Physicist: This was an interesting back-and-forth, so the original questions are italicized.
What was the energy at the start of the universe and how did it create matter?
If the question is “how much?” or “where did it come from?”, the answers are unfortunately “a hell of a lot” and “we can only guess”. These are still very open questions. There are lots of clever guesses, but there isn’t much solid, direct data to pick out which guesses are good.
As for how it became matter, that’s “easy”: when you get enough energy in one place, new particles form spontaneously. If the new particle has mass m, then the energy present is reduced by mc2. This is Einstein’s famous energy/mass conversion rate: E=mc2.
Kinetic energy (the energy of movement) is the easiest way to concentrate a lot of energy in one place. That’s why we use “particle accelerators” like CERN to slam particles together, instead of using huge lasers or lenses or anything else. We can get individual particles moving so fast that they carry many thousands of times their mass-equivalent in kinetic energy. When they do slam together all of that energy is released as a burst of new particles plus the kinetic energy of those (typically very fast) particles plus some light.
The trajectories of newly formed particles flying away from the collision of two gold nuclei. When describing these events, CERN scientists inevitably make “explodey sounds” with their mouths.
The early universe was so hot that all of the particles flying around were moving at particle-accelerator speeds and new particles were generated continuously. However, when we (people) make new particles they always appear in matter/anti-matter pairs, so how the universe has managed to have more matter than anti-matter is a mystery.
Or rather, since we’re not going to call ourselves “anti-matter”, it’s a mystery how the universe managed to not be balanced between… the two types of matter.
Is this energy stable or not, and if it isn’t how do you make it stable?
You can produce new matter with any kind of energy, so pick your favorite. There’s no such thing as pure energy, so whatever form you choose will be one of the regular, boring types: hot water, moving stuff, light, etc. and the way you’d store it to make it stable is just as dull: charged battery, stretched spring, spinning flywheel, etc.
However, generating matter takes an colossal amount of energy. The Hiroshima bomb was around a gram’s worth of energy. Humanity consumes the equivalent of around 5-10 metric tons of energy per year (that’s a lot more than I had been expecting before looking it up). You could create enough matter to make a sandwich, or you could power New York City for about a year instead. Moral is: if you need matter, go out and collect it.
And also is it possible to contain this amount of energy in an enclosed space? (eg. a spaceship)
The greatest power source we’ll ever reasonably have access to is hydrogen to helium fusion, which converts about 0.7% of the hydrogen’s mass into energy, leaving 99.3% as helium. So (assuming perfect efficiency), if you want to turn energy into matter, starting with more than 100 times as much hydrogen is a good place to start.
When matter falls into black holes, it tends to spiral in dense, extremely hot disks of gas first. This gas gets hot enough that it radiates in the x-ray spectrum (the hotter something is, the bluer the light it emits and x-rays are… way to blue to see). Under ideal conditions, matter falling into a rapidly spinning black hole can radiate the equivalent of about 40% of their mass.
This isn’t a great system. At the end of the day, you’re throwing away matter to create the energy for less matter and you’re doing it as close as you can get to a black hole, which is a famously unpleasant place to be.
So if you want to store a lot of energy on a spacehip, it needs to have massive hydrogen fuel tanks, and if you want to use your fuel efficiently than fusion would allow, then you need a black hole too.
And what type of matter would it produce?
Newly created matter is a random assortment of all the fundamental particles it’s possible to create at the given energies. For example, an electron (the lightest particle) has a mass equivalent of about 0.5 megaelectronvolts, which is the energy gained by a particle accelerated by half a million volts. That means that if your accelerator uses slightly more than a million volts, then you’ll be making electron/positron pairs (positrons are anti-electrons), and if it uses less than a million volts to accelerate its particles, then you’re just making light. It’s possible to “dial in” particular particles by carefully choosing the speed and type of the particles in your accelerator, but even then you’re not going to be creating cats and dogs or even entire atoms; just lots of individual fundamental particles.
Most fundamental particles are extremely unstable and decay very rapidly into radiation and the few stable particles: protons, electrons, and their anti-particles. Neutrons aren’t stable on their own, but they last for about 15 minutes before decaying, which is more than enough time to use them. So that’s ultimately the answer to what kind of matter we can create: protons, neutrons, and electrons (and their anti-particles).
When those protons and electrons are slowed down after their violent creation, you can make hydrogen or even deuterium (hydrogen with an extra neutron), but that’s the most advanced matter-creation ever achieved. There aren’t presently any prospects for doing better.
The inevitable half of the new matter made up of anti-particles will go on to annihilate whatever normal matter it runs into, so it either needs to be thrown out or stored very carefully. Preferably stored. After all the trouble of creating new matter, you don’t want to just throw out half of it (destroying a bunch of perfectly serviceable matter somewhere else in the process).
And also whether oxygen will be produced?
Nope! Or at least, almost nope. Individual protons and neutrons, sure. Hydrogen with some effort, yes. But in order to create a useful amount of heavier elements, existing matter needs to be fused (through fusion). The inside of stars is presently the only environment where it seems to be possible to create elements above helium in any abundance. We’re nowhere remotely close to fusing elements above hydrogen in our fusion reactors. Even the Sun is incapable of fusing helium into anything bigger. Near the end of its life, as it runs out of hydrogen fuel and its core collapses, the Sun will briefly fuse helium, but even then it won’t make oxygen.
It’s hard to convey how difficult it is to build the atoms that go into building people. The oxygen in the air you’re breathing right now has already had a hell of a life, born riding a supernova shock wave out of the core of a star and into interstellar space.
The natural sources of all the elements. Artificial elements are created atom by atom, and almost everything else is made in supernovas and neutron star collisions.
Artificial isotopes can be created by bombarding existing isotopes with “slow” neutrons, some of which stick to the nuclei of the target material’s atoms. Just like the creation of particles, this is a random and extremely inefficient process. Technically you can make oxygen, a few atoms at a time, by using the neutrons your particle accelerator accidentally created. But this is a long way from being a source of breathable air.
Elements (the number of protons) increases upward and the number of neutrons increases to the right. Every isotope that isn’t black is radioactive and will decay into another isotope according to the rules in the box. The big tool we have for making new nuclei is neutron bombardment, which moves an atom one to the right. Starting from hydrogen, a couple of neutrons will get you to tritium (“3H” on the bottom row) which decays to helium-3 (“3He”). With a spectacular burst of neutrons you can get a few atoms to jump helium-5 and lithium-6 (the “!!!” squares) before they decay in the “wrong direction” and then neutron bombardment and beta- decay will eventually get you to oxygen. But not in any hurry.
So if you want to make oxygen efficiently, you really need to blow up a star bigger than the Sun. Just start with several solar-system’s worth of hydrogen, pack it together into a star, let it simmer for a few million years until it supernovas, then collect and sort what comes flying out. Easy.
