Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent

The big bang is not so much an explosion, but a giant rapid expansion of spacetime itself.

The bing bang is also seperate from biogenesis.

Originally posted by Alliance
The bing bang is also seperate from biogenesis.

Serious question here from someone who doesn't follow astronomy. Was that a typo or a new term? If the latter, I like the name!

the explosion came from a singularity. A single tiny point infinitely small containing all the matter and energy in the universe.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine


hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent



I always maintained the idea that space was infinite, because time is.

If the universe began at a definitive point in time, there was obviously something before.

-AC

Relative to the stuff in the universe, the universe is the same size always, because we expand as it does.

The Big Bang is the theory of how the universe came to be. It is a "rip" in spacetime that expanded rapidly. I'm not sure whether it will expand forever or won't, in theory, it shouldn't because energy cannot be destroyed, so where would it go? If it did stop expanding, then it would just contract into itself.

These are all just my opinions though.

Quantum mechanics states that the vacuum of space (ie, our familiar spacetime) is seething and roiling with energy: random vacuum fluctuations. It has been theorized that the Big Bang was nothing more than a "giant" random vacuum fluctuation in a much, much larger space: a "false vacuum" seeking a lower, more stable energy state.

Currently it is postulated that our universe will expand forever at an ever-accelerating rate until it is trillions upon trillions of times its present age. At this point, all entities (eg, protons, black holes) will have "dissolved" back into the false vacuum.

It has also been theorized that, just as our universe is filled with countless and unceasing vacuum fluctuations, so is this immense false vacuum filled with countless, supersized vacuum fluctuations, some of which produce more universes (just as the vacuum fluctuations in our spacetime produce virtual particles).

Originally posted by botankus
Serious question here from someone who doesn't follow astronomy. Was that a typo or a new term? If the latter, I like the name!

Sorry, that was a typo. It does have a ring to it.

LOL I agree , bing bang!!!

I always thought the Big Bang came around originally due to the four forces. Inevitably happening after they grew to powerful (pent up) within the singularity.

Bing Bang came first, and as the initial "superforce" cooled, phase transitions differentiated the four forces, much like cracks appearing as water phase-transitions (freezes) into ice.

You can't say the big bang came first.

There was something before it.

-AC

The false vacuum.

Originally posted by Mindship
The false vacuum.

Before that? There was always something.

The idea that time could ever definitively begin is flawed.

-AC

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine


hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent


ok,
it is said that the big bang is the result of a hyper-concentrated "egg"(for lack of a better term) containing all the energy and matter in the present universe, it is also said that time started together with the big bang because, there was nothing to measure with it, which doesn't mean it all suddenly came into existance.

your second question is a bit tougher: it would depend on the form matter adopted after the explosion, and the amount of matter and energy in space, if there's too much matter, the universe will shrink again to an enormously dense "egg", if there's not enough matter, the universe will grow forever, and if there's a certain exact amount of matter, the "growth of the universe will eventually stop and will remain the same size.

and the last question really depends on your definition of "universe" if by universe, you mean the total space used by matter, or if you mean everything there is, but i honestly don't know n_n

The false vacuum theory is what you get if you rely WHOLLY on quantum mechanics... No reletivity or modern advancements at all.

It's often speculated that the big bang was not really an explosion, but the expansion and cooling of a quantum singularity (a point of infinite mass and density), like those supposedly thought to be at the centers of black holes.

There are many theories stating whether the univerese will expand forever, or whether it is either expanding or contracting back into itself, once again returning to its original infinite state, until it begins its expansion and cooling once more. My guess is we'll probably never really know unless we could travel at faster-than-light speeds, such as traveling through the fabric of space or whatnot, which is also being experimented with at the moment. The most we can do until then is develop more powerful telescopes, and keep looking deeper into the universe, but from a distance, like a celestial stalker.

Bring on the Big Crunch!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Before that? There was always something.

The idea that time could ever definitively begin is flawed.
Yarr, I see what you're saying. I agree: there had to be Always Something.

Yup. And it certainly doesn't touch on any religious, mystical or metaphysical dimensions, either.

It's a lot easier to just say god did it. ha.

Originally posted by Blaxican
It's a lot easier to just say god did it. ha.

That's true, but even that leaves plenty of holes to fill in. Human biengs are a curious race. We follow a endless chain of cause and effect. I doubt saying God did it will stop people from learning how he did it. If he did it that is.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine


hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent




1.) From what I can remember The Big Bang was a supersymmetical microsingularity unified under all of the field forces we find in the present day universe. The explosion disrupted the bond between these forces and caused the expansion of elementry particles. Bonding, these particles created Stars, other anomalies and celestial objects.

2.) I suppose you are reffering to the expansion of our universe correct? There are two answers to this question actually. The ending would be the Big Crunch where the universe contracts and collapses into a fiery catyclysm. The universe could also go on expanding forever and ever. Of course niether of the two are better than the other. We either die being incinerated or frozen to death. If the human race lives long enough to witness this that is.

3.) What is beyond our universe? To tell you the truth many people don't know. We can speculate on things like the multiverse and parallel universes/realities, but one of the most interesting hypotheses is the concept of "universe budding." We could have been a bubble of false vaccum that split from a much larger universe or universes. In essence we grew from the seed of another plant.

The Big Shrink! It's the day the universe will stop expanding and will shrink back down to the size of a pen top, the very opposite of the Big Bang. Is this what will most likely end our universe? Or is it something else.

Another question, some where out there, are the conditions right for another Big Bang and if there is, what will happen to us?

Technically, the thread title should be "Big Bang Theory Questions."

Perhaps time never begun exactly.

If time had a beginning then there was a t=0 in the universe like a first instant of time. But when we are talking about that first instant we are ignoring quantum mechanics.

I mean, when we put quantum mechanics in, then we have to agree that we cannot define a precise begining for time. There is no t=0 since the uncertainty principle will not allow us to define a precise instant at which time begun.

So I think we would fall in the false vacuum thing and the string theory.

How reading some of your posts is quite interesting. I've always been amazed by the question of: 1.) What caused the Big Bang? 2.) What actually existed prior to the Big Bang? The question of what will eventually happen to the universe is not as intiuguing to me because humankind will have LOOOOOONG since been extint so the question itself is moot.

