Finding an explanation for our Universe
S D Rodrian
>
> Rodrian, greetings,
Greetings The Bruce,
> Please forgive my e-mailing you privately, but
> I am rather curious. I should make clear that I am no more
> than a "layman", when it comes to physics, but I'm otherwise
> bright enough to understand basic English, & you seem
> capable of explaining complex theories of physics in ways
> that even tyros like me can comprehend.
Actually the fact is that everything in the world
starts out very simple and straightforward; and then
it's fouled up from there. This is why my personal
mantra is, "Things are never as confusing as the
confused MAKE them out to be."
> With that in mind, I'd like to ask you about
> this following quote. I don't know if it was from your
> Web-site, or from a posting of yours, or if you even wrote
> it; however, I got the impression that you at least agree
> with it. Do you? I ask, because it's been an argument of
> mine for some time now, which I've used against both "Big
> Bang" theorists & Creationists alike. I agree with Kant --
> Existence denotes both "Time" & "Space". To me, that means
> that something which is, had a beginning of some sort, &
> beginnings imply causality. So, up to this point, I am
> agreeing with the various cosmological theories for the
> existence of "GOD". Where I diverge from those theories, &
> where I diverge from "Big Bang" theorists, is exactly the
> point I wished to ask you about -- namely:
>
> "In the beginning the universe consisted only of energy
> (the primordial singularity). [It could never EVER have
> consisted of absolute nothingness because the jump from
> absolute nothingness to something can only be breached
> by magic.]
Yep, that sounds like something I'd say, all right.
> But where did *this* energy come *from*? Its very existence
> (to me, at least) implies that there was a stage at which it
> didn't "exist" -- meaning it was created, but creation
> implies creation from *something* which was itself created
> from *something* -- at which point, I see all theories of
> the universe's "beginnings" descending into an endless chain
> of causalities. Or, is it all really a circle that never had
> a beginning point, & therefore will never have an end? I
> would appreciate whatever insights you could offer.
> Thank you for your time.
Obviously, what you're asking is how/why/when... did
this energy "materialize" before it was/became matter!
Well, there are no paradoxes in nature (in reality),
only in the human mind. And you are stuck in a purely
mental-only "endless feedback loop" of sorts; in that
you can ONLY think of the existence of things in
terms of whether they qualify as "matter." Naturally,
this will forever prevent you from considering those
things from (out of) which matter was "put together"
as "existing" ---or, your mental processes will forever
report that "Something" must have came out of "Nothing."
But this is not the case in reality: We are merely
victims of a mental/human prejudice which has served us
perfectly throughout our evolutionary history UP TO
THIS POINT.
At this point, when we are at last considering the
fundamental "origin" (a word which also reflects
another one of our purely-human/mental prejudices),
the fundamental origin of "it all" ... our acceptance
of matter alone as the only example/touchstone/criterion
and ultimate arbiter of "that which exists" conflicts
with what the universe is telling us "really exists"
(or "has real existence"). For, even as we insist (to
the universe) that "matter" is "what exists" ... the
universe is meanwhile insisting to us that "what really
exists" (in fact, "the only thing which really exists")
is "energy."
WE: If it's not matter it doesn't exist.
IT: The reality of matter is no different than the
reality of all those "forms" you "see" sketched
in the passing clouds by the power of your own
imagination alone: Just as those forms are in no
way fundamental and the least breeze tears them
to shreds (into some other forms... none of which
has any relevance to the question of the existence
of clouds), so too ALL the forms of matter are but
forms which can also be torn to shreds and which
also have no bearing whatsoever to the question
of the existence of energy (the physical solidity of
matter is never absolute but always relativistic),
or, that is: to the absolute question of existence itself.
And this is because once you have a "big enough"
volume... it eventually becomes IMPOSSIBLE
for every least portion/region/bit of it to avoid
having to "account to" every other portion/region
and bit of it... for its nature.
Now imagine the "volume" represented by "the full and
complete" extent of what we humans can only speak of
as... "the void." And you "begin" to get a hint of
exactly how unavoidable [pun] is the "existence" of
energy/motion (i.e. of it EVER really being possible
for the persistent laws of thermodynamics... to escape
existence). Therefore, at least as far as our peculiar
human understanding goes: Existence is the nature of
"the void" [it is impossible to conceive of "the void"
to any "substantial" extent without already conceiving
of existence--and thereby realizing that "existence" is
(and ever was) just as "eternal" as "the void"]. There
are no "perfect vacuums," etc.; and the existence of
"energy" is NOT a "matter" with anything that we would
understand as "a beginning") since it is, in fact, the
(an?) "inherent" quality of "the void" itself). But at
least it ought to be a little clear-er now why it is
that, at least in human terms: "energy IS motion."