If your spaceship is big enough to hold a black hole for power and a couple massive stars for fusion, then you can create oxygen. But at some point you have to step back and ask what the spaceship is for. As long as you’re slinging stars around, why not grab a nice planet to live on while you’re at it?
Likewise about the kind words. I’d like to include you on my list of atheist friends.
I’ve never been one to browbeat anyone over religion. The Greeks, Egyptians, the Aztecs, take your pick, have used religion to bludgeon/human sacrifice/enslave and so on. In defense of Christianity, Jesus never said “lie to and slay the infidel”, as other religions have. Additionally, the messages of ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love your neighbor’ were rather novel at the time. Yes, there have been Christians who have done wrong, but my argument is that were they not really behaving like Christ, who was if nothing else a good example of goodness.
Back to physics, there is probably a similar relationship between matter and morality. It exists, but why? Showing kindness seems like a good thing, but one could argue that survival of the fittest is more in line with the Universe, the animal world, or the darker temptations of human nature. We’ll never know, but thanks again for the discussion.
@Dan_of-reason
Your tolerance is a personal strength. It would be a pleasure to be included in your list.
All mentally balanced humans still have the survival of the fittest instinct and it raises itself most prominently when resources are low and it increases the more scarce resources become. This topic is covered brilliantly in Carl Sagans book Broca’s Brain.
As the cerebral cortex developed, mentally balanced humans were able to move a at from the laws of the jungle.
Many humans would now choose to ration scarce resources to save as many as possible instead of a survival of the fittest approach.
You don’t need religion to be good. The rich have plenty of resources but very few of them have good conscience (in my opinion).
Some humans are intensely altruistic without any religious faith. Some would die untended, and despised by all. Condemned by those who were most helped by their sacrifice. No fame. Nobody would ever know what they had done and how their action had made things so much better for so many. Yet no credit for them. Individual people have made such sacrifice. They have done much more that the credited, famous Christ on the cross. Who according to your own arithmetic suffered nothing. One mauling and a crucifixion divided by an infinity in heaven equals no suffering.
Yes, I agree. I think one of the things that differentiates humans, accidentally or through design, is the uniqueness of the altruistic capability, which is a complex combination of thought, emotion/empathy, realization of finality, and probably more topics philosophers have opined upon over the centuries. There are examples from the animal kingdom of course, but they tend to be more instinctual than free will.
I also agree people don’t need religion to be good, per yourself and the many examples I’ve met. I think in many cases it helps, though not as a mental crutch. “Fear of the Lord” doesn’t mean lightning is going to strike you down, rather believing there is a higher power. If the higher power described in a religion dissuades someone from being altruistic, I would question it.
The great example of Christ on the cross is that someone approaches Him and laments “I was born into poverty, my parents had to flee genocide, I lost a close friend, another friend betrayed me, I suffered greatly, I died young, etc., to which he could lovingly smile and say “I understand””. So in this case, the division by infinity doesn’t make the few days before Easter suck less, but see it as an outstretched hand not dissimilar from Michelangelo’s painting from the Sistine Chapel.
There are far more Saints and saints (unrecognized good people) than can be recorded. The way I think following the example of Christ helps keep people on track, not as a self help program, but a more humble belief system acknowledging there is a lot I don’t know. I know that doesn’t prove God, but I enjoy the discussions and try to imagine infinity.
One other thought experiment late Friday (early Saturday) is this: Imagine a Universe of your own creation. The only requirement is it can’t bear any resemblance to the one in which we live. ( I don’t mean the Lizardarians are fighting the Silicoids, that is science fiction.) Instead, there can be states of matter, only not solid, liquid, gas, (or sometimes plasma). Likewise, there can be many dimensions, but not X/Y/Z/time, etc. This is the only thought experiment on which I cannot get traction. The rest usually gets separated into science or theology, but I still believe the two are intertwined.
Have a great weekend! -Dan
An interesting exchange Dan.
I would assume that you, like I have not moved position regarding our personal belief system, by one plank length. This is the standard outcome of the God/no God debate. So, all I can conclude with is ‘ well we will just have to agree to……arrrgghhhh!
Sorry! I meant to say, I remain an atheist.
Thanks for the time you have spent Dan.
I also apologise for the few text errors I made in my postings. I need to be more rigorous in checking before clicking ‘post comment’.
Ha ha ha…I love it when I get totally humbled by my own words. I just talked about checking for text errors before clicking ‘post comment’. Then after posting I noticed i’d said Plank instead of Planck. I would not blame the religious folks for claiming ‘Yeah, that’s our God working in mysterious ways, take that athetst!’
Unbelievable!!! I swear I checked carefully! ‘ATHEIST’ not freaking ‘ATHETST’.
No worries! I make typos all the time, or spend too much time looking for typos, it is perhaps analogous to the science/religion duality. If we each agree on most things and respect each other’s points of view, that is more than enough for me. I figured you meant Planck. Cheers, Dan.
Hi guys,
How to interpret these REAL experimental results, which are described in the
link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe ?
Looking forward to your answer.
@William
Looks dodgy to me. How long can this frictionless movement and this ‘level of roughness’ be maintained against a system using moving balls? It seems to me that this would need to be a very finely tuned system to initially work and if it did work, I dont think it would work for long if the roughness (for example) becomes a little smoother after a little use. If this had any real industrial application, some capitalist opportunist would have thrown money at it and developed it into something they could leech lots of profits from.
This got me thinking about the theory of the creation of the universe and I remembered hearing that 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. Since we don’t know what dark matter and dark energy actually are, how can we presume to have a creditable theory about the creation of the universe? Since the Big Bang theory only accounts for 5% of the universe, it seems a bit lacking as an origin story. I guess it is better than nothing but I wish I had something more filling. Or, am I missing something?
@ William
I forgot to also suggest that there are many systems that appear to break a law of physics but it normally turns out to be that the experimenters have missed something rather than the law being wrong. I don’t mean that it’s impossible for the law to be wrong, it’s just unlikely. There may be quantum effects that happen in the system you offer which demonstrate the conservation laws this experiment seems to challenge.
@Ken
Dark matter and dark energy exist as a result of the Big Bang. They are not separate phenomena that came into existence due to some event outside of the Big Bang. There is more about the workings of the Universe that we DONT know than we do know but that does not mean the Big Bang (although the event is very poorly labelled) did not happen. The evidence that it happened is very strong indeed. The current expansion, the cosmic background radiation, linear time/spacetime to name but a few.
I was wondering, how come “enough” energy has to be gathered in one place? In other words, why a minimum amount of energy? Like why wouldn’t the heat energy from my water boiler be liable to suddenly convert into a phenomenally small amount of matter at any given moment?