I agree that SOMETHING needed to exist before the Big Bang. Time itself could not have come into existence from nothingness??!!

One the most intersting theories i've heard recently coming out from the scientific community is that physicists are now therizing that our universe may in fact just be one universe floating like a bubble among an ocean of universes!!! WOW That, to me, is Mind-Blowing!!!!

Originally posted by King Nothing
The Big Shrink! It's the day the universe will stop expanding and will shrink back down to the size of a pen top, the very opposite of the Big Bang. Is this what will most likely end our universe? Or is it something else.

Another question, some where out there, are the conditions right for another Big Bang and if there is, what will happen to us?

Some believe there are Big Bangs occuring every other day in some far distant universe. Nothing will happen to us. I believe by the time the universe freezes or contracts the human race would already be nonexistant.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Perhaps time never begun exactly.

If time had a beginning then there was a t=0 in the universe like a first instant of time. But when we are talking about that first instant we are ignoring quantum mechanics.

I mean, when we put quantum mechanics in, then we have to agree that we cannot define a precise begining for time. There is no t=0 since the uncertainty principle will not allow us to define a precise instant at which time begun.

So I think we would fall in the false vacuum thing and the string theory.

Agreed and this ties into what I stated with a "budding universe."

scientists in jersey actually recreated the big bang, to a degree, by colliding gold particles at 99%C. the effect is temperatures so hot that matter reverts to "gluons", which apparently haven't existed since the first hundreth of a second in our universe. i guess a side effect is four-dimensional micro black holes (???)

i think the only thing we learned from that experiment is that the universe was initially in a liquid state, not solid or gas as previously assumed.

Well thats just wrong. Gluons actively hold quarks together. Last time I checked, protons and neutrons were still around, meaning gluons are as well.

I also think the initial state of the universe was plasma, not liquid.

that's what the article said. if gluons hold quarks together, they're the smallest known form of matter, right? the heat forced everything to come undone to it's basic state, which was gluons and one other "on" i don't recall.

and apparently it was liquid. it was in scientific american or something similar about a month ago. i'm sure if you googled "new jersey big bang experiment" something would come up.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well thats just wrong. Gluons actively hold quarks together. Last time I checked, protons and neutrons were still around, meaning gluons are as well.

I also think the initial state of the universe was plasma, not liquid.


Agreed. The Initial state of the universe was way to hot for any of the particles to combine. They were immediately annihilated, heck even light was torn apart. I don't think it could have existed in a liquid state. Plasma makes more sense.

Originally posted by manorastroman
that's what the article said. if gluons hold quarks together, they're the smallest known form of matter, right? the heat forced everything to come undone to it's basic state, which was gluons and one other "on" i don't recall.

Yeah, the smallest "known" form of matter. I'm sure if we ever get around to building a supercollider we can find particles much smaller.

apparently we are getting around to building a supercollider. it's underneath the franco-swiss border and cost three billion euros.

Originally posted by manorastroman
apparently we are getting around to building a supercollider. it's underneath the franco-swiss border and cost three billion euros.

Cool.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Before that? There was always something.

The idea that time could ever definitively begin is flawed.

-AC

but that something is undefineable -- in every conceiveable way. and i don't think that a 'beginning to time' is flawed. neither does stephen hawking. for time to 'pass' space needs to exist, relations need to exist. if we were somehow able to look beyond the big bang to . . . whatever nothingness existed, THEN time would exist because there would be an observer to measure it -- something in relation to the 'nothingness'.

Originally posted by leonidas
but that something is undefineable -- in every conceiveable way. and i don't think that a 'beginning to time' is flawed. neither does stephen hawking. for time to 'pass' space needs to exist, relations need to exist. if we were somehow able to look beyond the big bang to . . . whatever nothingness existed, THEN time would exist because there would be an observer to measure it -- something in relation to the 'nothingness'.

There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?

It's a flawed concept.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?

It's a flawed concept.

-AC
It's not a quantity, as I said above; it's a relative dimension.

Time isn't definite, it's sequential and it has to do with our universe in question when it was created, it had four unique dimensions. Such a concept demands a reference point in spacial time. We can describe reference frames in three dimensions and time as the fourth. You cannot describe nothingness; time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.

Originally posted by DarkC
You cannot describe nothingness; time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.

That's entirely false. If nothingness existed before the big bang, and time didn't exist, time couldn't pass. If time couldn't pass, nothingness couldn't have and the big bang wouldn't have happened at all.

Just because the concept of measuring time didn't exist, doesn't mean time didn't.

The concept of measured time is the most flawed idea ever, because a human mind simply decided how we perceive time, we have no basis on how accurate it is.

-AC

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar

3.) What is beyond our universe? To tell you the truth many people don't know. We can speculate on things like the multiverse and parallel universes/realities, but one of the most interesting hypotheses is the concept of "universe budding." We could have been a bubble of false vaccum that split from a much larger universe or universes. In essence we grew from the seed of another plant. That's slightly what I think, but I see it more along the lines of our 3D universe is a rip from a 2D universe. And a rip from our universe would make a 4D universe. etc.

When you boil it all down, it makes sense to think something existed before for the "Big Bang" because we can't imagine absolute nothingness, even the vacuum of space is something. The question is where,when, what and how did this whatever it was begin?

And even then, what was before THAT?

It's just a dumb theory to say there was nothing.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And even then, what was before THAT?

It's just a dumb theory to say there was nothing.

-AC

I tend to agree, but the question is how did this first "thing" (for lack of a better word) begin itsef or was there ever a beginning?

We can't imagine absolute nothingness and be can't imagine something not having a beginning.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded.
-AC

Infinity isn't forever thought, infitity is in a fact a finite number. It is part of the Rational numbers, its finite. In philosophy we attribute it to space and time. So are you saying that everything existed, before anything was created?

Originally posted by Ravencrest
Infinity isn't forever thought, infitity is in a fact a finite number. It is part of the Rational numbers, its finite. In philosophy we attribute it to space and time. So are you saying that everything existed, before anything was created?

Infinity is finite? Is that seriously the route you...wish to take in this debate? Because it begins and ends there, as it's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. What...you know, I'm not even going to ask how you arrived at that conclusion, or how it even left the house.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there was always something before. Saying there was just nothing before the big bang is dumb.

