For a while now I've been tweeting...
As we all know, from the merry dance we've led in pursuit of the knowledge, the question "where did the universe come from?" is truly puzzling; the idea that something can come from nothing is troubling to say the least. It appears to us that the universal beginnings are paradoxical; the questions scream at us... How could a Big Bang happen in nothing? What happened before nothing? What made it start to NOT be nothing?
As we all also know, our primitive ancestor's answer of "a god did it" is far too complex - Occam's Razor shreds the “god creator” myth because of the necessity for the innate complexity of such a god.
A sub-atomic particle (photon, electron etc) = A Wave = A vibrating String (string theory)
As far as I can tell these are interchangeable labels for the same notion in physics and their usage seems entirely dependent on other factors, who is talking, what aspect of physics are being explored or discussed etc but to all intents and purposes they are the same.
We know that non-locality(1), the theory that a sub-atomic particle can exist in two places at the same time, is most likely a fact of our reality.
We know that in classical physics, time is a contingent of space. (No matter what moves between two points in space, regardless of the length of the gap between those points, it will always take time to do it)
I think we may state... where there exists no space, there exists no time. Or, to reword that statement, where Quantum super-position occurs it may not, exclusively, be occurring in "our" space-time. I think we may also state that if something exists as a "String" at a known coordinate, it cannot exist in "no time" because it is existing. And, perhaps, further infer that the string may exist at "any" point in time or, to put it another way, in "all times".
If we imagine the view of time we would have if we were a waveform, isn't "all times" just the "same" time?
I mean, when the particle is in two places at once it has not travelled, so its instantaneous transmission has happened without time.
Does that not imply that "time" is not of relevance to this "spooky" effect?
And, if time is not a barrier then trans-location to a time, in our view of time, "before or after" is permitted.
Indeed, imagining the view of time as if we were the particle, wouldn’t the whole of eternity exist as a single moment of potential? So couldn't the particle trans-locate, not just to anywhere but also to anywhen?
Especially as, without a time parameter, anywhen is always "now".
If quantum non-locality is true and "Stings" are not subject to time until they have been trapped into the causality arrow, as seems to be the case, then it seems plausible to me that they could, from our linear perspective, "travel in time".
Okay, so if "anywhen" is "true" then what?
Well...
Maybe the reason why the notion of "A universe from nothing" seems paradoxical to us is because it’s an actual paradox.
What if when the scientists at CERN next fire off their big-ring-thing, one of the particles "appears" in the very ultimate distant "when", pre-Big-Bang, thereby causing the Big Bang of the universe in which we now live?
I know what you are thinking...
"There IS a beginning but it only began because we got smart enough to begin it? But, without a beginning we shouldn't be here!" Sounds loopy, eh?
Well, if you think of it in terms of the well-known example, "the Grandfather Paradox"...
I see no reason to avoid inferring the converse of that so, by the same token, we may assume that the actions of the present/future could spin the past into existence?
Hey, don't blame me, it's just one of those thought things. I should've listened to another Janeway quote; "My advice on making sense of temporal paradoxes is simple: don't even try." but I didn't so here we are...
By Building CERN and firing it off, did we start our universe ourselves? I can't even figure out if there could be a way to discover the answer to that but the notion has solid scientific theories in support of it or, at least, more than there is for any god, which has none. And, as the notion is more than "from nothing", this "Temporal Paradox Universe" model must be seen as more probable than "nothing".
Are we then, perhaps, the "god" of our fictions? Whether it’s probable or not is likely the stuff of complex equations but is it plausible? The only reasonable answer, from this speculation, is yes.
However, maybe, just maybe, if you follow my next line of thought and if any of this actually makes sense, then maybe...
A cleaner in CERN reads this post. Next day, on a tea break, the cleaner is talking about it in the canteen. One of the Physics techs, sitting nearby, overhears and ponders on it while walking back to help firing off another tiny bullet. The original reader of this post, the cleaning staff, the canteen staff, the physics tech and anyone else to whom it has been mentioned are all thinking of it, are conscious of this posts preposterous notion; maybe they're even chuckling about it as the particle is fired.