Since there’s no such thing as pure energy, does it mean we’d expect some form of matter like physical particles to have already been present at the moment of the Big Bang, to convey the energy involved? Like maybe two really massive particles going at virtually the speed of light collided to produce all the energy in the Big Bang?
When physicists run simulations for how the universe began and evolved to it’s present state, do they have to input some initial condition like that?
If matter was already present, then if someone could concentrate enough energy in one place today, does it mean it might be possible to trigger a second Big Bang (like in that episode of Dr. Who)?
@MK
‘Why a minimum amount of energy?’
I think that’s just down to the laws of physics. The example you give of 100 degrees Celsius as the temperature of boiling water means that the ‘work done’ by the energy was to raise the temperature of the water rather than convert the energy to mass. Under E=MC2 or E/C2 = M
100 degrees Celsius = 189910.05 joules so we have 189910.05/299792458(speed of light in m/s). This would give 0.000633476 mass BUT this is simply a MASS EQUIVALENCE for a given amount of energy. The conditions required to actually cause energy to change its form into mass is governed by ‘tipping points’ for want of a better term. There are many examples, the gravitational collapse of a star into a neutron star or a black hole depends on how much mass the star has. Enough that reaches the ‘tipping point’ for a pulsar or enough for a black hole?
Big bang is such a poor label as it was not big and there was no bang. The original theory was that the universe began as a singularity (a point of infinites, density, gravity, mass, energy etc). I think a singularity is just a predicted result of general relativity. In more recent times, its been suggested that inflation happened first and then the singularity rather than the singularity then inflation. I think its the inflation process that is labelled ‘the big bang’. The theory is that nothing else existed in our universe before the singularity/inflation. Not time, mass, energy, light, light speed (the inflation process was faster that light speed), ‘physical particles’ or anything else.
Physicists certainly do run simulations of how the universe began on computers and they will input conditions. There is a good one at: https://www.livescience.com/most-detailed-universe-simulation.html
But I don’t think we can reproduce the conditions at the birth of the Universe.
I think work done the hadron collider is probably our best attempt so far but
we don’t really know what the conditions were, we just have a lot of very good idea’s of what they were and a respectable amount of evidence to back up some of those idea’s.
If you accept the multiverse theory and the branes of string theory then ‘big bangs’ happen all the time but not in our universe. That would not be good news for us. Each big bang creates its own universe.
@MK
Sorry, I forgot to square the light speed so the mass equivalent of 100 degrees Celsius
is not 0.0006, its 2.1130342778630155558290303512662e-12 or
0.000000000002
What is Higgs Boson, will you please explain
https://www.complexob7.com/
@Ob Paradox
I would suggest that any description given here will be less detailed than the explanations already available on websites such as wikipedia etc.
My limited description would be only based on what I have read myself.
The Higgs boson is a zero spin particle that has mass and it is involved, through the ‘Higgs mechanism’ in ‘causing’ quarks to have mass.
In my understanding of what I have read, The Higgs Boson is a recently confirmed ‘point particle’ which helps support the theory of ‘the standard model’. This is a theory which suggests the universe consists of interacting point particles.
Higgs Bosons are created due to ‘quantum agitation’ of the Higgs field.
So basically, According to the standard model of ‘what the universe is made of’, the property of mass ‘comes from’ the Higgs Field via the point particle called The Higgs Boson. As I said, for more detail, look it up on wikipedia and many other sites.
If anyone has had children who have grown to four, it is kind of an age of “Why?”. They won’t ponder the creation of matter, but they ask questions scientists delight in answering.
Earlier philosophers have proposed there is no effect (The Universe/matter/life/etc.) without a cause. Many “Why’s” must be answered and perhaps that will always be out of our ability. Still worth pondering and I appreciate these threads.
@ Dan_of_Reason
Welcome back Dan!
I think your image of a 4 year old asking the question ‘why’ is more significant to the Human story, than the image of Christ on the cross or any other faith based imagery, could ever be.
It demonstrates the free will that has been earned (not allowed through the tolerance of a deity) by humans through their hard work and as a right of sentience.
The Greeks used the word ‘Cosmos’ to indicate that they believed the universe was knowable. I have faith in that. We are tasked due to the word ‘why’. It is ‘why’ we exist(in my opinion). Its the essence of anything we might call a soul.
I am braced by the fact that science can offer a 4 year old or any other age of a human a better alternative answer to the question ‘why’ than ‘God did it and we can never know the mind of god.’
Stephan, glad to talk to you again too!
I lean a little more on the ‘That we cannot understand’ side, aka God. The arguments are between science and philosophy “nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could” (ok, that’s a lyric from The Sound of Music, but it stands to reason). The main point is the cosmological constants, DNA/protein chain folding, discovered forces of physics, and so on have to be so precise as to not be chance.
I suppose it is a balance between the child-like wonder of it all and rational ‘this cannot be possible, we’ll find out’. We’re all on the same thin raft, just looking for someone who can walk on water. Technically, I can ski barefoot on water [heavily theoretical] if I’m pulled by a powerful boat.
I think we can and will completely know our origins and the origins of the universe, given enough time and effort and enough scientists. I don’t agree that cosmological constants are evidence for the intelligent design conjecture put forward by some religious groups. A tossed coin will always be heads or tails unless it is tossed enough times that on one occasion, it lands on its edge. Whish has to be a possible outcome, as the coin has an edge and a coin can rest on its edge. There are more planets than there are grains of sand on Earth, which means Earth like planets in the Universe are probable. This is confirmed by the fact that we know one at least, exists. There is no need for a god to make this happen. These constants you identify, did not happen to accommodate life or to ‘allow’ life to form, life formed in accommodation of these constants through evolution and natural selection. The universe has to have some kind of laws or it would remain completely chaotic and their would be no galaxies, stars or planets, never mind life. Again, there is simply no need for a god. The mathematics of probability or chance are quite capable of producing very exotic and seemingly unlikely outcomes including a constant, if given a big enough set of values to interact with each other for long enough or even a small set of values but enough to cause mutations.
I am certainly not ‘looking for someone who can walk on water’.
If I did see a person walk on water, I would ask ‘how and why’ they were able to do that. If I could not find out, even after a lifetime of trying. I would not surrender and proclaim that person ‘supernatural’ or ‘god’, just because I was unable to figure out how that person developed that particular ability or how the method used, worked. I would simply admit on my deathbed that I needed more time or I needed more help or both, to figure out the detailed workings of the ability/method/trick/technology employed.
I’ve personally counted all the grains of sand, and can attest the number can at least rival stars, and perhaps planets (tongue firmly in cheek).
However, at a conference, a speaker pointed out that all of the the credit card, bank cards, other cards and account numbers in your wallet would easily combine to account for every particle in the Universe ~10^52. That includes subatomic.