And even if the full/complete extent of that energy
which results from/by the laws of thermodynamic is but
an infinitesimal portion of "the void" ... as you know:
"a part of eternity is indistinguishable from the whole
of eternity" [or some such... but what it all eventually
boils down to is that "the sum of" (the amount of) energy
that "always existed" before the advent of the universe
of matter (and which gave it birth) must have been of
necessity (and however a finite quantity it may be)...
quite, quite, quite unimaginably "extensive" in relation
to the "sum of" the universe of matter it spawned].
As the paragraph above says, though, the universe of
matter, on the other hand... does have a beginning AND
and an end. In other words, "Get this through your head:
the universe of matter begins with the largest amount
of energy it will ever have, and ends with that energy
finally running out." So, if you wish to understand the
nature of the universe os matter, you must at least begin
by understanding that, "In the beginning there were bigger
but slower motions which over time evolved into smaller
but faster motions" = inescapable implosion/shrinking.
...
What the universe is telling us is that the forms
of matter are the things which don't really exist
except as "we" portray them as existing (rock-hard,
indestructible, and substantial--yet another purely
merely mental/human prejudice).
Does this seem to you (poor humans) as if what is
really being said here is that Nothing really exists?
This is purely the result of that "mental subroutine
eternal loop" to which our brains cannot so easily
find a work-around (for the simple reason that we have
evolved to believe that what is not matter exists not).
We simply lack a conception of what non-matter energy
is (a conception "solid enough, substantial enough,
material enough, concrete, physical enough") to permit
our "thus-far" evolved five senses to "sense" ENERGY
"there" as clearly, sharply, and as conclusively as "the
marvelous five" can "sense" MATTER. Or, face it: Our so
very human senses evolved to sense matter. Other animals
evolved other senses, of course, senses which we require
instruments to match, such as when migrating animals sense
the earth's magnetic field, etc.).
But just because we humans have a built-in prejudice
against sensing "energy," this doesn't mean that energy
does not have a true existence (even if it's not as a
form of matter, and therefore so very difficult for us
to attribute existence to it). The distinction results
in one critical effect, though: Matter is for a time,
while energy is forever...
We only have the laws of thermodynamics to help us
visualize "the universe of energy," of course. But
that's enough for us to be able to to deduce that
1) if thought of in terms of "force" the universe of
energy must be an anti-gravity force, and,
2) if thought of in terms of "volume" it (the universe
of energy) must also be the opposite of the universe
of matter: While the universe of matter is forever
imploding, the universe of energy can also be spoken of
as "infinite (scalar) mass." ["Mass" here not merely
in the ordinary sense but in the sense used in physics:
"the quantitative measure of inertia; in effect, the
resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in
its speed or position upon the application of a force...
the greater the mass of a body, the smaller the change
produced by an applied force" (e.g. the universe of energy
need NOT even be thought of as "moving" at all--it is
enough that it be thought of as "large enough" to produce
different densities throughout its span). [Please note
this fundamental distinction: It is NOT necessary that
the universe of energy build up to "greater densities" but
ONLY that "lesser densities" be produced: Such a "volume"
of "lesser density" would literally concentrate energy in
itself... which the laws of thermodynamics could then use
to concentrate even more (put to work)... and this would
be the creation/birth of the universe of matter. For this
reason it makes sense to speak of energy as motion (in spite
of the fact that, as I said before, our brains have evolved
to think of motion being impossible without some "thing
of matter" moving).
You must not confuse "the void" with what we now call "outer
space." The former is absolute (it is a distance without end
--because, obviously, it's not a distance between any two or
more things). While the latter is precisely what it's called:
"outer space" (or, the distance(s) between/outside bodies of
matter). And, above all: One must definitely NOT confuse the
distinction between matter and energy as being somehow the
quite arbitrary/artificial distinction we poor humans draw
between the physical and the material on the one hand, and
the "spiritual" on the other: That "spiritual" existence we
have "created" (in our minds) is nothing more than a projection
of our dreams, fears, hopes and desires... of our magalomanias,
hates, and other manias and fallacies--as well as of our guilt.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
PS. I really must post this text (I am an incorrigible
public broadcaster, as you ought to know by now)...
And now, ladies & gentlemen, yet another episode of
LET'S ASK SDR:
Q: Can anyone reverse-engineer the universe?
A: Not me personally. But, I know a guy in Jersey...
Q: You've been accused of biting the hand that feeds'ya.
A: One does not bite the hand that feeds one. One just
keeps putt'n the bite on'is ass.
Q: Is it true that if you spit from a rocket (as your
sole means of propulsion) it takes 400,000 years
to achieve a speed equal to the speed of light?
A: This is something which I have often tested myself,
and it's never taken me longer than 399,987 years.
Q: I don't agree with SDR!
I don't agree: That's how it are!
He speaks & speaks & talks & talks
but I all of his theories mocks!
A: Next question...
Q: Dear SDR, I once caught a bull by its tail--HELP!!!!
Well, I see time's run out. And I must get back
to sleep now. Good night.
- 30 -
>
> ---
> Cogito ergo sum,
> The Bruce
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/