Their collective conscious thoughts affect the particle's reaction and it trans-locates, not in space, but in time.
It "materialises" at Universal Cartesian coordinates 0,0,0,-1 : Same point in space, 13.7 Billion years and 1 second ago, our time.
The sudden injection of the "particle/wavelength/string" collapses what I think must be a super-positioned "nothing" and begins the creation of the universe in which we now exist.
Now, as the instigator of the conscious act that created the universe, wouldn't that sequence of events make me the much fawned over and hailed god of the scriptures?
And as both we and the universe are in existence, doesn't that suggest, that's exactly what did happen?
If so...
You're welcome. :D
For a more scripturally inspired, poetic rendering of this hypothesis have a read of
In The Before Is The Void
This is one of the Too Many Questions
1 A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics
P.S. I have just learned that my 'Temproal Pardadox Universe' model is similar to the Participatory Anthropic Principle postulated by theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler in a radio show in 2006.
I don't know how similar they are but it's always a buzz to discover that some great thinker or other was thinking the same sorts of things, eh?
Kind of verifies I'm making some sort of sense. :)
Look it up if you wanna, I've had enough of the quantum for now - it's far too "headachey"!
"Almost ANY notion, including ‘nothing’, is more plausible than ‘the first being EVER was omnipresent, omnipotent omniscient, immortal and benign’!"...which I still hold as a reasonable position to take but here's a notional kick around that I've been trying to verify. I haven't yet; if you've any thoughts, I'd be thrilled.
As we all know, from the merry dance we've led in pursuit of the knowledge, the question "where did the universe come from?" is truly puzzling; the idea that something can come from nothing is troubling to say the least. It appears to us that the universal beginnings are paradoxical; the questions scream at us... How could a Big Bang happen in nothing? What happened before nothing? What made it start to NOT be nothing?
As we all also know, our primitive ancestor's answer of "a god did it" is far too complex - Occam's Razor shreds the “god creator” myth because of the necessity for the innate complexity of such a god.
For anyone wishing to argue "god is simple" - please!Anyway, I've hit on a thought, which may have some merit, even though it's just a postulation based on a few weeks of trying to get my head around various aspects of Quantum theory. It isn't yet, my head, around it I mean but I've had this notion, so I thought I'd share. First things first; if any of the following seems too obvious, I apologise, I could say it's so "we don't leave anyone behind" but it's really that I've only got a loose grasp on this stuff myself....
Even thinking "I am" takes comprehension, of grammar, of personal pronouns and, for that matter, a perception of self, as distinct from something else. That's a huge amount of complexity before even getting into anything else a god would have had to think in order to think up a universe.
For a fuller explanation of why a god cannot be thought of as "the simplest answer" to the question "how did the all this get here?" have a read of Shaving God with Occam
A sub-atomic particle (photon, electron etc) = A Wave = A vibrating String (string theory)
As far as I can tell these are interchangeable labels for the same notion in physics and their usage seems entirely dependent on other factors, who is talking, what aspect of physics are being explored or discussed etc but to all intents and purposes they are the same.
We know that non-locality(1), the theory that a sub-atomic particle can exist in two places at the same time, is most likely a fact of our reality.
We know that in classical physics, time is a contingent of space. (No matter what moves between two points in space, regardless of the length of the gap between those points, it will always take time to do it)
I think we may state... where there exists no space, there exists no time. Or, to reword that statement, where Quantum super-position occurs it may not, exclusively, be occurring in "our" space-time. I think we may also state that if something exists as a "String" at a known coordinate, it cannot exist in "no time" because it is existing. And, perhaps, further infer that the string may exist at "any" point in time or, to put it another way, in "all times".
If we imagine the view of time we would have if we were a waveform, isn't "all times" just the "same" time?
