Stuff - How the Big Bang made wrinkly rugs and you

[Cerveny]

Belief in the BB ("immaculate conception" in physics) needs very passionate believers…

If you believe that the universe is expanding, which is by far the most compelling explanation of a whole heap of data, then you too can work out that it used to be smaller. That you can wind back the clock to a time when the universe was very small indeed, is the essence of the big bang theory. By 'immaculate conception' I take it you mean some version according to which the big bang occurred in a vacuum. Perhaps there are some passionate believers of that, but it is only one option, and not the most plausible. I don't know why the big bang happened, I'm just confident that it did.

Amen.
Do elementary particles expand too?

[uwot]

That you can wind back the clock to a time when the universe was very small indeed, is the essence of the big bang theory.

Not very small, but nothing.

Well, as I say:

...it is only one option, and not the most plausible.

Very few people with any real grasp of the matter insist on creation out of nothing. Probably the most famous recent(ish) kerfuffle was the publication of Lawrence Krauss's 'A Universe from Nothing'. That was rightly criticised for being misleading, as the central premise is that the universe comes from some relativistic quantum field, so not really nothing. As it happens, this thread is predicated on a cartoon I created to give the gist of how such a relativistic quantum field works in practise. But as for where that field came from, Krauss doesn't say and I certainly don't know.
Here's the link to the video again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

[bobmax]

That you can wind back the clock to a time when the universe was very small indeed, is the essence of the big bang theory.

Not very small, but nothing.

Well, as I say:

...it is only one option, and not the most plausible.

Very few people with any real grasp of the matter insist on creation out of nothing. Probably the most famous recent(ish) kerfuffle was the publication of Lawrence Krauss's 'A Universe from Nothing'. That was rightly criticised for being misleading, as the central premise is that the universe comes from some relativistic quantum field, so not really nothing. As it happens, this thread is predicated on a cartoon I created to give the gist of how such a relativistic quantum field works in practise. But as for where that field came from, Krauss doesn't say and I certainly don't know.
Here's the link to the video again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

If, as you said, the fields are fundamental, then it can be seen that, for the electromagnetic field, our space-time universe is only a point.

That is, there are neither spatial nor temporal dimensions.

For the photon, time and space do not exist.

[uwot]

Do elementary particles expand too?

Well, now you're asking. I happen to think that Lawrence Krauss is on the money (See above). I also think that since elementary particles are probably made of the same stuff as the expanding universe, then in a sense they are expanding. Having said that, what we identify as elementary particles are points or patterns in an expanding field, and in that sense do not expand. Have a look at the video, you'll see what I mean.

[uwot]

If, as you said, the fields are fundamental, then it can be seen that, for the electromagnetic field, our space-time universe is only a point.

Not seeing it bobmax. A field pretty much by definition is at least several points.

That is, there are neither spatial nor temporal dimensions.

Well if you have only two points there is at least one spatial dimension that separates them, and unless you can travel at infinite velocity, it will take time to pass from one to the other.

For the photon, time and space do not exist.

What are you saying here? Do you think that photons are capable of experiencing time and space in a way we would recognise, but they just happen not to? There are two key events that bookend a photons existence: emission and absorption. In between a photon can experience acceleration due to refraction or gravity, (I happen to think gravity is refraction, and wouldn't you know it? There's a video about that too: https://youtu.be/nOw_TT79reI ) so things happen to photons.

[bobmax]

Well if you have only two points there is at least one spatial dimension that separates them, and unless you can travel at infinite velocity, it will take time to pass from one to the other.

For the photon, time and space do not exist.

What are you saying here? Do you think that photons are capable of experiencing time and space in a way we would recognise, but they just happen not to? There are two key events that bookend a photons existence: emission and absorption.

This from our point of view.

But from the point of view of the photon, it has already arrived by the time it left.
The billions of years since the big bang for the photon have never been and the size of the universe is still that dimensionless point.

The photon announces the Nothing.

On the other hand, where is the universe if not in the Nothing?

[Cerveny]

The word nothing should not belong into physics. A nothing does not define anythig and it does not determine itself againt anything. Does the empty set contain a nothing? Does the nothing belong in everything? Hegel uderstanded this category as an unspecified/general being/existence.