It's as dumb as saying "There's no God.". I'm agnostic, I don't know if there is or not, but in everything that exists, everything that we don't know or will ever know, it's more realistic to say "There might be a higher presence." than to say there's definitely nothing.

The same applies here. To say "Nah, was nothing before.", is just stupid. How do you know that? It's a theory, nothing more. Nothing supporting it.

-AC

I'm mathematically correct, so you don't have to get angry. Plus, I never said said "nothing existed" it appears I didn't take a steadfast I rather was trying to figure out your argument. So calm down, and don't call people simple-minded and such, because being in this thread and asking questions is in essence the peak of human evolution.

Originally posted by Ravencrest
because being in this thread and asking questions is in essence the peak of human evolution.

It's not, is it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?

It's a flawed concept.

-AC

heheh. you're a smart guy, ac, and what's more you're arguing a point that cannot truly be refuted.

modern theory says that our universe was created by the collision of a brane in m-space. if that's the case time didn't start in our universe until the big bang, but it WOULD have existed prior to the singularity of the big bang in 'other universes'.

if no collision occurred -- ie., if nothing led to the singularity except . . . chance? divine intervention? then this becomes a linguistic paradox. we are speculating on concepts that cannot be conceptualized much less expressed in words. you're saying nothing existed, and because that nothingness "passed", there MUST have been time.

nothingness -> singularity = passage of time.

that's a common interpretation, and it's impossible to say you are wrong. it is equally impossible to say WE are wrong. after all, if no big bang had ever occurred, we would never have anything to measure against. you're measuring the passing of your nothingness against what? the eventual big bang, which coincidentally is also the start of time.

and if there was no big bang? there would be an unchanging (theoretically) . . . something/nothing, and within it there would be no way to tell one instant was ever, in anyway, different from another. if we cannot perceive any change at all, we can say no time has passed.

the concept of time is subjective, not absolute. at light speed, time ceases to exist to the entity travelling at c. if it can be non-existent within the universe, why not outside?

ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing.

Originally posted by leonidas
heheh. you're a smart guy, ac, and what's more you're arguing a point that cannot truly be refuted.

modern theory says that our universe was created by the collision of a brane in m-space. if that's the case time didn't start in our universe until the big bang, but it WOULD have existed prior to the singularity of the big bang in 'other universes'.

if no collision occurred -- ie., if nothing led to the singularity except . . . chance? divine intervention? then this becomes a linguistic paradox. we are speculating on concepts that cannot be conceptualized much less expressed in words. you're saying nothing existed, and because that nothingness "passed", there MUST have been time.

nothingness -> singularity = passage of time.

that's a common interpretation, and it's impossible to say you are wrong. it is equally impossible to say WE are wrong. after all, if no big bang had ever occurred, we would never have anything to measure against. you're measuring the passing of your nothingness against what? the eventual big bang, which coincidentally is also the start of time.

and if there was no big bang? there would be an unchanging (theoretically) . . . something/nothing, and within it there would be no way to tell one instant was ever, in anyway, different from another. if we cannot perceive any change at all, we can say no time has passed.

the concept of time is subjective, not absolute. at light speed, time ceases to exist to the entity travelling at c. if it can be non-existent within the universe, why not outside?

ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing. thumbup1

Originally posted by leonidas
ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing.

Originally posted by Robtard
We can't imagine absolute nothingness and we can't imagine something not having a beginning.

Agree; because we can't imagine nothingness...

the devil invented time....and she wears prada.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agree; because we can't imagine nothingness...

you're probably right, but that isn't what i was saying. i was saying we can't imagine what existed before the big bang. say nothingness, most people will think of a white room, or a black one -- they will compare 'emptiness' to nothingness. that is also incorrect. nothingness and emptiness only exist in relation to 'something'. there IS no 'something' before the big bang, consequently, there could be no 'nothing'.

there is just pre-big bang, and post-big bang.

That's true.

People confuse emptiness with nothingness.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's true.

People confuse emptiness with nothingness.

-AC

After reading through this thread, I've learned a lot of pretty cool information, but have a question of my own...

How can you guys actually be arguing over something that mankind can't even comprehend and has no way of really, truly finding out? Everything in this thread is theoretical; one can not sit here and say "you're wrong." This is not an argument with a definite answer, it's more a discussion regarding feasible theories associated with the beginning of our universe.

I find it remarkable that you guys actually manage to tell other people they're wrong about this stuff, as if there's a definite answer, even one that's attainable by mankind.

I'm not telling anybody they are wrong.

Someone here simply doesn't understand, or know how to understand, my subjective beliefs or why I hold them. So he keeps on and on, assuming I'm the one with the faulty beliefs simply because he has difficulty perceiving mine, other's don't.

-AC

BIG BANG ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!

whats that theory where they say all of the continents used to be one?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
whats that theory where they say all of the continents used to be one?

Pangea/Pangaea

yeah. thats kinda far fetched, dont you think?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yeah. thats kinda far fetched, dont you think?

Actually the evidence is quite extensive.

Identical landforms on continents sperated by huge oceans. The continents actually do fit together rather well. There is evidence of contintental drift. Without the Pangea theory migrations of animals would have required hundreds of spontaneous landbridges between continents.

i know all the facts, the name just slipped my mind. it just seems a bit out there, you know? i guess there are stranger things out there than the idea of all continents once being one.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i know all the facts, the name just slipped my mind. it just seems a bit out there, you know? i guess there are stranger things out there than the idea of all continents once being one.

Its an odd concept yeah.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its an odd concept yeah.
it makes you wonder what the world will look like a million years from now, if it is even around.

Regarding continental drift...

It's really not that odd when you think about it. Ever eat chocolate pudding? You know the skin that forms on top? Think of that as one big continent floating on top of the warmer liquid underneath, just as Pangea used to float (and the continents still float) atop the liquid mantle underneath. The difference is that while the bottom of your dessert dish has no active, heat-generating core, the Earth does. The heat causes plumes of mantle to rise to the surface, pushing things apart, or forcing them together, wherein cooled rock then decends back down toward the Earth's core. A lava lamp would be another nice example of this action.

Everything moves, everything changes, but it's virtually impossible to see what planets and stars are doing on a human timescale.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
So should we discard every thing that is not measurable even if its necessary for science to make sense, or are they can be real in some way ? I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.

