|
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Well, actually, there are infinite number of dimensions, on top and below us ... I'll do a thread to explain that maybe next month after I'm done reading an unspecified book. So hold your horses with criticising this post. |
I don't think you understand what a dimension is.
| quote: | | At first, before the universe was born, there was no time, and everything was in a single moment of existence (but there was no time). When universe was born, with it the dimensions were introduced. If we can understand the dimensions, we can one day go from one place in space to another in the same moment. Therefore, once we understand how dimensions exist and operate, we will be able to go to other dimensions, and feel the world without time, the way it originally existed, thus opening possibilites like entering any point in time, and seeing things that noone has ever imagined. All of our souls, are part of the same creator, who designed the first living beings of the universe (not necessarily us) to experience the world the way the creator wanted his copies to experience and understand it. The creator could not share his experiences with oneself, so the universe(s) was/were created. |
Oh goody, another Creationist Theory! Here we go... allow me to explain why this is patently incorrect.
I'll try to leave mathematical equations and other extremely complicated stuff out of this, but one concept needs to be cleared up first: the point which you are referring to, at which you claim the universe was "born", is called a singularity. This singularity, understood in context of the Friedmann solutions to the field equations of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, is a point of infinite curvature, infinite density, and infinite temperature. Creationist "theories" would have you believe that deviation from this singularity was somehow "caused", despite the fact that it's merely based on a mathematical equation. The "theory" that this singularity was the first "moment" in time and that successive moments had to be "caused" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. I'll quickly go over the major issues here:
1. The definition of the "beginning of the universe" is incorrect.
In order for the universe to emerge from a single singularity, we would need to have an ideal universe that is perfectly homogenous and isotropic, but in fact the universe is neither. A heterogenous, asymmetrical universe means it would have to begin at a series of points - in fact, an infinite series of points, not only in space but in time, since the points are 4-dimensional (with the 4th dimension being temporal). So the universe actually "began" at many different points in space AND time, by definition. And according to the definition you use, the "real" beginning would be the first point at which some piece of the universe exists. Essentially, you and other Creationists claim that the singularity itself was the beginning of the universe - that the universe existed as a singularity and hence we needed something to "cause" it to become something other than a singularity.
The problem with this definition is that even if we isolate the time dimension, the singularity is not 3-dimensional. Various theories explain how it could be 0-dimensional (a single point), 1-dimensional (a line), or 2-dimensional (a surface), but no theory can allow for a 3-dimensional singularity. It is therefore evident that the universe, which is ipso facto a 4-dimensional entity, HAD to actually begin at some instant AFTER this singularity, i.e. when actual 4-dimensional space-time exploded.
This leaves us with only two possible definitions for the "beginning" of the universe:
a) The beginning of the universe was infinitely long. This can be reasoned through very simply because if we take the "singularity" as T0, and the "origin of the universe" as some time Ta > T0, we can ALWAYS pick a time Tb for which T0 < Tb < Ta. This is basic number theory, there is no way around it - so there is no such "instant after the singularity", and thus there is no true beginning as Creationists define it.
b) The singularity itself is theoretical only. That is, it is a mathematical construct like a limit in calculus, but just as a limit, it does not actually exist, it only serves as a model for what would occur if such a thing did exist. If we were actually able to trace time back to "zero", *something* would happen which would probably bend or break all the laws of physics, but it would not be a singularity, it would be "undefined". And since there is no singularity at all, we're left with the same problem as (a) - that no matter how small an instant we try to take the origin at, there is always a smaller instant - so there is in fact an infinite amount of time prior to the Big Bang.
2. Quantum Mechanics need not be causal.
This is what really gets to the heart of the issue - quantum mechanics does not have to obey the classical laws of physics that Creationists will often try to apply to the singularity.
Quantum gravity, as the theory currently stands, is thought to be a repulsive force and hence does not permit an infinite singularity. It does, however, permit a singularity, as long as that singularity is finite and nonzero. And quantum tunneling effects (the only working theory to date) which come from literally "nothing" are capable of producing the vacuum state that would lead to the Big Bang.
In this case, the universe's beginnings do not actually obey the GTR (not within the first 10^-43 seconds or so), but the quantum-mechanical laws used to define them are the same as those which hold true for within the universe, so they make sense. The point to remember here, however, is that quantum mechanics does not have to obey causality! This is hard for most people to grasp, but for events occurring at T1 and T2, for T2 > T1, according to the quantum-mechanical model, the event at T2 CAN cause the event at T1!
So what the hell does this mean? It means the universe could cause itself. The universe does not "need" a cause because quantum mechanics pretty much explains it all. It does not make sense to speak of what happened "before" this quantum tunneling because the tunneling WAS the beginning - before this, time itself does not exist, so there is no singularity and there is no causation. This goes beyond merely saying that there was some state of "nothingness" before the tunnelling effect - it is saying that the existence of state itself before this event is impossible, because the event created time and time did not exist to measure before that event. This precludes the existence of some magical "God" in this period of Nothingness because the period itself does not even exist and it makes no sense to talk about it.
So enough about souls, enough about creators, enough about all of that garbage. We have a few workable scientific explanations of the Big Bang that actually make sense, and we definitely DO NOT need catch-all God theories to help us out!
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
*
*