Jesus appeared on the scene at a very particular time. Alexander conquered the known world and introduced Greek culture and philosophy, Rome paved it, then Christ came. Jesus didn’t conquer, as Israel was looking for, but taught love and sacrifice. I know that sounds sappy, but in a world of cruelty it was a powerful message.
Ok Dan? fair enough? Although, on this occasion I don’t really follow your…. (dare I suggest)….(Dan_of_) reason(ing)
@ Stephen – Reason is a bit of a double-edged sword; that which we know, and that which we don’t. The don’t is the core of the debate. Just like upper case ‘Republican’ and the more general republican (formal political party vs. representative republic). I think there is Faith and faith. Atheists, correct me if I’m wrong, see faith as wait and see or assuming it is wrong, and Faith is at least Deism. No criticism whatsoever, but I do think protein chain folding wouldn’t happen on a comet, Mars, or in a few billion years on Earth.
I don’t check in very often, but enjoy our chats!
Cheers, Dan
I just meant that I did not quite follow the thread of your reasoning in your previous comment.
In your last comment, I think your description of ‘reasoning’, falls short.
I might reason that god exists. I might reason that this god can alter the laws of physics at their whim and can allow a person to walk on water. This has little to do with what ‘I know’ or ‘don’t know’. It may be just what I feel or what I believe. Reasoning can have a lot of emotional content. That’s why fake news can be used to fool some of the people all of the time. According to your own words Dan, there are those who are still actively looking for a person who can walk on water or perhaps even turn it into wine etc. Although I accept this, I personally, find it disappointing and regressive.
I take it that all you mean by your reference to upper and lower case terms is that those terms which start with a capital are more extreme/intense versions. I agree and its true that you probably have more chance of surviving/dealing with/containing a nazi than a Nazi but I think the human race has more chance of discovering new facts about the Universe when such belief systems only exist within very very few or have been reasoned out of existence.
I use the label Atheist to indicate my total rejection of the existence of a god or gods.
Those who call themselves deist or unitarian and find gods work in the natural world are no more palatable to me than those who deliver god as revelation. I do of course recognise that in all I am saying here, my opinion is no more important than anyone else’s.
I don’t know why you suggest the process of protein chain folding as an example of that which must have been designed or at least implemented by a god. Surely some event such as the first time a single cell seemed to spontaneously divide and make a copy of itself is a better candidate. When I read about protein chain folding, I noted that often the folding process is only partially successful and this can lead to various illnesses. An imperfect system from an omniscient god is very disappointing.
I find nothing in the complexity of protein chain folding (that I have read about so far and I admit, I know little about it) to suggest it could not have came into being, due to a random sequence of events in a dynamic universe. I also think this is true for the first time a single cell divided and became two identical cells.
I remain convinced that there is no need for god other than to allay fear when people are scared or to use as a threat to bend others to the will of an individual or organised group.
I also enjoy our chats Dan but I remain apologetic to any reader who is agitated by our science/religion debate on a page about the SCIENCE of matter creation. There are probably very few readers of this page anyway so ‘hey ho’.
The capitalization was merely to differentiate between proper nouns and general concepts.
I agree we are probably squandering server space with off-topic philosophy, but they can kick us out and how often to we have a chance to talk.
It occurred to me reason is actually trinary: 1) that which can be explained by science, 2) that which will eventually be explained by science (ancients thought lightning/eclipses/good harvests/etc.) was magic from some moon god. 3) that which in all likelihood will never be rationalized.
Atheism is somewhat of a duality of states, meaning optimism about the ability to eventually understand all, and acceptance that when we breath our last that is all. Theism, in my case Christianity, believes life is a gift and what we do with it can lead to infinity/eternity (kind of like a test, so far I’m D-). Were there a God, He would grant free will, provide guidance/subtle miracles we usually take for granted, and otherwise not micromanage. C.S. Lewis is known as a Christian author, but his original goal was to disprove Christianity.
I’m no expert in protein chain folding either, but I read that it is so improbable from emerging from the primordial soup, even over tens of billions of years, that any decent statistician would admit it to be zero probability. I just use it as one example.
[Quick joke: microbiologists challenge God to prove life can evolve from natural chemical reactions. They say ok, we’re going to use this dirt, and God interrupts, “Hey, get your own dirt”.] I’ll spare you the lawyer one.
One more thought, that which is called supernatural can probably never be explained; apart from drinking, smoking something, magic mushrooms, but I believe there are exceptions. When I was young, my family went to visit my Mom’s cousin in rural Ohio, who lived in a large 1850’s farmhouse. Straight as a board, didn’t drink, smoke, had a sound mind, even tempered middle aged farm girl. Over lunch they talked about the usual things, but then, casually she mentioned that one night upstairs she saw a translucent young girl in white dress. She left it at that and she had no reason to lie.
The ghost hunter shows are a bunch of crap “Hey Larry! Did you hear that?”. But there are enough accounts of the supernatural, that suggest they are more than the imagination. I am not using this for a presence of God argument, just that a percentage of credible people have seen more than an overactive imagination and swamp gas.
I think your trinary described three possible outcomes an individual might arrive at by application of their own reasoning. None of them define the term. Reason is either a justification for an action a person has taken or is going to take, or its the application of logical thinking to assess the validity of a concept.
Your definition of Atheism is sound and I would happily accept the label but it fails me when it defines someone who is convinced of ‘when you are dead you are dead’. I don’t accept than for two main reasons.
1. When a human dies and disassembles, all its quanta is returned to the universe as raw materials. Who knows how much of that raw material becomes part of new life through procreation.
2. It is scientifically sound to suggest that there are many ways in which life may continue after physical death which do not involve anything as boring as god. There may be many layers of existence within the universe which are unable to be viewed or detected by each other due to the laws of physics. If god exists then asking or/and answering questions is a pointless activity as there are no questions as all the answers are already known by god and our existence and fate are merely its whim.
People who witness what they reason to be supernatural events are simply mistaken.
A human can only trust their senses so far as they are easily fooled. Wearing a VR or AR system will soon convince you of that. Many people also hallucinate for many reasons including illness, some physical and some mental. A transparent woman has absolutely no purpose that I can see and if the goal of such a creature is to scare humans then they have a very low brow function. I think if the past humans could communicate with us or appear to us then they would do so much more effectively.
The fact that humans create the idea of ghosts etc and other ideas (which just come from Freud’s ID concept) such as Satan, or devil or Evil (which is just someone who behaves like Eve, ie, Someone who disobeys god) is further evidence that humans also created the concept of God because they were scared of all the noises they heard at night, outside their caves or were scared that the big lights in the sky and the things in the sky that move might not like them.
The term ‘credible person’ is very subjective and has actually been quite dangerous in the past. Many Americans considered Donald Trump a credible person. How wrong can one person be? Hopefully never as wrong as them.