[bobmax]

The word nothing should not belong into physics. A nothing does not define anythig and it does not determine itself againt anything. Does the empty set contain a nothing? Does the nothing belong in everything? Hegel uderstanded this category as an unspecified/general being/existence.

You're right, but physics can't stand on its own.

Its foundations are necessarily metaphysical.

And metaphysics must always be kept in mind, on pain of falling into scientistic superstition.

[Cerveny]

The word nothing should not belong into physics. A nothing does not define anythig and it does not determine itself againt anything. Does the empty set contain a nothing? Does the nothing belong in everything? Hegel uderstanded this category as an unspecified/general being/existence.

You're right, but physics can't stand on its own.

Its foundations are necessarily metaphysical.

And metaphysics must always be kept in mind, on pain of falling into scientistic superstition.

Well, metaphysics. Thus, at BB, the sperm of (Plato's) idea/order (the Future?) touched the timeless, formless, disordered metamatter and inserted the DNA (structure of elementary particles) of our world into it. This was the beginning of the growth/condensation/crystallization of our universe. Matter, real elementary particles are defects (eg dislocations) in the structure of (empty) physical space, caused by growth irregularities and coalesces. Antiparticles are uniformly dispersed in space. They don't clump together, do repulse themselve (cosmological constant?).
PS (:sorry but the bottle is empty:)

[Harbal]

Well, metaphysics. Thus, at BB, the sperm of (Plato's) idea/order (the Future?) touched the timeless, formless, disordered metamatter and inserted the DNA (structure of elementary particles) of our world into it. This was the beginning of the growth/condensation/crystallization of our universe. Matter, real elementary particles are defects (eg dislocations) in the structure of (empty) physical space, caused by growth irregularities and coalesces. Antiparticles are uniformly dispersed in space. They don't clump together, do repulse themselve (cosmological constant?).
PS (:sorry but the bottle is empty:)

But it obviously wasn't to begin with.

[bobmax]

The word nothing should not belong into physics. A nothing does not define anythig and it does not determine itself againt anything. Does the empty set contain a nothing? Does the nothing belong in everything? Hegel uderstanded this category as an unspecified/general being/existence.

You're right, but physics can't stand on its own.

Its foundations are necessarily metaphysical.

And metaphysics must always be kept in mind, on pain of falling into scientistic superstition.

Well, metaphysics. Thus, at BB, the sperm of (Plato's) idea/order (the Future?) touched the timeless, formless, disordered metamatter and inserted the DNA (structure of elementary particles) of our world into it. This was the beginning of the growth/condensation/crystallization of our universe. Matter, real elementary particles are defects (eg dislocations) in the structure of (empty) physical space, caused by growth irregularities and coalesces. Antiparticles are uniformly dispersed in space. They don't clump together, do repulse themselve (cosmological constant?).
PS (:sorry but the bottle is empty:)

Metaphysics has nothing to do with what you say.

Metaphysics is much simpler.

For example, a metaphysical question asks where the universe is, in what place it is.

And the answer can only be that the universe is in Nothingness.

But those who do not realize how indispensable metaphysics is, then they imagine something else, perhaps multi-universe.
But they do nothing but flee in order not to face the metaphysical question.

Incidentally, the term "metaphysics" comes from Aristotle.

[Age]

The word nothing should not belong into physics. A nothing does not define anythig and it does not determine itself againt anything.

But 'it' does.

The word 'nothing' refers to that area between matter. And, 'nothing' so-call determines itself against the other 'thing' known as 'matter', or 'something'.

The word 'Everything' includes what is generally known as 'something' AND 'nothing'.

The two HAVE TO co-exist together. Or, more correctly, they HAVE TO co-exist for a 'thing', to come into existence, which could contemplate these 'things'.

Does the empty set contain a nothing? Does the nothing belong in everything?

There is obviously a 'nothing' in between or around 'matter', otherwise there would only be just ONE piece of matter, and just as obvious, there is NOT.

Hegel uderstanded this category as an unspecified/general being/existence.

[Age]

The word nothing should not belong into physics. A nothing does not define anythig and it does not determine itself againt anything. Does the empty set contain a nothing? Does the nothing belong in everything? Hegel uderstanded this category as an unspecified/general being/existence.

You're right, but physics can't stand on its own.

Its foundations are necessarily metaphysical.