Originally posted by Mindship
I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.

I agree, immeasurable does not necessarily mean unreal, so I vote for real in some way too. A bit off-topic but that is what I think Bohm was thinking when he defined his 'implicate order' in his interpretation of quantum mechanics. He used that to say that there were hidden variables but that they were implicate instead of inexistent.

Originally posted by Mindship
I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.

Originally posted by leonidas
gotta be careful with that line of thinking . . .

galileo and st augustine may disagree with you.

One of which is a TOTAL Moron !

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I always maintained the idea that space was infinite, because time is.

If the universe began at a definitive point in time, there was obviously something before.

-AC

I disagree with the notion of time being Infinite ! Time doesn't exist when there is no matter. Time is a consequence of entropy effects on light. These effects no longer occur inside a Black hole where Time is predicted to be frozen.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
One of which is a TOTAL Moron !

and yet still a suitable example.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
I disagree with the notion of time being Infinite ! Time doesn't exist when there is no matter. Time is a consequence of entropy effects on light. These effects no longer occur inside a Black hole where Time is predicted to be frozen.

Predicted to be frozen from an outside observer. The actual person experiencing it moves as if time was flowing naturally. If you mean the center of it, well, then it's only a prediction.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They can't prove nothing existed, and as a result, I don't believe it's true.

That sentence at a stroke totally destoryed your credibility. One of the most basic principles of science is that it is not its job to prove people's random beliefs wrong.

Not that it was necessary to destroy your credibility, though, with a clueless amateur like you dismissing the views of people eminently more qualified and competent to speak on the matter.

Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That sentence at a stroke totally destoryed your credibility.

To whom? You? Woe betide, mine life hath screeched to a halt, or in simple terms:

"Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.".

Originally posted by Ushgarak
One of the most basic principles of science is that it is not its job to prove people's random beliefs wrong.

The fact that it hasn't proven my random belief wrong is the point, though. It has proven, quite clearly; possibilities. Many things are possible, doesn't necessarily mean we have to believe them does it?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not that it was necessary to destroy your credibility, though, with a clueless amateur like you dismissing the views of people eminently more qualified and competent to speak on the matter.

Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.

Hold on there, R-ush (Cos you rushed into it, sounds similar and that).

I didn't dismiss anyone's views. I said I disagree. I have no problem with anybody holding an opposing view to me here, nothing DarkC has said about proven suggestions is incorrect, I said that we both hold beliefs that cannot be proven. His has suggestions, so what? As I said before, we both take leaps of faith. He has been given a few breadcrumbs and is making the leap, I'm making the leap anyway.

The fact of the matter is that I have openly admitted there are people better qualified to speak on it than I am, so you coming in here with that pretentious, old and bitter school principal attitude, trying to spank me on the wrist with a ruler for saying things in a manner you dislike, is for nothing. You wanted to come in here and blast me for not having any proof didn't you? Then you realised I never claimed to, and that it was, indeed, just a personal belief. Thus unintentionally stealing any thunder you had.

Calm down next time.

-AC

To who? To ANY reasonable scientist, who knows this basic rule- you do not prove negatives. You prove things positive. If you don't know that, you shouldn't even be taking part in any thread remotely connected with science.

Hence it not having proved you wrong is not the point. What very much IS the point that your statement that it is somehow impossible for there to be a beginning to time is utter nonsense. It is in fact entirely possible (or at least feasible), so your broad declaration of such an idea being definitely wrong is utter hogwash backed by no evidence at all. If you want to knock down the idea of time hving a beginning- and the Big ban being it- put forward some evidence to support your view, or falsify a working theory already advanced in that area. Your argument boils down to "I don't understand how it would work so it must be wrong." The kind of wisdom from the dark ages, not a scientific world.

If my attitude is bitter, it is because your approach is the same as religious fantatics who deny established scientific areas. That always makes me bitter because it is so very very stupid. And your attacks on scientists in your posts rather put the lie to your attempts to sound innocent.

Your belief is worth nothing against the work of proper science.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
To who? To ANY reasonable scientist, who knows this basic rule- you do not prove negatives. You prove things positive. If you don't know that, you shouldn't even be taking part in any thread remotely connected with science.

A) You're not any reasonable scientist, you're a literacy teacher from Chelmsford. There are people far more qualified to tell me I've lost credibility than you, so in that event; Let a scientist come and tell me I'm wrong, and I will say "Fine, I accept you believe that.". There are people massively qualified in science who probably agree with me.

B) Now what's been proven positive? That there was nothing before the big bang?

Go on. Try and finish the question and see what you find.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hence it not having proved you wrong is not the point. What very much IS the point that your statement that it is somehow impossible for there to be a beginning to time is utter nonsense. It is in fact entirely possible, so your broad declaration of such an idea being deinitely wrong is utter hogwash backed by no evidence at all.

Hmm? It's possible for there to be a beginning to time if there was nothing before, but that's only if you believe there was nothing before, which I don't. Bitten as you are about this, my entirely "random belief" can't be proven wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If my attitude is bitter, it is because your approach is the same as religious fantastics who deny established scientific areas. That always makes me bitter because it is so very very stupid.

I'm not denying the possibility, I'm saying that in coinciding with my belief, it's not possible for there to be a beginning to time, if what I believe is true.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you want to knock down the idea of time hving a beginning- and the Big ban being it- put forward some evidence to support your view, or falsify a working theory already advanced in that area. Your argument boils down to "I don't understand how it would work so it must be wrong." The kind of wisdom from the dark ages, not a scientific world.

Go find the page, post and quote where I said I wanted to knock down the idea of a beginning to time.

Because I swear I just said I didn't believe there was one, not that anything else was wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your belief is worth nothing against the work of proper science.

Who's saying it is? Stop rushing into things, you're being silly.

-AC

AC, a ten year old can understand that very basic principle of science, that you do not prove negatives. All you show by not knowing that is extreme ignorance of basic scientific principle. I don't need to be a phD to know that; I certainly have the training required to understand the principle. As does any rational or reasonable person.