I know many religious jokes:
Jesus said ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’
A small woman picks up a stone and throws it at the head of the victim.
Jesus says “Oh Ma! Not you again!’
Mary said “I aint no sinner sucker, I am woman, hear me roar”
Jesus said “But Mommy, I said ‘Let he!’ not ‘Let she!'”
Stephen Kelly and Dan_of_Reason, I’d like to bring the original topic back and suggest something new that though based on facts we know now, may change everything in physics. Here goes, and it revolves around a small word with four letters.
Dimp – what is it?
Dimp stands for dimensionless point – DIM-ensionless P-oint.
This is a new idea with a funny name that challenges all physics.
This suggests that all photons (all electromagnetic energy) are in a dimensionless point.
We know that photons are outside of time and distance.
My suggestion is that Dimp contains all photons.
That means Dimp contains all electromagnetic energy in a single dimensionless point.
Dimp is eternal
Dimp is outside time
Dimp is outside space
Dimp is outside distance.
Dimp is eternal and outside time; means it was
here before the Big Bang,
here after the Big Bang, and
here long after this space-time universe has ended.
Here is an analogy. The energy was in Dimp. The Big bang was an explosion that broke away from Dimp and began space – time; but space – time is not part of Dimp.
This can be seen as the fire analogy:
a fire = Dimp, and an ember = space – time, that broke away from the fire and is no longer part of that fire.
Dimp is outside space and distance. That means that there is no distance between any two photons, they share the same, no distance, point. This is hard to fathom. The idea that all energy is gathered in a single point outside of space-time and is eternal may be one of the hardest things in physics to comprehend or even imagine. Yet all that we know about photons and the speed of light say it IS so.
Next comes the idea that this energy was
there before the big bang,
is much much more energy than all the universe after the big bang, and
that the Big Bang was a small subset of Dimp, just as an ember is a small subset of a massive fire.
That means it is not part of space – time.
That means it is separate from, and outside of the following:
Space
Time
Distance
Gravity
Mass.
That means the forces of gravity and the electromagnetic force are not connected. They are separate and any attempt to unify them will fail. The goal of physics to unify forces into one, during the early Big Bang is wrong for the reasons listed above.
Let’s have some questions.
As always I enjoy the discourse.
I did have an interesting thought about the concept of the soul. As an armchair futurist, I sometimes check-in to view futurist blogs describing people wishing to be cloned and even identical mental maps being transferred to the clone. However, when the original person breathes their last, knowing there is a completely identical copy of themselves (body/mind/memories), they smile. But it is not them. They do not continue.
I agree a decomposing body is “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust”, and the matter (getting back on topic) is neither created or destroyed, rather repurposed by karma, the Cosmos, and so on. I’m always troubled when people say, “You’re wasting water”. Water is neither created or destroyed, it is merely the energy spent to collect and purify it… or electrolysis. I don’t leave my water running, that costs money.
Anyway, the lawyer joke: An engineer dies and goes to hell. He realizes the place isn’t too pleasant so he starts making some changes, putting out fires, adding air conditioning, and so on. Pretty soon the place isn’t too bad. God calls down to the Devil and says “This is supposed to be a place of punishment, I’m going to sue you!”. The Devil replies, “Where are you going to find a lawyer?”. Forgive me if you’ve heard this one before.
Cheers,
Dan
Very compelling thoughts. I’m headed to lunch but they will be on my mind (‘thanks a lot’, Daddy why are you staring off into space?) . The key question is why did Dimp rupture and spew out all this stuff?
@ Dan_of_Reason:
Yeah, a good joke but it tends to ignore a gods suggested omniscience. He knows everything so he would not need a lawyer but it still was funny even though the premise is flawed.
The question of exactly where in the human body, that which defines an individual resides/exists is still not known. Is it totally in the human brain? what does it exactly consist of? Until we can answer such, we will never be able to manipulate that situation much.
@ Tom Hendricks
This is one you have offered before Tom. Earlier in this post.
I have a few comments:
Firstly you describe this DIMP as simply short for dimensionless point. The standard model has zero dimension point particles as one of its main tenets. This concept is certainly not new in physics.
All the universe content emerging from a single point that you call the DIMP is not much different from the Universe emerging from a singularity.
You are only suggesting that after the big bang, the original singularity still exists.
If you accept the multiverse theory and Brane theory then every time branes bump into each other, a singularity is formed and perhaps a new universe.
This stuff was first postulated many years ago. There is no original thinking in what you suggest.
You say ‘DIMP is outside space and distance’ Distance and space are synonymous.
You say ‘Photons are outside of time and distance. In my opinion, this is a misunderstanding of relativity. If you travelled away from me at light speed then you would cover a DISTANCE of 300000000 meters every second so you would not be ‘outside of distance’. Relative to my frame of reference and due to time dilation, you would not age but in your frame of reference you would age at the same rate as I do in mine. If you returned to my frame of reference you would have aged slower than me but you would then start to age again in the same way I do.
A photon does not age only in the ‘relative to my reference frame’ sense.
A photon can be slowed by passing it through a medium. If that happens then relative to me, it will start to age. Its all relative!
It makes no sense to talk about ‘Before the big bang’ as the theory identifies that event as the literal beginning of EVERYTHING. So if you use the words ‘before the big bang’, then you are suggesting a DIFFERENT theory. A theory of anything existing before the big bang is simply a theory that disagrees with big bang theory. You need a lot of empirical evidence to support a new theory if it is to become widely accepted and much of the big bang theory does have such empirical evidence.
Sorry Dan. For God I meant to say ‘it’ not ‘he’. I don’t agree with assigning gender to the God postulate. I normally take care to avoid doing so.
No worries, if God transcends space and time, and is largely standoffish to see what we do with our freewill and time, gender isn’t too important. Also, “He” is used because of the largely (entirely) patriarchal society of the time.
Also worth noting in the Old Testament, when Moses was asked by God to free the ancient Hebrews from Egypt, he asked, “Who shall I say sent me?”, God’s reply, “Tell them I Am Who Am”. At first I thought that was an awkward reply, but when you think of it, it is not I am who was, or I am who is, or I am who will be. It contains all three tenses. I’m no linguist or Biblical scholar, but it doesn’t contain gender references.
Back to matter, many thousands of witnesses observed the multiplication of loaves and fishes (creation of matter) and the resurrection (reconstruction of matter). Then contemporary non-Christian historians Tacitus (Roman) and Josephus (Jewish) made note of Jesus being a notable figure.
