The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16   Go Down

Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?

  • 305 Replies
  • 19820 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2215
  • Activity:
    26.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #240 on: 28/10/2019 20:34:31 »
Quote from: Bill S on 28/10/2019 18:49:14
How would you distinguish between zero and non-existent?
My sister is nonexistent.
I have zero sisters.

For me, existence is to be measured, so I can measure the count of my sisters, and it comes up zero. But the first wording is a reference to a specific person, and that reference does not correspond to anything, hence is nonexistent.
That seems to be the best distinction I can come up with.
Logged
 



Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #241 on: 29/10/2019 11:09:30 »
Quote from: Alan
I have zero money. Money is non-existent on Mars.

In my current situation, money is non-existent.  As far as I am aware, there is zero money on Mars.

You can make it work both ways, if you really want to.
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #242 on: 29/10/2019 11:28:13 »
Quote from: Halc
My sister is nonexistent.
I have zero sisters.

For me, existence is to be measured, so I can measure the count of my sisters, and it comes up zero. But the first wording is a reference to a specific person, and that reference does not correspond to anything, hence is nonexistent.
That seems to be the best distinction I can come up with.


I see your distinction, but it is purely lexical semantics.  If we were discussing philosophy, it would be fine.
 
Consider the definition of non-existent at:

https://www.google.com/search?q=opposite+of+nonexistent&oq=opposite+of+nonexisent&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.14448j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Quote
not existing or not real or present

Your sister is non-existent, therefore, she is not real.
You have zero sisters, therefore, you do not have a sister who can be said to exist.
Both examples fall under this definition.
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11385
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 667 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #243 on: 29/10/2019 11:53:47 »
The money example is robust.

Having zero money implies that the concept of money has some meaning in context and that I could have a nonzero amount - the amount in my account  is a member of an extant and meaningful set - the sums of money owned by people on Earth.

The set of sums of money owned by people on Mars is non-existent and meaningless. There being no people there, the concept of money (i.e. the common property of the members of that set) is undefined, so the set does not exist. 

Neatly, this leads to a definition of money: the set of tokens that people exchange for goods and services. It covers every form of monetary exchange but it entirely reliant on the presence and consensual activity of humans.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2019 11:57:34 by alancalverd »
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2215
  • Activity:
    26.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #244 on: 29/10/2019 14:11:18 »
Quote from: Bill S on 29/10/2019 11:28:13
Quote from: Halc
My sister is nonexistent.
I have zero sisters.

For me, existence is to be measured, so I can measure the count of my sisters, and it comes up zero. But the first wording is a reference to a specific person, and that reference does not correspond to anything, hence is nonexistent.
That seems to be the best distinction I can come up with.


I see your distinction, but it is purely lexical semantics.  If we were discussing philosophy, it would be fine.
 
Consider the definition of non-existent at:

https://www.google.com/search?q=opposite+of+nonexistent&oq=opposite+of+nonexisent&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.14448j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Quote
not existing or not real or present

Your sister is non-existent, therefore, she is not real.
You have zero sisters, therefore, you do not have a sister who can be said to exist.
Both examples fall under this definition.
Totally agree.  That is consistent with my usage of the words.
Logged
 



Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #245 on: 29/10/2019 14:15:43 »
Quote
The money example is robust.

One of the things I like about this thread is that it keeps introducing different perspectives.

What you say about the concept of money, and the introduction of sets is instructive. 

Quote
this leads to a definition of money

Interesting stuff, but still throws no light on any difference there might by between zero and non-existent in terms of physical objects.

Sometimes I’m glad I’m not a mathematician!  Life is complicated enough, as it is.
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #246 on: 29/10/2019 14:23:06 »
That’s another thing I like about this thread; it’s possible for two posters to “Totally agree” when they seem to be disagreeing.  Perhaps we need a good definition of “agree”.  :)
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2215
  • Activity:
    26.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #247 on: 29/10/2019 15:26:13 »
I'm saying you're using the words correctly in your post. The words mean different things, which is easily illustrated by trying to swap them.

My sister is nonexistent.  My sister is zero.
I have zero sisters.  I have nonexistent sisters.

In both cases, the left side conveys the intended meaning and the right side doesn't, if it make sense at all.
Prisoner zero has escaped!
Logged
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #248 on: 29/10/2019 16:47:26 »
Quote
My sister is nonexistent.  My sister is zero.
I have zero sisters.  I have nonexistent sisters.