Your question about 'what has been proven positive' is exceptionally misleading and irrelevant, because the point is that there are alternatives to your narrow minded view. However, there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that supports the position that there having to be a beginning to time is inevitable, and so whether you think it is possible or not, we're stuck with it being so. That's not airy fairy commentary; that's an established scientific area. That you have no grounds- or for that matter, ability- to attack.


"But that's only if you believe there was nothing before, which I don't."

But you cannot prove it right, and until you do, it is completely irrelevant. any idea must be backed by evidence before it can be considered. Else it is just bilge.


It so happens that your classifying of whether something happened 'before' it goes to show how lost you are in this area. it is a statement that involves massive assumptipn, particularly about how time works, and the meaning of 'before' in such areas. That's a very narrow and inaccuirate view of how the subject is approached. Very much the kind of statement of a clueless, loudmouthed amateur. I may be no high class scientist myself, but I can read what such people say, and know how much this view of yours is pretty shabby.


"I'm not denying the possibility, I'm saying that in coinciding with my belief, it's not possible for there to be a beginning to time, if what I believe is true."

Which is exactly the view religious fanatics hold, trying to hold that their unsupported beliefs can in any way compete with solid scientific work. it cannot. There IS such work in this area. So you having a belief means nothing- nothing at ALL. Engage with the science, or your belief has no strength, backing, point or value. And other advanced ideas do. Hence, you are nowhere.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
AC, a ten year old can understand that very basic principle of science, that you do not prove negatives. All you show by not kmowing that is extreme ignorance of basic scientific principle. I don't need to be a phD to know that; I certainly have the training required to understand the principle. As does any rational or reasonable person.

But are you a reasonable scientist? No, so stop acting like one. Knowing a bit of science doesn't make you a scientist. There are people with more knowledge than you that, as I've said, probably agree with me. What would you say to them?

Let's look at what can be proven; It's possible that the big bang was the beginning of it all, why? Because we just have reasons to believe that might be the case. Where in that do you see anything that I have to adhere to? Honestly. I accept fully that there are concrete reasons to believe it, but they are not enough to prove the positive that there was a beginning to everything with nothing before.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your question about 'what has been proven positive' is exceptionally misleading and irrelevant, because the point is that there are alternatives to your narrow minded view. However, there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that supports the position that there having to be a beginning to time is inevitable, and so whether you think it is possible or not, we're stuck with it being so. That's not airy fairy commentary; that's an established scientific area. That you have no grounds- or for that matter, ability- to attack.

I know there are alternatives. There are alternatives to everything, what's your point? The fact that they are called "alternatives", as in, other options, proves that this is all they are. I'm not going to follow something I don't agree with.

So what? You keep saying there is considerable evidence, there is considerable evidence that supports the idea, not proves it. If that support is enough for you, then go for it. It's not for me. I won't believe there is a beginning to time unless it's proven. You are just cranky because you cannot do a damn thing about it. Well, nothing except trying to appeal to my "desire" to be correct that you feel I have, by trying to convince me I am wrong.

I didn't ever say it wasn't possible definitely, so stop suggesting I did. I said it's not in accordance with my belief, because it isn't. I'm not attacking the possibility, I'm not attacking anything, really. I'm saying that all that has been proven is that it's possible this might have happened. I know it is.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But you cannot prove it right, and until you do, it is completely irrelevant. any idea must be backed by evidence before it can be considered. Else it is just bilge.

My idea is backed by my considering the options and grabbing the one I find most agreeable or appealing to me. Hard evidence is only needed if you wish to debunk or counter theories, which I am not attempting to do, and never have been. So no, you're quite wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It so happens that your classifying of whteher something happened 'before' it goes to show how lost you are in this area. That's a very narrow and inaccuirate view of how the subject is approached. Very much the kind of statement of a clueless, loudmouthed amateur. I may be no high class scientist myself, but I can read what such people say, and know how mucb this view of yours is pretty shabby.

So you think my view is shabby based on the fact that you like other views more than mine. Would you like your Blue Peter badge mailed or will you pick it up yourself?

I'm not lost in this area at all, and the only clueless one here is you for continually calling me an amateur. I'm no amateur, but what I am not is a qualified scientist, so I am not going around acting like my beliefs are anything they are not. You continually calling me an amateur achieves nothing.

As for loud-mouthed. Pardon me for not following your footsteps and having the charisma of dry wallpaper.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Which is exactly the view religious fanatics hold, trying to hold that their unsupported beliefs can in any way compete with solid scientific work. it cannot. There IS such work in this area. So you having a belief means nothing- nothing at ALL. Engage with the science, or your belief has no strength, backing, point or value. And other advanced ideas do. Hence, you are nowhere.

Who said they compete? I never said they compete. I can't compete with what scientists have proven. I'm not here trying to disprove the possibility of a beginning to time, I'm just saying I don't believe there was one.

So you can sit there and repeat "There's such work." and other sleep inducing rhetoric, telling me how my belief means nothing, or you can realise that I haven't put my belief across in nearly the way you would have people believe I have, and swallow your pride.

I'm not nowhere, I'm perfectly fine in this discussion where I am.

-AC

AC, if you remember; you did initially state that "there had to be something before the big bang" and that the "concept of time not having a beginning is flawed".

You also told DarKC that believing in "nothing before the big bang" is stupid.

Point is as previously stated, we lack the ability to comprehend true absolute nothingness, so therefore it makes sense to assume there HAD to be something. But on the flip-side, we also lack the ability to comprehend something not having a definite beginning, so as Ushgarack pointed out, boil it down and time HAD a beginning.

Originally posted by Robtard
AC, if you remember; you did initially state that "there had to be something before the big bang" and that the "concept of time not having a beginning is flawed".

You also told DarKC that believing in "nothing before the big bang" is stupid.

Point is as previously stated, we lack the ability to comprehend true absolute nothingness, so therefore it makes sense to assume there HAD to be something. But on the flip-side, we also lack the ability to comprehend something not having a definite beginning, so as Ushgarack pointed out, boil it down and time HAD a beginning.

Yeah, and those claims are all merely in relation to my own belief. It's obviously not flawed if you believe it is it? This is all subjective in the grand scheme.

I'm not sitting here saying the suggestions that LEAD to his belief are incorrect, as Ushgarak is accusing me of.