Every Saint has miracles attributed to them, verified by the Church by interviewing witnesses, doctors, and other specialists who can’t explain what happened. In fact a deacon at my Church, who is Jewish, had an inoperable brain tumor, prayed about it intensely, and the doctors were astonished it disappeared. Does it happen all the time, no, but it does happen. Historically there are far to many similar instances to be mass delusion or simplistic liars. The point is that denying the supernatural absolutely, or at least allowing for the possibility, may be outside of reason.
Quoth Shakespeare in Hamlet, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Kind Regards,
Dan
His many Nobels will I have to win today?
Lol!
Clearly Dimp can’t be the same as the singularity before the Big Bang, and yet not have happened before the Big Bang. You are beginning to see how different Dimp is from all
current thinking. Let it sink in a bit, or ask more questions,
Yes Dimp is based on facts we know now. See
https://www.askamathematician.com/2013/04/q-if-a-photon-doesnt-experience-time-then-how-can-it-travel/
Tom,
I will nominate you to the Nobel committee and slip them a fiver.
Bests,
Dab
Sweet! Thanks.
But if I mention that the Dimp concept may also explain vacuum energy, and the cosmological constant problem, three might be enough.
@ Dan_of_Reason
You have to decide whether your god is omniscient or not. Why is it waiting to see what we will do with our free will. The god squad believe he already knows.
I have read the bible, old and new testaments from cover to cover, twice. The old testament would make a good epic drama for TV. It would be far more violent, racist and sexist than game of thrones. Its a recording of the result of ‘Chinese whisper’s’ left to fester over a long time.
All of its parables are derived from earlier mythological stories. The new testament is better but only by a small measure. I used to invite the Jehovah witnesses, the Mormon’s, the new born Christians etc into my home whenever they knocked on my door. I would give them tea and biscuits and I enjoyed the hours of discussion that followed. Sometimes 6 or 7 hours. It normally ended with them giving reasons why they had to leave now as they had other tasks to perform. I am sure they would disagree but I always felt that they left, less convinced of their position than they were when they came in.
The bible is so contradictory and so low brow that I can only react with disdain.
From ‘I am a jealous god’ (a deadly sin) through to Elisha and Elijah performing most of the Jesus magic act, long before he ever did (walking on water, reanimating the dead etc) and on to poor Job being put through all sorts of hell so that god can prove a point to the devil (another deadly sin called pride) and on and on. The new testament is no better, even the feeding of the 5000 ‘fake news’ you cite is taken from older mythologies such as ‘the horn of plenty’. All other religious text are just as bad.
Those who turn to faith healers are just a repeat of those who turned to the druid or the shaman for medical assistance. I will stick with the NHS thank you.
I know your response to this will be a well rehearsed standard one that is the best religion can muster. I have enjoyed exchanging views with you Dan but I know there is nowhere to take this discussion. I would only become more and more insulting and I don’t wish to offend you more than I already have as you have never typed an angry word towards me so far and I do respect that tolerance. The more emotive rhetoric has came from me, I accept that and to be honest, I have only applied the softest tones I am able to command.
All the best Dan
@ Tom Hendrick
Thanks for your advice and for a link to a previous post that I am already familiar with.
Your response was muted to say the least.
The post you link is anchored to has nothing in it to support your DIMP.
The singularity is part of the big bang theory it does not come before it. Current thinking suggests Inflation may have happened before the singularity rather than the other way round but all of that is part of the process, so there is no ‘before’
You might as well as where the DIMP came from. Saying it is eternal is a religious comment.
I would suggest String theory unites the forces much more convincingly than your very thin offerings.
I predict that DIMP will be Dumped as it sounds to me that it is based on mere conjecture and playful thinking.
@Stephen
I am unoffended and try to keep things positive, poopy head (that was absolutely a joke!). I hold your opinions in high regard.
Your knowledge of the Bible, mythology, and other religious texts is impressive! I definitely don’t subscribe to the Calvinist belief that I’m saved (go partying!) and you’re not (go partying!). But one other thought worth considering is two millennia of peaceful Christian martyrs.
One would think after the Apostles (save for St. John) and others who witnessed Jesus were tortured and martyred belief would taper off. For example, if the government seizes me and says “Say you don’t believe in leprechauns or we’ll torture and kill you!”. The first words out of my mouth would be “I do not believe in them”. However the first three hundred years of Christianity, until Constantine, all the popes were martyred. Martyrdom happened all the time.
If the Apostles, St. Paul, and Jesus for that matter, lived long lives and became rich, fat, and happy I would suspect they were grifters and they would probably have not bothered to write the New Testament. Nobody dies for the Easter Bunny. They must have seen something to make them believe.
God’s transcendence of time and gift of free will are difficult to understand. I think He can know how our lives turn out, but chooses to focus on our lives today and hopes we pick up on every day’s subtle, and sometimes not subtle, clues leading us towards Him. Kind of like choosing not to read the last page of a book while you are in the middle of it, and allowing the story to change as it progresses.
Just a few thoughts,
Cheers,
Dan
I don’t recognise 200o years of Christian martyrs and you forgot to mention that we have also had 2000 years of Christian maniac’s. From war monger Christian kings and queens through to priestly child abusers up to modern madmen from David Koresh to Donald Trump and on and on, all so called Christians. The doctrine cannot ignore or refuse to acknowledge these ‘followers’.
The god squad are always talking about those Christians who turned out to be okay or even nice human beings as the only true Christians and the very large number of bad people who use the label Christian get disowned only if they get found out of course. Many so called Christian saints were not very nice people in their real lives. Some of the worse people became popes. Remember the Borgias, for example?
The number of people in the world today who call themselves practicing Christian is in permanent decline. I think more people probably have more belief in the teachings of Einstein that they do in the teachings of Christ or to be more precise the teachings that Christians claim are his revelation.
The Christ story is not in any way the special and unusual story that Christians claim it is. The stories of Mohamed, Budda, Krishna etc are all just as valid.
One of the best comments I have heard about religion is:
“There are so many of them. They cant all be right but they could all be wrong.”
In the past 2000 years Christianity has been mainly used as a tool of empire building, war, the oppression of non-Christian populations, The plundering of the resources of other less powerful nations, Misogyny etc, etc, etc. I don’t mean the story of Jesus is to blame or some non existent god is to blame. I just mean the doctrine has been used as a tool in the performance of the actions I mention. All religions have been used for this same purpose and for a lot longer than 2000 years. I’m sure many good people were killed in the name of the sun god RA. The human race would have progressed much further in the last 2000 year span, if our ancestors had been a little less afraid of the noises they heard outside the caves.
In your last paragraph you try to understand the mind of god to explain, why as an omniscient creature, it still chooses to spend its (time?) observing us.
Remember , the Christian doctrine states that you are wasting your (time?).
You cant know the mind of God. I am happy with that, as it does not exist anyway.
From your fellow debater…poopy head.
