Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[shunyadragon]

But we only observe energy/matter in this non-zero state, so why are we assuming that there is another state of affairs, another substance if you will, in the fundamental nature of an eternal and infinite universe, from out of which this non zero field of energy/matter emerges. Why not assume that the non-zero field, the field in which energy/matter exists, the only field that we can observe, is itself the most fundamental and eternal nature of the universe?

This may be the case, but observations near the zero-state that it is not exactly the same state of affairs.

Actually, the Hadron Collider is beginning to have a peek at these properties that parallel those near the beginning of the universe. This research represents possible significant advances into confirming the research of Vilenkin and others concerning the zero-state field that existed before the beginning of the universe.

[seer]

This may be the case, but observations near the zero-state that it is not exactly the same state of affairs.

Actually, the Hadron Collider is beginning to have a peek at these properties that parallel those near the beginning of the universe. This research represents possible significant advances into confirming the research of Vilenkin and others concerning the zero-state field that existed before the beginning of the universe.

How would this in any way show that this field existed before the universe began? And that still would not tell us if said field was eternal.

[JimL]

This may be the case, but observations near the zero-state that it is not exactly the same state of affairs.

But observations "near the zero state" is just another way of saying "observations of the non zero state", so, what are the observations of this near or non zero state, the state in which we find the least possible energy, that suggest there to be an even more fundamental source from out of which the non zero field emerges?

Actually, the Hadron Collider is beginning to have a peek at these properties that parallel those near the beginning of the universe. This research represents possible significant advances into confirming the research of Vilenkin and others concerning the zero-state field that existed before the beginning of the universe.

What does Vilenkin say about the zero state, why does he posit the existence of this more fundamental source?

[shunyadragon]

But observations "near the zero state" is just another way of saying "observations of the non zero state", so, what are the observations of this near or non zero state, the state in which we find the least possible energy, that suggest there to be an even more fundamental source from out of which the non zero field emerges?

First, it is not the amount of energy, it is the nature of the energy. I would not say it suggests is a more fundamental source. It is still fundamentally energy, just at a zero or near zero state. Apparently reading different sources, some referred to, the energy and to some extent particles may exist at or near this state, but the do not do much and may appear more as waves.

What does Vilenkin say about the zero state, why does he posit the existence of this more fundamental source?

will look into it.

[shunyadragon]

How would this in any way show that this field existed before the universe began? And that still would not tell us if said field was eternal.

I am going to back off a bit hear and discuss the nature of 'evidence,' which you do not seem to comprehend. It also not clear that in Craig's references he does not clearly understand it either, claiming things like discoveries in a nebulous way.

There are two kinds of evidence that are important in physics and cosmology, direct and indirect evidence. It appear that you do not accept indirect evidence, but also claim things like the actual beginning of the universe are supported by direct evidence, which is weak at best. One question, What is the direct evidence that supports the belief that our universe necessarily had a specific beginning?

[JimL]

First, it is not the amount of energy, it is the nature of the energy.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean the least energy, as in amount of it, what I meant to say was lowest energy, as in degree.

I would not say it suggests is a more fundamental source. It is still fundamentally energy, just at a zero or near zero state. Apparently reading different sources, some referred to, the energy and to some extent particles may exist at or near this state, but the do not do much and may appear more as waves.

Okay, and is it known what causes the zero energy field to rise to the non zero field, the field in which matter in the form of particles begin to emerge? Lets say that all of existence, or all of the cosmos, is defined as a zero energy field, is it known, or is there a theory, as to what would cause any particular area of that field to rise to a non zero state?

will look into it.

Thanks. If you have the time I would greatly appreciate it.

[seer]

There are two kinds of evidence that are important in physics and cosmology, direct and indirect evidence. It appear that you do not accept indirect evidence, but also claim things like the actual beginning of the universe are supported by direct evidence, which is weak at best. One question, What is the direct evidence that supports the belief that our universe necessarily had a specific beginning?

First Shuny, as far as I know the Hadron Collider is pretty much looking for the Higgs boson, which in turn only tells us why some particles have mass. This does not tell us how this universe came into being in the first place. And you already know the evidence for the big bang - expanding universe, red shift, second law of thermodynamics, etc... If this is "weak" evidence then what you have is non-existent. And going back and musing about what existed before this universe may be near impossible. Even if our universe rose out of this zero-field how would one ever show that said field was eternal into the past? That assumption would forever remain conjecture.

[shunyadragon]

First Shuny, as far as I know the Hadron Collider is pretty much looking for the Higgs boson, which in turn only tells us why some particles have mass. This does not tell us how this universe came into being in the first place.

"As far as I know . . ." does not get you very far, and has not contributed much to the discussion so far.

This only an aspect of one of the goals of the Hadron project.

http://www.lhc.ac.uk/

How did our universe come to be the way it is?


The Universe started with a Big Bang – but we don’t fully understand how or why it developed the way it did. The LHC will let us see how matter behaved a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers have some ideas of what to expect – but also expect the unexpected!

© source where applicable

And you already know the evidence for the big bang - expanding universe, red shift, second law of thermodynamics, etc... If this is "weak" evidence then what you have is non-existent. And going back and musing about what existed before this universe may be near impossible. Even if our universe rose out of this zero-field how would one ever show that said field was eternal into the past? That assumption would forever remain conjecture.

No, the expanding universe is not evidence that the universe had a beginning, it is evidence that the universe is expanding from some unknown event. We call it the Big Bang, but we do not know what the big Bang is. You will have to explain your view on the second law of thermodynamics here, because it in reality does not apply to whether the universe had a beginning or not. The only other direct evidence we have close to a possible beginning is the primitive most distant galaxies visible at about 13 billion+ years ago.