Boil it down how? How exactly are we boiling it down in a way no scientist ever has? The fact is, I have no reason to believe that time began, and I'm not alone in that believe. Am I trying to counter anybody? No. Am I denying the existence of possibilities that, if proven correct, would negate my belief? No. That's all they are, though.

To me, it doesn't make sense to assume there was nothing. We cannot comprehend either, so I won't be so presumptuous as to say I'm right and someone is wrong, or vice versa. I don't know for sure, neither does anybody. My beliefs are very loose on this subject, something Ushgarak is accusing me of, not realising I'm not saying any different.

-AC

BANG BANG BANG........BANG!!!!

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
BANG BANG BANG........BANG!!!!

Silly comments totally ruin the debate.

hardly. always time for a laugh.

Did you not just say there's no room for debate in the OTF? If anything, that's the place for jokes.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Did you not just say there's no room for debate in the OTF? If anything, that's the place for jokes.

-AC
guilty. my bad.

The Big Bang theory revolves around E=MC2, i.e. if you compress energy enough then it will become matter. How can the universe stop expanding when there is no friction to stop it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's obviously not flawed if you believe it is it?

hmm, if i believed there was an invisible dragon in my room . . .

imo, that would be a 'flawed' belief. you may argue that from MY perspective the belief isn't flawed, but that wouldn't make it any less flawed to an outside observer.

i'm not sure you mean to say that ALL beliefs are 'flawless', (my apologies if it's an inappropriate generalization) but that's sort of what it sounds like you're getting at.

Originally posted by pcp
The Big Bang theory revolves around E=MC2, i.e. if you compress energy enough then it will become matter. How can the universe stop expanding when there is no friction to stop it?

Gravity, not friction, effects the expansion of the universe.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gravity, not friction, effects the expansion of the universe.

Gravity acts as friction, and there isn't enough mass and therefore Gravity to prevent the continuing expansion. Which means in a google years time, when the last Blackhole stops spitting out radiation (See Steven Hawking) everything will revert to absolute zero.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's entirely false. If nothingness existed before the big bang, and time didn't exist, time couldn't pass. If time couldn't pass, nothingness couldn't have and the big bang wouldn't have happened at all.

Just because the concept of measuring time didn't exist, doesn't mean time didn't.

The concept of measured time is the most flawed idea ever, because a human mind simply decided how we perceive time, we have no basis on how accurate it is.

-AC

Its isn't accurate according to the quantum universe, but necessary for our existence. The concept of entropy (I.e. what we see as time moving forward), is a consequence of cause and effect. But cause and effect doesn't really exists at the quantum level, therefore its an illusion of consciousness. Time doesn't really pass, we just think it does.

Maybe reading my post will help you realise that we both touched on the idea of illusion of time.

-AC

Originally posted by pcp
The Big Bang theory revolves around E=MC2, i.e. if you compress energy enough then it will become matter. How can the universe stop expanding when there is no friction to stop it?

As it looks right now, not only will the universe not stop expanding, but it will expand at an accelerating rate. This is because 70% of the universe may be in the form of "dark energy," a dominating, cosmic repuslor force.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Maybe reading my post will help you realise that we both touched on the idea of illusion of time.

-AC

Sorry i couldn't really decipher what you where getting at amongst most of you're volatile ranting, no offense of course.

i prefer to call it "overly opinionated."

Which is precisely what it is, just my opinion.

-AC

case in point.....^^^^^^

try thinking of the big bang as an infinite IMplosion of a 0 dimensional{infinitely small} point as oppose to an EXplosion. finite space existing WITHIN an infinitely small point of higher dimensional space.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
try thinking of the big bang as an infinite IMplosion of a 0 dimensional{infinitely small} point as oppose to an EXplosion. finite space existing WITHIN an infinitely small point of higher dimensional space.

Yeah, I know. Mind-Boggling isn't it?

Bump for more opinion.

Nothingness is very unstable. In no time it will became something.

Do some research on the "MultiVerse" and brane theories. There is a current theory that this universe was "rubbed" into existance from two other branes. (This is of course, extremely over simplified.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do some research on the "Multi'Verse" abd brane theories. There is a current theory tha this universe was "rubbed" into existance from two other branes. (This is of course, extremely over simplified.)

I have read it. It is interesting but a little too complicated for my liking.

Big Bang isn't a theory. That's how babies are made...

This has always interested me ever since I was little, and I honestly don't think the human brain is capable of understanding something as complex and wacky as the beginning of time or the beginning of life or maybe even the re-birth of life. It frustrates me to think about it. Infinity is impossible to imagine. People can come up with as many theories as they want but there will always be holes and missing facts and maybe it's supposed to be that way.

Big Bang, Black Hole....what comes to mind??

Originally posted by PONG_MASTER
This has always interested me ever since I was little, and I honestly don't think the human brain is capable of understanding something as complex and wacky as the beginning of time or the beginning of life or maybe even the re-birth of life. It frustrates me to think about it. Infinity is impossible to imagine.

Then I do not have a human brain. Infinity is easy to imagine, there are an infinite number of hyper-infinities, parallel infinites, and hypo-infinites to our present time space perception. If that is not too difficult to understand, read about continuum's in mathematics because that is more complicated.

I have several different theories that work really at explaining the universe/s. There are even more in the physics community. Some are old and have been disproved and some are being explored right now or in the near future to prove their validity. Indeed, these theories are so complicated that the vast majority of people could not even begin to understand them but that does not make me better then you or them. Let me better explain myself with examples:

I can barely understand and I never will possess the ability to ice sculpt...I do not understand how those sculptors can make that stuff so intricately detailed with just a chain saw; I do not understand how beauticians do hair colorings with such precision...doing that stuff can be just as complicated as multi-dimensional energy. (I am not joking...just ask a good beautician to describe the process.); I can barely understand women and in fact, I think that understanding women is more complicated than astrophysics.




This is more accurate and I agree with this. I can poke holes in the theories and math of some of the present models and this will continue to be the case in the physics community for a long time. (THough I lack the education currently to delve into all of the theories.) However, those holes are becoming smaller and smaller as those gaps are filled with new science...eventually, these theories are going to develop enough to allow us to create some scary technologies. A perfect Grand Unified Theory is what we are all waiting on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then I do not have a human brain.

