Where do you think we came from? - Page 96

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

And what makes ya assume what was created wasn't illusive ? ..😆

What is illusive, the creator or the creation?

..Again I don't understand why would the Law of Conservation be violated ?

Where did matter/energy originated from? If they were created from nothing or even lets assume God created them, doesn't that violate the law of conservation?

When the total cosmic energy remains the same ...

Vintu ...😛

Again all discussions are strictly hypothetical :)

Originally posted by: _Angie_

thoughts as in consequence to the electrochemical signalling could be slower as confined to the spatiotemporal limitations but what about the unexplained spontaneous thoughts as in Eureka moments ?

All of those occur in space-time and all of those are electrochemical signals so still not at or faster than light speed.

Originally posted by: _Angie_

There appears to be a lot of processing going on at a subconscious level and we may have to take non locality into account...

Please elaborate on the non-locality part Angie. Whatever is being hinted here sounds interesting.

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

It is troubling cause the human tends to think there is a purpose for everything. And what happens if you take "purpose" out of the equation, doesn't the acceptance to our existence comes naturally?

True but we are not even getting into the "why" part yet. We are still looking into the "how" part. The why discusses the purpose, the how describes the mechanics.

How did the universe come about?! By what mechanism?

We understand that science is all about the how and not the why but since science is hitting a roadblock, at singularity, it becomes imperative to theorize a little bit.

Which is what we are doing here.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

True but we are not even getting into the "why" part yet. We are still looking into the "how" part. The why discusses the purpose, the how describes the mechanics.



How did the universe come about?! By what mechanism?



We understand that science is all about the how and not the why but since science is hitting a roadblock, at singularity, it becomes imperative to theorize a little bit.

Which is what we are doing here.

Agree and it's human nature to question everything :)

Are you hinting at machines suddenly (unlike the big-bang) becoming conscious when referring to singularity roadblocks?

^^ No, not technological singularity. Gravitational. 😊

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

^^ No, not technological singularity. Gravitational. 😊

I am not familiar with singularity roadblocks, maybe you can elaborate little further. :)

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

I am not familiar with singularity roadblocks, maybe you can elaborate little further. :)

In layman terms, our science and math models that describe the current universe to a high degree of accuracy, break down at singularity. Specifically, general relativity can't handle infinite curvature of space-time because the Math behind it encounters infinities (undefined values). We get infinite temperature, infinite mass, infinite density, zero volume of space-time and so on.

General relativity is the science of the big. Since at singularity, space is almost infinitely curved with a near zero volume, one might think that the science of the small, which is Quantum Mechanics can handle singularity. Even it can't because it's equations don't consider gravity. There is no carrier particle for gravity in the standard model for particle physics. And, at singularity, gravitational effects also tend towards infinity because of infinite mass.

So, we have two of our best tools, GR and QM, not handling singularity at all.

Hence the need for a theory that unifies General relativity and Quantum mechanics.

We don't have such a unified theory yet.

Till they come up with something, we are all free to guess on the origins of the universe.

Ideally, it would be nice if the guesses are educated guesses.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

General relativity is the science of the big. Since at singularity, space is almost infinitely curved with a near zero volume, one might think that the science of the small, which is Quantum Mechanics can handle singularity. Even it can't because it's equations don't consider gravity. There is no carrier particle for gravity in the standard model for particle physics. And, at singularity, gravitational effects also tend towards infinity because of infinite mass.

So, we have two of our best tools, GR and QM, not handling singularity at all.

Hence the need for a theory that unifies General relativity and Quantum mechanics.

We don't have such a unified theory yet.

Till they come up with something, we are all free to guess on the origins of the universe.

Originally posted by: Lahari.

@ Bold - You are right on all counts, except that I cannot recall from my aging brain cells that mass is infinite at singularity(feel free to correct me if I'm derailing). As far as I can remember, in GR, density is infinite because volume tends to zero and not because mass is infinite. I believe same goes for QM where particulature is compressed beyond coulomb's repulsion, leading distance to be zero and thus, gravitational effect tend towards infinity - again, not because mass is infinite :), and also turns out to be the point where the laws of physics cease to apply.
That said your last statement still holds good. In the land of infinities, many conclusions are undefined and eligible for any dreamer to be theorized.

May be I got carried away with all the infinities I was listing there and in my infinite wisdom (oops, getting carried away again! :) possibly made a boo-boo.

It is debatable what the mass was even though leaving everything as "undefined" is probably more appropriate. After all, isn't infinity also an indefinite concept?

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

The phenomenon I guess can be explained with the superposing principle. I mean if we assume that the universe is indeed superpositioned ...then what would happen to the observers with different wave functions?..

IMO, it would be incorrect to assume (based on what we know as of today) that the universe itself is superpositioned. We know that the particles are superpositioned but we don't have particles for everything that is in the universe. We don't have a particle for gravity, dark matter, dark energy. We also don't know if space-time itself can be quantized.