Well, thank you for finally looking at it.
Yes and no. We agree on this and we don't agree on this. Let me explain.
I began a prior diagram using the Big Bang 'material' origin because of the initial confusion I had of the theory when I first heard of it. (or at least first begun to think deeper on it.)
What confused me was how I kept hearing of some specific number (quantity) of something existed of what we collectively call matter and energy yet couldn't figure out how this fixed number required to be conserved for all time yet we had something called a beginning. For now, to be fair to my thinking back then, I understood matter versus energy in the same way the ancients thought of at least two distinct forms of matter (the word matter suggests "anything that matters
So the contradiction is: that if all that matters in reality has and will always be considered to remain the same, how could we have any beginning at all such that there was a time that had nothing that matters.
We know that matter is just a form of energy by E = mc²
. Although I figured this out in a different way, I'm using this as a 'fact' we can share as true without delving into that personally. So let us just use the single word 'energy' or E
to represent the collective meaning of both matter and energy. Then, in general, the fact is that ...
Total E is conserved in the Universe.....It is one finite quantity
So, If we have an origin, we went from at least some relative Nothing to a sudden fixed positive number of Something. That means logically,
If Something is true, then Nothing was true [at some 'original' time]. This is contradictory and unsettled my mind.
To add to this confusion is that space expanded
yet was considered as a 'nothing' itself. What is it supposed to mean that something that doesn't exist has some magic spirit of its own that parts Energy? I felt this was a cheat to grant this 'nothing' as what originates and grows yet that fixed E is there all along. And then why do we define matter as something that OCCUPIES space if space is what all that is being added.
I drew the first image above with the matter singularity ONLY as:
And so I was beginning with the kind of assumption the Big Bang was saying had to be the case. The 'T=0' was the singularity with the fixed quantity of E
which what you might think of as prior to something that 'occupies' space that wasn't there. The red squares I treated as this E
and the spaces as space.
This is why I later added the other point and called it "-0" such that all E, [I pretended the four blocks, A, B, C, and D as this conserved amount]. The "T = -0
" would have this number
of stuff without space. But if that was the case, what is that 'fixed' amount of E
mean without space.
When you try to alter one interpretation to repair
this mess, you do it by sacrificing something else. If 'space' begun at some time, then space has two distinct kinds of meaning to "nothing", one Relative and one non-Relative (and possibly absolute if there were still other parallel worlds we can't see.)
You can also think of each, energy, time, and space as three distinct kinds of nothing as well. So everything can be of one thing but only of different "dimensions" distinctly.
It gets more confusing. But the point is that the 'origin' means nothing only if it is treated as meaning nothing. Thus, given 'existence' that we are a function of, requires coming out of an absolute nothing in totality. That is, if you take in all the universe and include even any possible "other" places, then anything that 'is' is a DYNAMIC concept to us. So because we can't escape from it, from our perspective, there is not such thing as a non-time.
We have to treat that T=-0 singularity concept as an APPROACH to a point that "never" was but that nevertheless binds
us as the infinitesimal real numbers between any finites.
It also means that the 'state' of reality is "Steady", even if it appears
to us to converge, similar to the vanishing perspective of parallel lines going off in the distance.
I'm not sure why you seem at odds before, but you seem to agree that the origin concept is an illusion. But that the confusion is contradictory suggests further that "contradiction" (a state of at least a third factor), like 0, 1, and ∞
, IS the 'causal' force
of nature. And using this, it overrides the 'limitation' theorems to nature. An origin in an absolute state of nothing for Totality as a whole is the only 'point' that can 'originate'. But it is everywhere...and why I also have the other two threads tied in to this. Nature has its cake and eats it too.
One last point...another way of interpreting expansion is this:
This is another way of showing the same conflict by treating the Universe being one unit conserved that contains (bounded) reality. But note if the Big Bang interpretation is a better explanation in fact, than this shows that you can fix space as conserved but matter as 'shrinking' towards nothing! It works but lacks a means to explain as well as a Steady State type cosmologies.
So now are we in agreement with this?
By the way, if you want, I can explain the T = 1
to T = 3
part if you'd like. Just let me know.