"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand it"

Richard Feynman

Originally posted by inimalist
"If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand it"

Richard Feynman



nice.

i think at one point in time there were said to be something like 6 people in the world who 'understood' quantum mechanics. i'm fairly sure that was only a few years ago.

i doubt there are very many more today.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Big Bang, Black Hole....what comes to mind??

Originally posted by debbiejo
That's how babies are made...

Originally posted by leonidas
i think at one point in time there were said to be something like 6 people in the world who 'understood' quantum mechanics. i'm fairly sure that was only a few years ago.

Actually, no one actually understants it...still.

Originally posted by Alliance
Actually, no one actually understants it...still.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q264/sepyoukey/522563155_41a47fd1f7_o.jpg

Well, higher physics or mathematics are inaccessible to even many professors of the subject....

Well, I mean, even beginnings of mathematics are inaccessible to a broad spectrum of humanity.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, higher physics or mathematics are inaccessible to even many professors of the subject....

Well, I mean, even beginnings of mathematics are inaccessible to a broad spectrum of humanity. Maybe to truly understand it you need someone who's not so good with math. If the best minds can't grasp it maybe a simpler mind is needed.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Maybe to truly understand it you need someone who's not so good with math. If the best minds can't grasp it maybe a simpler mind is needed.

Seems unlikely....though don't we all have those "the stupid people are also good for something" hopes and dreams.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Maybe to truly understand it you need someone who's not so good with math. If the best minds can't grasp it maybe a simpler mind is needed.

there is always the other sciences... :eep:

not sure how you can say it is bs. if it was TRULY 'understood' q-computers would already be in every house.

they aren't because scientists are still striving to understand. they are in the process of understanding. they teach and pass on what information they DO have, in hopes that info will lead to FURTHER understanding and experimentation.

to understand some of the math behind something (wave equations, for example) is one thing. to say one fully understands everything behind quantum mechanics is ridiculous.

serendipity and experimentation result in as many developments (more probably) as a perfect understanding of the principles does. many aspects of higher order cosmology and physics deal with multiple dimensions, things we cannot even visiualize, that are reduced to purely mathematical terms. topology is an expanding field that we are just now trying to explore. the many-universes ideas that some say will be proven by q-computers is still just theory.

ther is FAR too much left that is NOT understood to even BEGIN to claim we understand everything in this bizarre field.

Originally posted by leonidas
not sure how you can say it is bs. if it was TRULY 'understood' q-computers would already be in every house.

they aren't because scientists are still striving to understand. they are in the process of understanding. they teach and pass on what information they DO have, in hopes that info will lead to FURTHER understanding and experimentation.

to understand some of the math behind something (wave equations, for example) is one thing. to say one fully understands everything behind quantum mechanics is ridiculous.

serendipity and experimentation result in as many developments (more probably) as a perfect understanding of the principles does. many aspects of higher order cosmology and physics deal with multiple dimensions, things we cannot even visiualize, that are reduced to purely mathematical terms. topology is an expanding field that we are just now trying to explore. the many-universes ideas that some say will be proven by q-computers is still just theory.

ther is FAR too much left that is NOT understood to even BEGIN to claim we understand everything in this bizarre field.

I never said, "They fully understood quantum mechanics". (Who the hell does? If there were someone out there that did, then there would be no need for experiments...all of the universes secrets would be known. To fully understand physics in the end, there has to be a Grand Unified Theory. (If one even exists and if the universe/s can ever be fully understood.))

I was simply using the presently discussed terminology which was 'understand". If you want to "nit pick", I meant to say or should have said "current quantum models" which are all theories to begin with. Going by your logic, just about everything is not fully undertstood so that means everyone knows nothing.

And no, "the hump" is getting the circuitry to produce results and make the circuitry efficient enough so that they can read more quanta information at a time...in other words, a better(By better, I mean wider.) quantum bus structure.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The Universe is LIVE!!

Originally posted by debbiejo
Big Bang, Black Hole....what comes to mind??

Damn... now I will remember this everytime I hear these words.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Damn... now I will remember this everytime I hear these words. Shhhh, it's the secret to creation...

friends

So, I just recently went to a talk about quantum computing (/w Gilles Brassard , David Cory, Anthony Leggett, Peter Shor) at the Institute for Quantum Computing (www.iqc.ca, which is down right now...) and to be honest, I got a very weird impression of the field.

For instance, they introduced themselves and explained how they had come study q-computing, and they all had stories that revolved around the same people or each other. The community seemed, as a whole, very small and tight nit, regardless of how many labs there are world wide (which I think is a very small number). I think the sheer esoteric nature of the field does not lend itself to a thorough enough peer review process, which can be exemplified by a conversation I had with Mr Brassard after the panel about pseudo-telepathy. He explained a game experiment to me, which I understood well enough, but afterward he began talking about how quantum mechanics could be responsible for why two people get the same feeling at the same time if they had entangled stimuli input, with no direct communication being passed between the brains. There is also the Nobel prize winner in physics that said it should be possible for our brains to receive information from the future.

Seeing as I have written another really long post, I'll try to summarize. It isn't that the math wouldn't work in the theories they are proposing, it is just that, as a student of neuroscience, I know why those phenomena are impossible based on simple physical properties of the brain. Based principally on the inaccessibility of quantum science, those within the field seem to be overstepping their bounds by using quantum phenomena to explain neurological experiences.

Lastly, a very strong take home message of the show was that even the idea of a quantum computer was still untestable. We simply don't know enough, and the vast majority of quantum theory and computing is based on whiteboard equations rather than observation.

I am reminded of a prominent physicist who, at the turn of the century predicted that within 40 years physics would be a complete field and that there would be nothing left to discover, only read in textbooks. This was prior to the discovery of special relativity.

Originally posted by inimalist
Seeing as I have written another really long post, I'll try to summarize. It isn't that the math wouldn't work in the theories they are proposing, it is just that, as a student of neuroscience, I know why those phenomena are impossible based on simple physical properties of the brain. Based principally on the inaccessibility of quantum science, those within the field seem to be overstepping their bounds by using quantum phenomena to explain neurological experiences.

Lastly, a very strong take home message of the show was that even the idea of a quantum computer was still untestable. We simply don't know enough, and the vast majority of quantum theory and computing is based on whiteboard equations rather than observation.