The First Law applies first in the Conservation of Energy - Matter [and energy] cannot be created nor destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Quantum theory

In quantum mechanics, energy of a quantum system is described by a self-adjoint (Hermite) operator called Hamiltonian, which acts on the Hilbert space (or a space of wave functions ) of the system. If the Hamiltonian is a time independent operator, emergence probability of the measurement result does not change in time over the evolution of the system. Thus the expectation value of energy is also time independent. The local energy conservation in quantum field theory is ensured by the quantum Noether's theorem for energy-momentum tensor operator. Note that due to the lack of the (universal) time operator in quantum theory, the uncertainty relations for time and energy are not fundamental in contrast to the position momentum uncertainty principle, and merely holds in specific cases (See Uncertainty principle). Energy at each fixed time can be precisely measured in principle without any problem caused by the time energy uncertainty relations. Thus the conservation of energy in time is a well defined concept even in quantum mechanics.

© source where applicable

You still have not responded to the question of direct and indirect evidence.

[seer]

"As far as I know . . ." does not get you very far, and has not contributed much to the discussion so far.

This only an aspect of one of the goals of the Hadron project.

The Universe started with a Big Bang – but we don’t fully understand how or why it developed the way it did. The LHC will let us see how matter behaved a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers have some ideas of what to expect – but also expect the unexpected!

Ok, after the big bang, not before. It still does not tell us what existed before the big bang or if what existed before was eternal.

No, the expanding universe is not evidence that the universe had a beginning, it is evidence that the universe is expanding from some unknown event. We call it the Big Bang, but we do not know what the big Bang is. You will have to explain your view on the second law of thermodynamics here, because it in reality does not apply to whether the universe had a beginning or not. The only other direct evidence we have close to a possible beginning is the primitive most distant galaxies visible at about 13 billion+ years ago.

Wait, your own quote said the universe started with the big bang. Do you disagree with your own quote? And like I said, even if the universe was born out of this zero-field how does one go about showing that said field is eternal - directly or indirectly?

And second law of thermodynamics tells us that this universe, or a multiverse can not be eternal into the past because of increased entropy. That was in the article I quoted in post #94.

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists - nothing like the one we see around us.

[shunyadragon]

Ok, after the big bang, not before.

No we do not have any direct evidence for the event of the big bang itself, or what actually took place.

It still does not tell us what existed before the big bang or if what existed before was eternal.

It still tells us nothing about the event of the big bang it self.

Wait, your own quote said the universe started with the big bang. Do you disagree with your own quote?

Misunderstanding big time. Our universe began in its present form, by expansion according to Vilenkin's BGV theory, but that theory is dependent on the universe originating from a zero-state field through quantum tunneling. ALL other scientific theories of the origins of the universe involve preexisting material or energy of some kind. What the actual 'start' of the universe was is unknown from the 'direct' evidence.

And like I said, even if the universe was born out of this zero-field how does one go about showing that said field is eternal - directly or indirectly?

Indirectly, there are at least several models for the universe from preexisting materials and the models are dependent on a Quantum existence that is possibly eternal and infinite.

And second law of thermodynamics tells us that this universe, or a multiverse can not be eternal into the past because of increased entropy. That was in the article I quoted in post #94.

Absolutely false big time. By all means, please find a source, (a legitimate scientific source) that supports this. The article you cited in #94 does not say this and I already addressed this, because the article only addresses the BGV theory for the beginning of expansion of any possible universe, Vilenkin's reference you highlighted is again a misrepresentation, as Craig did, and denied by Vilenkin himself that this theory DOES NOT justify the belief that the beginning of any universe is the absolute beginning of anything else. It does not address at all the question of origins before that, nor the application of the 2nd law concerning anything beyond the BGV theory itself. Please cite something PROPERLY without quote mining that addresses this issue specifically.

Besides i all ready addressed the fact that this is a layman's article concerning a limited explanation of the BGV theory. Get a good scientific journal article that supports your assertion.

[seer]

Misunderstanding big time. Our universe began in its present form, by expansion according to Vilenkin's BGV theory, but that theory is dependent on the universe originating from a zero-state field through quantum tunneling. ALL other scientific theories of the origins of the universe involve preexisting material or energy of some kind. What the actual 'start' of the universe was is unknown from the 'direct' evidence.

Ok, so it is agreed that the universe in its present form (the only matter/energy we know of) had a beginning.

Indirectly, there are at least several models for the universe from preexisting materials and the models are dependent on a Quantum existence that is possibly eternal and infinite.

But you still could not directly on indirectly know or find out if these preexisting material were eternal. You may "believe" it, but even in theory how would one demonstrate it?

Absolutely false big time. By all means, please find a source, (a legitimate scientific source) that supports this.

Really, so this universe is not subject to entropy?

[robrecht]

...

Really, so this universe is not subject to entropy?

This universe, yes it is; the multiverse or omniverse--impossible to say really. Theoretical models? There I'm not sure, but it seems so from what little I've read so far.

Thanks, Robrecht

[seer]

This universe, yes it is; the multiverse or omniverse--impossible to say really. Theoretical models? There I'm not sure.

Thanks, Robrecht

But this is the only matter/energy that we know of. Why assume that other matter/energy will act differently?

[robrecht]

But this is the only matter/energy that we know of. Why assume that other matter/energy will act differently?

In part because our universe seems to be so finely tuned. It is possible to imagine (or model) other scenarios, but that is not necessarily an assumption.

Thanks, Robrecht

[seer]

In part because our universe seems to be so finely tuned. It is possible to imagine (or model) other scenarios, but that is not necessarily an assumption.

Thanks, Robrecht

But why would a finely tuned universe lead one to believe that previous universes were not subject to entropy? Why would fine tuning change that?