I mean, when the particle is in two places at once it has not travelled, so its instantaneous transmission has happened without time.
Does that not imply that "time" is not of relevance to this "spooky" effect?
And, if time is not a barrier then trans-location to a time, in our view of time, "before or after" is permitted.
Indeed, imagining the view of time as if we were the particle, wouldn’t the whole of eternity exist as a single moment of potential? So couldn't the particle trans-locate, not just to anywhere but also to anywhen?
Especially as, without a time parameter, anywhen is always "now".
If quantum non-locality is true and "Stings" are not subject to time until they have been trapped into the causality arrow, as seems to be the case, then it seems plausible to me that they could, from our linear perspective, "travel in time".
Okay, so if "anywhen" is "true" then what?
Well...
Maybe the reason why the notion of "A universe from nothing" seems paradoxical to us is because it’s an actual paradox.
What if when the scientists at CERN next fire off their big-ring-thing, one of the particles "appears" in the very ultimate distant "when", pre-Big-Bang, thereby causing the Big Bang of the universe in which we now live?
I know what you are thinking...
"There IS a beginning but it only began because we got smart enough to begin it? But, without a beginning we shouldn't be here!" Sounds loopy, eh?
Well, if you think of it in terms of the well-known example, "the Grandfather Paradox"...
Go back in time and shoot your grandfather before he spawned your father and you would never have existed to go back in time to shoot him.This shows us that almost any interaction by a time traveller in his own past could un-spin all of the multiverse from the point of intervention onward.
I see no reason to avoid inferring the converse of that so, by the same token, we may assume that the actions of the present/future could spin the past into existence?
Hey, don't blame me, it's just one of those thought things. I should've listened to another Janeway quote; "My advice on making sense of temporal paradoxes is simple: don't even try." but I didn't so here we are...
By Building CERN and firing it off, did we start our universe ourselves? I can't even figure out if there could be a way to discover the answer to that but the notion has solid scientific theories in support of it or, at least, more than there is for any god, which has none. And, as the notion is more than "from nothing", this "Temporal Paradox Universe" model must be seen as more probable than "nothing".
Are we then, perhaps, the "god" of our fictions? Whether it’s probable or not is likely the stuff of complex equations but is it plausible? The only reasonable answer, from this speculation, is yes.
However, maybe, just maybe, if you follow my next line of thought and if any of this actually makes sense, then maybe...
A cleaner in CERN reads this post. Next day, on a tea break, the cleaner is talking about it in the canteen. One of the Physics techs, sitting nearby, overhears and ponders on it while walking back to help firing off another tiny bullet. The original reader of this post, the cleaning staff, the canteen staff, the physics tech and anyone else to whom it has been mentioned are all thinking of it, are conscious of this posts preposterous notion; maybe they're even chuckling about it as the particle is fired.
Their collective conscious thoughts affect the particle's reaction and it trans-locates, not in space, but in time.
It "materialises" at Universal Cartesian coordinates 0,0,0,-1 : Same point in space, 13.7 Billion years and 1 second ago, our time.
The sudden injection of the "particle/wavelength/string" collapses what I think must be a super-positioned "nothing" and begins the creation of the universe in which we now exist.
Now, as the instigator of the conscious act that created the universe, wouldn't that sequence of events make me the much fawned over and hailed god of the scriptures?
And as both we and the universe are in existence, doesn't that suggest, that's exactly what did happen?
If so...
You're welcome. :D
In The Before Is The Void
This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Crispy
1 A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics
P.S. I have just learned that my 'Temproal Pardadox Universe' model is similar to the Participatory Anthropic Principle postulated by theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler in a radio show in 2006.
I don't know how similar they are but it's always a buzz to discover that some great thinker or other was thinking the same sorts of things, eh?
Kind of verifies I'm making some sort of sense. :)
Look it up if you wanna, I've had enough of the quantum for now - it's far too "headachey"!
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!