That's why I didn't try to swap your statements.  However, doing so does highlight one point that is very relevant to the OP.
Saying there could ever have been "nothing" is not dissimilar from saying " I have nonexistent sisters".
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11385
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 667 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #249 on: 29/10/2019 17:08:10 »
Quote from: Bill S on 29/10/2019 14:15:43
Interesting stuff, but still throws no light on any difference there might by between zero and non-existent in terms of physical objects.
I have zero apples. Unicorns are non-existent.

Or to be really, really pedantic: There are zero Indian elephants in my garden (because I've eaten all the apples). Martian elephants are non-existent.

This has important forensic consequences. There might be a lingering smell of elephant in a garden, or even a huge pile of sh1t, that would lead Poirot to unmask the murderer as a rogue mahout, and the defence "I was working the native elephants on Mars" is no alibi. 
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #250 on: 29/10/2019 17:56:04 »
Quote from: Alan
I have zero apples. Unicorns are non-existent.

I believe you, and have no problem with this distinction, in this context.

It still leaves me with the ongoing questions:

If something is infinitely small, does it, physically, exist?

Does the concept of "infinitely small" have any meaning? 

I know we can wander off into definitions of “exist” and various other terms; but am I the only one who sees a fundamental problem here?
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2215
  • Activity:
    26.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #251 on: 29/10/2019 18:08:53 »
Quote from: Bill S on 29/10/2019 17:56:04
If something is infinitely small, does it, physically, exist?

Does the concept of "infinitely small" have any meaning?
We've been over this.  It means zero size.
The center of gravity of Earth exists (is real and present), and lacks a nonzero dimension.
Logged
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #252 on: 29/10/2019 19:50:17 »
Quote
The center of gravity of Earth exists (is real and present), and lacks a nonzero dimension.

Of course it is, but, but it exists only in that it is differentiated as part of the Earth.  It has no independent existence.

How big is its “nonzero dimension”? 
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2215
  • Activity:
    26.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #253 on: 29/10/2019 21:58:31 »
Quote from: Bill S on 29/10/2019 19:50:17
Quote
The center of gravity of Earth exists (is real and present), and lacks a nonzero dimension.

Of course it is, but, but it exists only in that it is differentiated as part of the Earth.  It has no independent existence.
All correct. The angular momentum of Earth similarly exists (and hasn't a location), and similarly does not exist independent of Earth.

Quote
How big is its “nonzero dimension”?
I said it lacks one.  It is a point in space, or a worldline in spacetime.  The latter has a length of perhaps 12-13 billion light years.
Logged
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #254 on: 29/10/2019 22:49:33 »
Quote
I said it lacks one.

Sorry, the question should have been: how big is a zero dimension?

Quote
It is a point in space,

So, a zero dimensional entity has zero dimensions, and that is a point, which is also zero dimensional.  A trace of tautology, here, don’t you think?

Quote
or a worldline in spacetime.  The latter has a length of perhaps 12-13 billion light years.

How can it be zero dimensional if it has length?    Wouldn't that be one dimensional?
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2215
  • Activity:
    26.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #255 on: 30/10/2019 00:42:47 »
Quote from: Bill S on 29/10/2019 22:49:33
Quote from: Halc
or a worldline in spacetime.  The latter has a length of perhaps 12-13 billion light years.
How can it be zero dimensional if it has length?    Wouldn't that be one dimensional?
A worldline (of a spatial point like the center of gravity of Earth) is a line in spacetime, yes.  It is one dimensional in that it has no width or anything, but it is 4 dimensional in that it isn't a straight line and thus follows 4 nonzero coordinates in its path.  A wiggly line on a planar graph is one dimensional (has no area), but still requires coordinates in two dimensions to describe.

Technically, the center of gravity of Earth moves around at faster than light speed, and thus its worldline is sort of broken instead of a nice continuous line.  This is because the material that constitutes Earth is not fixed.
Logged
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11385
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 667 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #256 on: 30/10/2019 00:55:19 »
Quote from: Bill S on 29/10/2019 17:56:04
Does the concept of "infinitely small" have any meaning? 
It's a poor phrase, be cause logically it means "Bigger than you can imagine small" "Infinitesimal" is the mathematical term you are looking for. 

