Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Lol I found this on my facebook.
I have to share it with you.

Off topic:

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Hahaha... if I answer that question honestly I'll be hurled off the bridge of death and into the chasm!

.. the hell!!?? Why can't I upload as anything but a freakin thumbnail? Crap!

That's the forum-software - once it's up - I can make it bigger by clicking the thumbnail, right-click, copy img url - then the usual - per symbol. What I do - I have a free photobucket account and directly get an img code to paste from there.

Originally Posted by Marvo

The premise of this thread was shit from minute one. I actually came in here to laugh at stupid people, when I saw it was active, but I certainly got a lot more than I bargained for.

Weell - I understand that sentiment...
Having a bit of an appetite for such as well - I even went back and got myself into some ramblings.
Just ignore me, if you wish - but maybe there is hope left for this thread.
Since our boy from the astral plane still shows appetite for munching over semantics: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Definitions from scientific organizations
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word.
It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

That won't do it either - but better than discuss on the basis of the thesaurus, schnesaurus...

Originally Posted by Maria92

I like the idea of the Big Bang being part of a cycle, but as of now, there is not enough known mass to pull the universe back on itself. Dark matter would do the trick, but as of now, we have not the evidence to back up that theory. You may want to read up on M-theory, though. Interesting stuff.

Aaha. I know, we will cause a heap of joy somewhere in France, when we throw string-theory and also M-theory in.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

String theory showed how all the particles, and all of the forms of energy in the universe, could be constructed by hypothetical one-dimensional "strings", infinitesimal building-blocks that have only the dimension of length, but not height nor width. Further, string theory suggested that the universe is made up of multiple dimensions.
These "strings" vibrate in multiple dimensions, and depending on how they vibrate, they might be seen in three-dimensional space as matter, light, or gravity.
M-theory unified the 5 preliminary theories by asserting that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional space...

Until some way is found to observe the yet hypothetical higher dimensions, which are needed for consistency reasons, M-theory has a very difficult time making predictions that can be tested in a laboratory. Technologically, it may never be possible for it to be experimentally confirmed.

Soo - which "theory-status" does it actually have? Shouldn't it rather be called hypothesis following the above? Well - it is not denominated as "scientific theory" - just "theory"..?
Is it still considered a candidate for the "Theory Of Everything" - bringing together General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

Yes indeedy, I've been saying from the get-go that time is a human invention meant to lend order to what would otherwise be a chaotic universe. And that order wasn't necessary until some caveman looked around and said, "I am." Before that we were like any other critters, living in a timeless here & now, with no memory of yesterday or dreams about tomorrow. The amazing complexity of knowing there was a past and will be a tomorrow led us to need time, among a bunch of other new concepts, like religion and hope.

First of all - most of what you call critters definitively do experience time. They can learn from past experiences, they age, they lay in wait for their prey. Take out your pet's favourite toy - it will associate with that the expectation, that sooon - there's gonna be fun - and so forth.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Semantics is the wrong word, if you'll pardon the pun. You're saying that movement is really the same as time? Does everyone here think that? Is that what they're teaching in school now? I am deeply confused. I had always thought that movement was the result of force acting on an object, period. Where exactly does time step in to make an object move? Forgive my shortness here, but this is a bit disturbing, and "movement = time" is something I honestly had never heard before. It certainly explains my oddness, doesn't it?

It wasn't stated with an "=" by anyone. But without time, there would be no movement - lets better say motion.
And nope, motion is not "the result of force acting on an object, period".

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time and its reference point. Motion is typically described in terms of displacement, direction, velocity, acceleration, and time. Motion is observed by attaching a frame of reference to a body and measuring its change in position relative to that (4-dimensional) frame.

A body which does not move is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have constant (time-invariant) position. An object's motion cannot change unless it is acted upon by a force, as described by Newton's first law.

Since everything is in motion anyway - you need the force to change that motion - away from ultimately simply going towards increasing overall entropy.
I hope, this is clearing matters up a bit.
But I am basically saying what Darkmatters has tried to say before.

For the sake of taking a stab at "existence":

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In common usage, what exists is what one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independently in one's absence.

The latter point is where you build your argument from, correct?
But you do concede, that motion does exist independently from an observer, and since there is no motion without time, per definition - time does exist on the same level as motion does.
Intangible - but real enough.


And - we have time as in irreversible - per the laws of thermodynamics:

Originally Posted by ifuturist

I just want to state that for anyone reading this in disbelief thinking "the universe has always been here" - we already know that the universe is not eternal. There was a definite start. We know this by the quantity called entropy.

Entropy is a macro state variable that describes the number of micro states a system can take on. Entropy (S) is (delta)S = Q/T with Q = the amount of heat added to a system and T = the temperature at which the heat is added and S = k ln (omega) with k = constant times the number of states the system can take on (assuming all of the states are equally probable). The second law of thermodynamics says that when any process is undergone the entropy of the universe is always greater than or equal to zero.

We know that the universe has finite energy in it. We know that the universe is not eternal because if it was, all of the energy and 'orderedness' in the universe would already have been used up and dissolved at some inexplicable point in time, so to speak. It would be cold and lifeless. We could not exist.

Entropy is referred to as 'the arrow of time.' A kind of Zelda-ish sounding name.

Yupp. Processes are undergone in time.
I had actually planned on furthering out your post - or simplifying it - but I don't manage to concisely explain the relationship between time and entropy.
Maybe you - or anybody could do that - not in the respect, that our universe didn't exist since eternity - more towards countering the assumption, that time is only something psychological in humans?

Originally Posted by episode24

Originally Posted by DrunkenArse

We need a theory of Quantum Gravity to answer your question. "singularity's" will probably not exists in Quantum Gravity. Singularity is a mathematical term for when some otherwise well behaved function goes to infinity or does something else that's nasty and difficult to work with. All of it's partial derivatives going to zero is an example of this. In this case, it's the gravitational attraction going to infinity and the width of the object going to zero. This is probably more indicative of a misunderstanding of gravity at very small distances on our part than of an actual physical occurrence.

what is the object going to zero?

Now - if you are still with us DrunkenArse () - I suppose you mean general relativity breaking down under the conditions of the big bang?
Going to zero would be the width - the spacial distribution of matter in this case, did I get this correctly?

And as far as I understand further - according to quantum-theory - there are limits concerning the concentration of mass and the strength of gravity. And that doesn't fit the Einsteinian singularity notion and space-time as a continuum.

I have unearthed a German Scientific American from 2009 flying about here as toilet entertainment - I will feed myself with the lead article on exactly our topic further - "The cosmos before the big bang - did our universe have a predecessor?".
It is written by a proponent of "Loop Quantum Gravity". This gets mentioned side by side with string theory and something called "Causal Dynamic Triangulation".
I just started reading - but I want to post now anyway.
What seems to follow from that viewpoint is that space-time is actually grainy - consisting of particles.

Originally Posted by astralboy

I agree with that quote. However, no one here is saying they never wonder or that they are dead sure about everything.

What we are saying is that when all evidence points to one conclusion, throwing your hands in the air and saying, "Well, we can never know anything!" is just fucking stupid.

Yes, it is true that we fallible mortal monkeys are limited by our senses and experiences and everything could be an illusion, but it is completely pointless to live according to that. We have to learn from observation and experience. It's all we have.