Universe only appears to expand. However, I believe this illusion to be the resulting trandimensionality of its wave propagation. All particulate matter in our universe is produced by mutually embedded hyperfields/universes, this occurs as a consequence of higher dimensional wave transit, which allows for multi-presence in lower dimensionality.
Each of these estimated 10^80+ hyperfields can be thought of as universe in its own right. The altering images/ perspectives witnessed during movement can be thought of as transit through multiple parallel realities....a little movement has negligable affect. However, take a flight to Outer Mongolia....see what I mean?
For me time zero for our brane (hyperfield collective) was the instances whereby they 'collapsed' from higher dimensional wave envelopes.
Our Universe only appears to expand. However, I believe this illusion to be the resulting trandimensionality of its wave propagation. All particulate matter in our universe is produced by mutually embedded hyperfields/universes, this occurs as a consequence of higher dimensional wave transit, which allows for multi-presence in lower dimensionality.
Each of these estimated 10^80+ hyperfields can be thought of as universe in its own right. The altering images/ perspectives witnessed during movement can be thought of as transit through multiple parallel realities....a little movement has negligable affect. However, take a flight to Outer Mongolia....see what I mean?
I think the universe was once a "random" little bit of chaos upon the aether, which eventually started to "reproduce" and "advance". I suppose I just felt as though the principals of evolution also applied to the origin of non-sentient structure... Unless the universe is sentient... If the unverse is "alive" then I suppose I'm right in estimating that it evolved(?).
I suppose that the universe will start to reproduce later on, and maybe eventually it will die of old age?
I suppose that the universe will start to reproduce later on, and maybe eventually it will die of old age?
But when you think about it, what is the true meaning of sentient. How do we define ourselves as sentient and what is the basis for it. Furthermore, what is the basis for consciousness?
Consciousness is the universe. Everything is my creativity. Nothing exists except "I".
QUOTE (vkamath+May 28 2006, 07:41 PM)
Consciousness is the universe. Everything is my creativity. Nothing exists except "I".
You do fell kind of important don't you?
But your point is valid. The only thing we know is what we perceive.
You do fell kind of important don't you?
But your point is valid. The only thing we know is what we perceive.
QUOTE (blue_bottle+)
You do fell kind of important don't you?
Not really
Not really
QUOTE (vkamath+May 28 2006, 07:41 PM)
Consciousness is the universe. Everything is my creativity. Nothing exists except "I".
Actually it's "what am I ?"
Actually it's "what am I ?"
I put "infinite singularity" for a couple reasons:
A singularity would seem to equate with having all forms of interaction between matter reduced to instantaneously affecting everything at once. So efectively there would be no time in which to determine a "distance" separating them.
But a couple things seem to make this unlikely:
1) Not all interactions between matter necessarily occur in the same 3-D space. The communication delay between objects might vary slightly for different properties or different forms of interaction. Zeroing one delay would in that case make other delays appear infinitely large in comparison.
2) Attempting to approach a singularity would move mass at less than light speed together. EMF forces will always communicate faster though (at light speed, relative to the subjective view of the mass) so as objects get closer, the rate of interactions increases and depending on which perspective you take time either stops or accelerates, effectively compressing a universe of interactions in a small space ... in this case a singularity might be possible but there's physically no way of ever "reaching it" without likely a infinite amount of interactions occuring in the interim.
A singularity would seem to equate with having all forms of interaction between matter reduced to instantaneously affecting everything at once. So efectively there would be no time in which to determine a "distance" separating them.
But a couple things seem to make this unlikely:
1) Not all interactions between matter necessarily occur in the same 3-D space. The communication delay between objects might vary slightly for different properties or different forms of interaction. Zeroing one delay would in that case make other delays appear infinitely large in comparison.
2) Attempting to approach a singularity would move mass at less than light speed together. EMF forces will always communicate faster though (at light speed, relative to the subjective view of the mass) so as objects get closer, the rate of interactions increases and depending on which perspective you take time either stops or accelerates, effectively compressing a universe of interactions in a small space ... in this case a singularity might be possible but there's physically no way of ever "reaching it" without likely a infinite amount of interactions occuring in the interim.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.