I’m away to watch some TV. They are reshowing the excellent Ken Burns series on the American Civil war. All those ‘god fearin’ confederates and yankees. Killing each to see if the black people they stole from Africa might gain permission from white people to not be slaves anymore. Reminds me about another excellent comment. I think it was made by a Native American. “We they came here we had the land and they had their god. Now they have our land and we have their god.”
Cheers fur noo Dan!
Stephen, I’m sorry about the “poopy head” comment, it was meant purely in jest and I am a bit mirthful and light hearted. You are not poopy head… I hope you got a chuckle. If not I’ll parse my sense of humor.
I think I’ve mentioned before, but there is no one or group that is wearing unstained ‘white satin’ (innocent of human nature’s bad side). Whenever humans are involved there is likely to be error and sin. There have been popes that have been complete wretches, that is for God to judge. The meek shall inherit the Earth. That’s not me, but I try my best to smile warmly and genuinely as I walk down the street, help neighbors, listen intently to friends and strangers alike, and so forth. I believe you are like that too.
I enjoy Ken Burns’ documentaries. Little known to the general public it was Africans enslaving Africans and selling them to Europeans to sell to North America. Christian acts of charity? Not at all. Another little know fact is the North East colonies of the soon to be United States wrote constitutions abolishing slavery before the UK did.
I hope you liked the book analogy. The rest of our lives is unwritten.
Cheers,
Dan
I didnt mind your poopy head jest at all Dan. I have been called far worse and by those who really meant it. Please maintain the light hearted side of your personality. It is another of your strengths. Without a sense of humour, we would be much reduced to say the least. I think the Christian religion would attract more members if it displayed pictures of Jesus laughing. He must have done so after all.
No country’s history is clean. The persecution of others is within human will.
I was just pointing out that religion is commonly used to justify such behaviour.
Many Christians have lived altruistic lives but in my opinion the overall affect of the doctrine on the human race has been on balance, very negative.
Your book analogy served the purpose you intended it to but your god already knows the contents of all the books so we remain completely insignificant. Our only purpose would be to give this god, a purpose, a significance. To human logic/emotion. A god alone has no purpose. If only god exists then it would be forced to create something else to give itself meaning. Just reverse the scenario. As far as we know, we are alone in this VAST universe. Of course we would create gods. We were forced to because we did not know enough not to need them. But in my opinion that’s just not true anymore.
There are portraits of a laughing Jesus, and to laugh you have to have peace in your heart. He offered a peace that passes all understanding. So but for the grace of God go I.
If a religion promotes tyranny, submission, retribution, violence, etc. it is not a good one. Christianity says love one another and requests subordination (voluntary following God). Islam, by definition, requires submission to their god. Most Eastern religions ask for an emptying of the mind to achieve enlightenment.
Cute story: when my daughter was about 18 months old, her, my wife, my wife’s mother and I were in Japan on the way to visit a friend in Saipan. We visited a huge Buddhist temple, one of the largest wooden structures in the world, and popular tourist attraction. There is a massive wooden support column with a narrow archway cut at the bottom. As legend has it, if you could fit through it you would achieve some sort of enlightenment. She crawled through it to great applause from the other tourists. Others tried, but couldn’t make it. I’m not fat, but neither I nor Buddha could fit through.
Many who have been diagnosed as completely mad, laugh, sometimes manically. Is this the peace of madness?
I am a Logician Dan and the words ‘He offered a peace that passes all understanding’ make no sense. How do you know its peace if there is no way to understand it. Its just emotional, religious obfuscation. So ‘but for the grace of others, go I’. We can all come up with flowery rhetoric. Churchill, Lenin, Hitler, Napoleon et al, were all masters at it. They were also all warmongering butchers.
All religions are used for the purposes you list. Its got little to do with what some perceive its intentions to be. Your old testament god was a butcher. It was smiting left, right and center. Innocent Egyptian people suffering deadly plague’s due to the actions of their leader. The poor guy that slipped and dropped a side of the ark of the covenant, smited. Saul who took women and children prisoner rather than slaughter them, damned by your god for showing such mercy. A group of children, slaughtered by she bears for calling a prophet baldy and on and on it goes. Women are unclean during their menstral cycles and cannot enter the tabernacle. Even in the new testament while preaching all the nice stuff, we have a new version of god? So that means it is fallible as it made mistakes in the past so comes out with a new strategy?? Mary Magdalene (probably the wife or at least the lover of Jesus) condemned as a prostitute, in truth because Peter was jealous of her and men wanted to control women. Jesus is baptised by John. So Jesus bows to John’s superior authority within the movement at that time. After death Jesus rises and only appears first to his woman and then to his biggest fans. Just like some devastated fans of Elvis who claim to see him in supermarkets etc or in their visions. All of this before we even offer some of the nostic documentation. Some of which suggests that the crucifixion of the historical Christ never took place. Below is yet another extract you might find interesting.
“Simon bar Kokhba (d. 135 AD) who was proclaimed the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva and who then led the uprising against the Romans which became the Second Jewish War. There was also Lukuas (d. 115 AD) who led a short-lived Jewish uprising against the Romans in Egypt that took Alexandria before being defeated by Trajan. Eusebius claims he declared himself “king”, though it’s not certain this meant he claimed to be the Messiah.
Earlier we have Simon of Peraea (c 4 BC) and Athronges (c. 4-2 BC) who both led separate uprisings against the Herodians and the Romans and who seem to have declared themselves kings and may have claimed Messianic status. Other First Century Jewish rebels include Judas the Galilean (6 AD) and Theudas (c. 46 AD), who also led uprisings against the Romans and may have claimed to be the Messiah.
So apart from Jesus and Simon bar Kokhba there were few who we know were claimed to be the Messiah. It’s also very uncertain if Jesus himself ever made this claim, since it can be argued that this was simply something projected onto him by his early followers and that he merely considered himself a prophet, much like John the Baptist and the “Egyptian Prophet” and the “Samaritan Prophet” who all arose around the same time.”
This is all before I start talking about the hypocricy of the crusades from the standpoint of the commandments. I could provide links to materials for days and days to show the historical and current hypocricy of so called practicing Christians who claim to spread love and who claim to turn the other cheek etc. We could talk about Jimmy Swaggart and his band of scammers and the mob on God TV that still scam thousands of people daily and are able to part people from their currency and have it turn up in their own bank accounts.
The litany and legacy of shameful practice and the swiss cheese of holes in the logic of the historical god story, leaves me unconvinced by your ability to ignore all of this and simply go with your own emotional need to have god be real.
None of this stops you from being a nice person Dan. But in my opinion your altruism is a product of your humanity not your religion.
Again, most impressive knowledge of the Bible and history.