And metaphysics must always be kept in mind, on pain of falling into scientistic superstition.

Well, metaphysics. Thus, at BB, the sperm of (Plato's) idea/order (the Future?) touched the timeless, formless, disordered metamatter and inserted the DNA (structure of elementary particles) of our world into it. This was the beginning of the growth/condensation/crystallization of our universe.

When, and if, people rid "themselves" of that out-dated PRESUMPTION that the Universe began, then they are much better equipped to be able to look at and see things for how they really are.

Matter, real elementary particles are defects (eg dislocations) in the structure of (empty) physical space, caused by growth irregularities and coalesces. Antiparticles are uniformly dispersed in space. They don't clump together, do repulse themselve (cosmological constant?).
PS (:sorry but the bottle is empty:)

[Age]

You're right, but physics can't stand on its own.

Its foundations are necessarily metaphysical.

And metaphysics must always be kept in mind, on pain of falling into scientistic superstition.

Well, metaphysics. Thus, at BB, the sperm of (Plato's) idea/order (the Future?) touched the timeless, formless, disordered metamatter and inserted the DNA (structure of elementary particles) of our world into it. This was the beginning of the growth/condensation/crystallization of our universe. Matter, real elementary particles are defects (eg dislocations) in the structure of (empty) physical space, caused by growth irregularities and coalesces. Antiparticles are uniformly dispersed in space. They don't clump together, do repulse themselve (cosmological constant?).
PS (:sorry but the bottle is empty:)

Metaphysics has nothing to do with what you say.

Metaphysics is much simpler.

For example, a metaphysical question asks where the universe is, in what place it is.

And the answer can only be that the universe is in Nothingness.

The Universe is NOT in 'Nothingness'.

The Universe is made up of, or contains, just two most basic fundamental 'things'. They are; 'matter', or what is sometimes known as 'some thing' AND 'space', what can be known as 'no thing' or 'nothingness'. For there to be 'any thing', like there is when this is being written, there HAS TO be the these two 'things' co-existing.

But those who do not realize how indispensable metaphysics is, then they imagine something else, perhaps multi-universe.
But they do nothing but flee in order not to face the metaphysical question.

The irrefutable answer to the questions, 'Where is the Universe?' Or, In what place is the Universe?' is known when what the Universe is fundamentally made up of and how the Universe works, exactly, are also known.

Incidentally, the term "metaphysics" comes from Aristotle.

Is this an irrefutable Fact, or what was just said to be true?

[Age]

Belief in the BB ("immaculate conception" in physics) needs very passionate believers…

If you believe that the universe is expanding, which is by far the most compelling explanation of a whole heap of data,

LOL The universe is expanding explanation, from a so-called 'whole heap of data', is as compelling an explanation as the sun revolves around earth, from the 'whole heap of data' that those people were 'using'.

The universe is expanding is NOT the most compelling explanation, from the ACTUAL 'data' AT ALL.

But, in the days when this was being written, there were those people who BELIEVED that an 'expanding universe' was the 'most compelling explanation', just like there were those people who BELIEVED that the 'sun revolved around the earth' was also the 'most compelling explanation'.

Some people really did NOT like to look at things from any other perspective other than from the perspective from their OWN thoughts, beliefs, and/or assumptions.

then you too can work out that it used to be smaller.

This should have been a SURE SIGN to NOT take seriously the universe is expanding explanation, but obviously some people really did.

That you can wind back the clock to a time when the universe was very small indeed, is the essence of the big bang theory.

And that 'essence' of that 'theory' should have triggered those people into the absurdity of that idea. Instead that ridiculous notion actually made some people BELIEVE their OWN assumptions and beliefs more.

By 'immaculate conception' I take it you mean some version according to which the big bang occurred in a vacuum. Perhaps there are some passionate believers of that, but it is only one option, and not the most plausible.

What are the other options, and, what is the most plausible one to you?

Let us SEE just how much you really know, and what you will really share with us.

I don't know why the big bang happened, I'm just confident that it did.

Why the so-called 'big bang' happened is for the exact same reason why ALL of the other 'bangs' happen.

They are ALL just a very natural and normal part of the way the Universe actually and irrefutably works.

They happen because there is NO way that they could not have happened and will continue to happen.

They happen because this is HOW the Universe actually works.