Quote
am I the only one who sees a fundamental problem here?
Apparently! Surely everyone else can distinguish between the local absence of stuff that could be present at a point, and the universal non-presence of stuff that couldn't. James and John are not at school today. James has a toothache. Thanks to effective contraception, John does not exist. Massive difference! The taxpayer has to buy desks for kids who happen to have a day off, but not for those who were never born.
« Last Edit: 30/10/2019 01:09:29 by alancalverd »
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 



Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #257 on: 30/10/2019 13:47:51 »
Quote from: Halc
The center of gravity of Earth exists (is real and present), and lacks a nonzero dimension.

It “lacks a nonzero dimension”.  Sounds like a good explanation, but what does it mean?  If it lacks a nonzero dimension, then it must have “a zero dimension”.  Therefore, it occupies no space.  It is, in fact, the conceptual point at which the total mass of the Earth must be considered as residing, in order to work with Newtonian gravity.  I have no problem with that.

Quote
I said it lacks one.  It is a point in space, or a worldline in spacetime. 

Just for clarity; a point in space lacks a non-zero dimension, so it is zero-dimensional; whereas a worldline lacks a non-zero dimension, but has, as you explain in #255, either one or four dimensions.  (?)
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Online Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2215
  • Activity:
    26.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #258 on: 30/10/2019 14:02:28 »
Quote from: Bill S on 30/10/2019 13:47:51
Quote from: Halc
The center of gravity of Earth exists (is real and present), and lacks a nonzero dimension.

It “lacks a nonzero dimension”.  Sounds like a good explanation, but what does it mean?  If it lacks a nonzero dimension, then it must have “a zero dimension”.
Yes, it does. All three of its spatial dimensions are zero.  It has zero length, width, and height.
Quote
Therefore, it occupies no space.
Correct.
Quote
It is, in fact, the conceptual point at which the total mass of the Earth must be considered as residing, in order to work with Newtonian gravity.  I have no problem with that.
Newtonian gravity doesn't require all mass to be a point.  He proved that the mathematics can be simplified to that case if the object is spherically symmetrical, which Earth almost is. But Newtonian gravity works fine for irregular objects. It just needs a longer pencil to work out.

Quote
Just for clarity; a point in space lacks a non-zero dimension, so it is zero-dimensional; whereas a worldline lacks a non-zero dimension, but has, as you explain in #255, either one or four dimensions.  (?)
The worldline of a point is still a mathematical (not straight) line, which has no thickness in any spatial dimension.  Earth is not a point, so it has a worldline that is some 11000km thick in any of the three dimensions, at least in a frame near that of Earth.  In other frames, some of those three values might be significantly less.
« Last Edit: 30/10/2019 14:06:48 by Halc »
Logged
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11385
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 667 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« Reply #259 on: 30/10/2019 14:19:44 »
Lacking a nonzero dimension means having zero spatial (or spatiotemporal, or indeed any of the 256 dimensions that pay the rent for string theorists) extent in any direction. What it doesn't mean is "having zero dimensionality", because a point is defined by the confluence of vectors.

(x,y,z) is a point in 3D. Any or all of the coordinates can be zero, depending on where you assign the origin of the coordinates, and conventionally they all originate at (0,0,0). (1,2,3) obviously has dimensionality because we get to or from it by travelling through three dimensions. And if we started there, we could get to (0,0,0) without becoming spaghettified or losing any information, so (0,0,0) is a point with dimensionality but no spatial extent.
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

Started by guest39538Board Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 43
Views: 14889
Last post 22/07/2020 05:10:15
by CPT ArkAngel
If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

Started by Tornado220Board Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 16
Views: 5919
Last post 06/07/2017 10:35:51
by paulggriffiths
Where is the "edge" of the Universe?

Started by paul.frBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 25
Views: 20788
Last post 01/04/2020 06:01:21
by hamdani yusuf
If the Universe is expanding, does this mean that space is expanding?

Started by EthosBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 14
Views: 11873
Last post 27/03/2020 21:05:55
by yor_on
How do we "know" that the universe is expanding?

Started by PmbPhyBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 12
Views: 5278
Last post 10/01/2019 10:20:39
by Bored chemist
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.13 seconds with 77 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.