I am reminded of a prominent physicist who, at the turn of the century predicted that within 40 years physics would be a complete field and that there would be nothing left to discover, only read in textbooks. This was prior to the discovery of special relativity.


As a "transempiricist," I find it very grounding when I read something from a neurologist or a behaviorist.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, I just recently went to a talk about quantum computing (/w Gilles Brassard , David Cory, Anthony Leggett, Peter Shor) at the Institute for Quantum Computing (www.iqc.ca, which is down right now...) and to be honest, I got a very weird impression of the field.

For instance, they introduced themselves and explained how they had come study q-computing, and they all had stories that revolved around the same people or each other. The community seemed, as a whole, very small and tight nit, regardless of how many labs there are world wide (which I think is a very small number). I think the sheer esoteric nature of the field does not lend itself to a thorough enough peer review process, which can be exemplified by a conversation I had with Mr Brassard after the panel about pseudo-telepathy. He explained a game experiment to me, which I understood well enough, but afterward he began talking about how quantum mechanics could be responsible for why two people get the same feeling at the same time if they had entangled stimuli input, with no direct communication being passed between the brains. There is also the Nobel prize winner in physics that said it should be possible for our brains to receive information from the future.

Seeing as I have written another really long post, I'll try to summarize. It isn't that the math wouldn't work in the theories they are proposing, it is just that, as a student of neuroscience, I know why those phenomena are impossible based on simple physical properties of the brain. Based principally on the inaccessibility of quantum science, those within the field seem to be overstepping their bounds by using quantum phenomena to explain neurological experiences.

Lastly, a very strong take home message of the show was that even the idea of a quantum computer was still untestable. We simply don't know enough, and the vast majority of quantum theory and computing is based on whiteboard equations rather than observation.

I am reminded of a prominent physicist who, at the turn of the century predicted that within 40 years physics would be a complete field and that there would be nothing left to discover, only read in textbooks. This was prior to the discovery of special relativity.



Quantum mechanics is not a esoteric field. It is a complex field and to understand it completely you have to be very familiarized with it. Another thing is that today many physicists are using another kind of language to talk to people. All this publicity Quantum Mechanics have can lead some people to have wrong impressions about it. I particularly don't like the way this publicity is made. Unfortunately, there is some physicists who do more publicity about the field than explain something about it. In the other hand, there is many people who can't see how some conclusions were draw, and take precipitated conclusions about the field.


What I think particularly got your attention is that talk about pseudo-telepathy as you referred to. Perhaps they should have presented their theories in another way. Particularly, I would focus attention on the main problem which is the possibility of the brain working as a quantum computer. Since we don't know how the brain process information, that is a possibility. There is nothing that makes the processes in the brain involved with conscious experience entirely defined by action potentials. We don't know how the information is coded on the brain and how it is processed. Even saying that the information is coded in the brain is an assumption.

What I am saying is that what we know about the brain is not working against the possibility of the brain working like a quantum computer. Now, that "telepathy" thing is a different thing. For something like that to happen the brain must work in a very specific way, and obviously we don't know if the brain work in that specific way.

the brain has nothing to do with quantum physics

Well, there is no way to know.

Actually they think the quantum processing would happen at the level of the microtubules. There is some papers published about the subject, but the theory is still in its infancy.

there is a way to know, its called 100 years of neurological research.

For quantum mechanics to have any functional role in the way the brain works, it would overturn a century worth of research and we would be all the way back at square one.

There is little, if any way, to combine quantum mechanics and neurological processing

Why not link some of the papers YOU have read on the matter, and I'll link some of the papers that I have read on the matter.

That's not what the Big Bang theory says....

It was not an explosion. It was an expansion of space. It didn't come from anywhere, it was everything expanding. It "ended" depends on how you define it, because as the universe expanded, things cooled off, and now the universe is much cooler than it used to be, but it is still expanding.

Also it did not create life. Life came much later. In fact there was about 3 times as much time between the Big Bang and the first life as there was between the first life and today. I suppose there could have been life earlier or even right after the Big Bang, but if there was we have no evidence of it.

The universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is actually increasing. So far we have seen nothing that indicates that it will slow down. So it will go on forever.

As far as we know, nothing is beyond the universe, because beyond the universe there is no space. There is not only nothing, but no space for anything to even be in.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a way to know, its called 100 years of neurological research.

For quantum mechanics to have any functional role in the way the brain works, it would overturn a century worth of research and we would be all the way back at square one.

There is little, if any way, to combine quantum mechanics and neurological processing

Why not link some of the papers YOU have read on the matter, and I'll link some of the papers that I have read on the matter.

The possibility of the brain using quantum mechanics to process information does not contradict neurology. You can't prove a negative, so you can't say that 'The brain does not use quantum mechanics to process information'. You must also know quantum mechanics to support the view that it is not used in the brain. There is also medics and neurologists who support the theory.

But if it contradicts as you say, then please specify what exactly does not allow the possibility.


I don't remember which specific references I have read, but there is some of them here.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html

Originally posted by Atlantis001
The possibility of the brain using quantum mechanics to process information does not contradict neurology. You can't prove a negative, so you can't say that 'The brain does not use quantum mechanics to process information'. You must also know quantum mechanics to support the view that it is not used in the brain. There is also medics and neurologists who support the theory.

But if it contradicts as you say, then please specify what exactly does not allow the possibility.


I don't remember which specific references I have read, but there is some of them here.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html

interesting, i'll look at that

Thanks for the site Atlantis.

My only answer is that the whole idea is based upon the concept that there is a "hard problem" of consciousness.

There is no evidence that there is, and the majority of "consciousness" can be explained through neuronal mechanisms.

Some stuff that I found about informations storage seemed interesting, but scientists recently imaged the forming of memories in the brain, and long term potentiation explains memory as well.

The whole site is, what I as someone who studies the brain and not physics, would point to as evidence of the insular nature of quantum. If not insular the only better word for it is arrogant.

It all comes back to the fact that we experience the world as dualists, but we aren't, experiences of the "mind" are related directly to the function of systems in the brain. Someone who is only versed in their personal experience with quantum physics doesn't have the intellectual history or perspective in neuroscience to make such bold claims.

If it pans out, fine, let them do some studies. I'll stick with the fMRI and stuff that, you know, we have seen and done successfully for a long time now.