There is a pendulum that swings back and forth in the Old Testament, that of the ancient Jewish people following God (peace and prosperity), and then forgetting Him a little while later and worshiping a golden calf in the next chapter (being conquered/enslaved/etc.). Did the Old Testament God seem often cruel, brutal, or arbitrary? Perhaps, but for every life lost, He decides what to do with the soul. For example, a first born Egyptian baby during the original Passover wouldn’t be banished to punishment.
The other broad theme is the Bible is a transition of God guiding us from a primitive, animal state (Old Testament) to one of love and kindness, like Christ’s perfect example. Ok, Jesus did get mad at the money changers, and waited a few days to not heal Lazarus, though as you know the story goes made that right. People were attracted to Christians and Christianity, because for the first time they saw actual happiness and love not based on social status, patriarchy, need to use the sword, and so on. The ancient world was a pretty unloving place.
I forget what verse it is but either Jesus or one of the Apostles confronts a demon who says, “We are legion”. Whether or not exorcisms are real, as many claim to have witnessed, evil is legion and perverts all human groups and activities eventually. (Elvis sightings, really?)
The Crusades were a defensive action because Islam continued to spread by the sword and Europe was attacked about 300 times during that time period. I can’t recall the website but a historian made a map with a timeline and showed all the sites their were either raids or invasions of Europe over the centuries.
The murderous tyrants I understand, but are you still mad at Churchill for Gallipoli? He had bad maps.
Cheers,
Dan
All I can say (with respect) is that you (understandably as you are a follower) defend your choice of religious doctrine by use of positive angles or by attempting to shine the best light you can upon it. Almost like defending Mussolini because he squashed the mafia and got the trains running on time. Under Hitler, Germanies economy flourished and German unemployment was almost wiped out. German youth was organised and was given cause and purpose. Crime in Germany was massively reduced but I’m sure you would agree that none of these are reasons to recommend fascism.
I am not accusing you of facilitating a horrendous system such as fascism and I only used the examples as illustration of my point. All I mean is that in my opinion, you tend to ‘gloss over’ the issues I have raised.
Churchill was a complete narcissist. A horrible human being, (in my opinion) only interested in his own aggrandizement and place in history. We needed him during WW2 to defeat another narcissist, only interested in his own aggrandizement and place in history but the first thing the British people did after WW2 was kick Churchill out of power.
As I said in my last comments Dan I could keep throwing my justifications at you for many days but I think that by now you will appreciate my choice to reject the God fable comes from my own detailed analysis. I know you have came to a different conclusion, so thank you for the exchange but this will be my final comment on this topic for now.
All the best Dan and I’m sure we will exchange idea’s again, perhaps in another post on this forum or on another science forum.
Fair thee well my friend!
Sorry “Fare thee well” Cheers, Dan
This talk about Dimp concept has nothing to do with your discussion here on religion. I see you are very knowledgeable about every aspect of that. That is impressive.
Now on to talking about the concept of Dimp. The reason for the link was to show that, when you argue with the basic premises of my idea, you are really arguing with Einstein and his proven theories. What I’ve done is instead of marveling at the strangeness of the argument, I’ve embraced it and asked – what’s next. That next was Dimp such that
Photons, and all speed of light anything – is outside of distance and time as this quote from that link shows:
From, ask a mathematician website.
Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going. Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).
@ Tom Hendricks
I know that my discussion of DIMP has nothing to do with my discussion with Dan on religion. I am confused as to why you would make that obvious point.
I mean no disrespect towards you or your ideas Tom. I am just trying to comment and challenge. My academic background is Computer Science. I am a retired secondary school teacher. But I have also completed a good number of online courses on Cosmology.
My knowledge of Physics is limited, I fully accept that. I apply the reasoning skills I have, to make the comments I make. If you can demonstrate that my comments about DIMP are wrong then that benefits your case and it benefits me because I will learn from that. But those with a much stronger physics background than I may contribute and its them that you have to convince more than interested amateurs like me.
I was familiar with the post you linked to. You were the main (Only) commenter to that post. The resident physicist contributed once or twice and (in my opinion) did not offer any support for DIMP. You kept asking for “explanation” of points you raised. You got no responses. That suggests to me that either the readers felt that you should do your own research and answer your ‘Explain’ comments or no reader felt they could answer you or the resident physicist felt it would take to much of their time and effort to answer your many ‘Explain’ requests.
The part you quote from the post has (in my opinion) certain ‘flags’. For example:
Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon.
When a term in put in quotes like that, to me, that indicates something like ‘this is the best word I can think of to use here but its not ideal’
If you take the physicist’s post in the whole it seems to me that overall, the idea is:
From the standpoint of an observer such as you or I, a photon travelling at light speed experiences no time or distance due to the time dilation formula.
This formula t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2
where: t = time observed in the other reference frame
t0 = time in observers own frame of reference (rest time)
v = the speed of the moving object
c = the speed of light in a vacuum
uses the idea of ‘reference frames’ all through it. t0 being the the observers time frame. Obviously if the divisor in this calculation is very close to zero then the time dilation tends to infinity.
But do you agree that if YOU travelled in space at light speed that YOU would still age?
I have also copied below the rest of what the physicist said in the post:
The name “relativity” (as in “theory of…”) comes from the central tenet of relativity, that time, distance, velocity, even the order of events (sometimes) are relative. This takes a few moments of consideration; but when you say that something’s moving, what you really mean is that it’s moving with respect to you.
Everything has its own “coordinate frame”. Your coordinate frame is how you define where things are. If you’re on a train, plane, rickshaw, or whatever, and you have something on the seat next to you, you’d say that (in your coordinate frame) that object is stationary. In your own coordinate frame you’re never moving at all.
How zen is that?
Everything is stationary from its own perspective. Only other things move.
Everything is stationary from its own perspective. Movement is something other things do. When you describe the movement of those other things it’s always in terms of your notion of space and time coordinates.
The last coordinate to consider is time, which is just whatever your clock reads. One of the very big things that came out of Einstein’s original paper on special relativity is that not only will different perspectives disagree on where things are, and how fast they’re moving, different perspectives will also disagree on what time things happen and even how fast time is passing (following some very fixed rules).
When an object moves past you, you define its velocity by looking at how much of your distance it covers, according to your clock, and this (finally) is the answer to the question. The movement of a photon (or anything else) is defined entirely from the point of view of anything other than the photon.
One of the terribly clever things about relativity is that we can not only talk about how fast other things are moving through our notion of space, but also “how fast” they’re moving through our notion of time (how fast is their clock ticking compared to mine).
I think this clarifies the section you quoted and explains that this idea of ‘outside of space and time’ is notional only. in other words, a relative concept.
I don’t see anything here that would support DIMP except for the idea that you are just using a different name for the singularity concept within big bang theory.
If I am totally wrong then I am sure you and/or others will explain to me in a way my amateur physics status can cope with, why I am wrong. If of course they have the time and interest to do so.