How did we come from nowhere?

[StuartLeDrew]

As soon as we happened our “happened in” time dimension, became our past, and the speed of light became our future. We can never attain our future, and we can never regain our past. We are the present. We are the light.

We have a probability of 1.

 

Therefore:

We always had to be. / Past

We have to be. / Present

We always have to be. / Future

 

We exist in a twined / mirrored, dark energy / light energy Universe, on a time plane we call the present: constantly watching our pasts: as we chase our futures.

 

A “photon of light” is in fact a twinned dark energy / light energy couple, hence the wave.

[Phi for All]

Hi, this is a science discussion forum. What you've written here is really vague in parts, really obvious in others, and really wrong in the rest. Is this an attempt at some kind of philosophical poetry? It's got NOTHING we can actually discuss meaningfully, other than to correct some of your misconceptions. Are you open to that, or are you here to soapbox?

[StuartLeDrew]

Open obviously, it's a forum.

[QuantumT]

32 minutes ago, StuartLeDrew said:

How did we come from nowhere?

There is quantum fluctuation, there is zero energy universe, there is M-theory and there is conformal cyclic cosmology. Take your pick.

There are plenty of ways to come from nowhere. The universe is not necessarily limited by our need for logic.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, StuartLeDrew said:

A “photon of light” is in fact a twinned dark energy

What is twinned dark energy?

Edited January 31, 2021 by Bufofrog

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

It’s a science forum. I’ve moved it to speculations, since what little science is here is not mainstream

 

[MigL]

51 minutes ago, StuartLeDrew said:

Open obviously,

I would seriously consider 'opening' a book.
Preferably a science book.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, StuartLeDrew said:

As soon as we happened our “happened in” time dimension, became our past, and the speed of light became our future. We can never attain our future, and we can never regain our past. We are the present. We are the light.

We have a probability of 1.

 

Therefore:

We always had to be. / Past

We have to be. / Present

We always have to be. / Future

 

We exist in a twined / mirrored, dark energy / light energy Universe, on a time plane we call the present: constantly watching our pasts: as we chase our futures.

 

A “photon of light” is in fact a twinned dark energy / light energy couple, hence the wave.

+1 for that. We are here.

I hope you can stay positive, and learn some science and how to scientifically support what you are trying to say.

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, StuartLeDrew said:

We exist in a twined / mirrored, dark energy / light energy Universe, on a time plane we call the present: constantly watching our pasts: as we chase our futures.

If light and dark energies were paired as you suggest, they'd be exactly equal to each other, like a yin/yang situation, or like matter and anti-matter, almost exactly equal, right? Except there's a lot more dark energy than light, so that falls down rather quickly.

"Plane" is the wrong word for time. Time is a dimension, a temporal one, and together with the three spatial dimensions, they make up the continuum we call spacetime. Movement in three dimensions of space and one of time can be expressed as a coordinate system we can use to plot the when and where of any event. 

We don't actually "watch" our pasts, do we? We gain experience, and use that experience to predict what will work best in future situations. We don't "chase" our futures, we do our best to figure them out ahead of time. Prediction is one of science's strongest abilities, since by experiment and observation we learn to expect what happens when we mix A with B and heat that up by a certain amount. It allows us to trust the knowledge we have to the greatest degree possible.

 

[beecee]

21 hours ago, QuantumT said:

. The universe is not necessarily limited by our need for logic.

 

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Prediction is one of science's strongest abilities, since by experiment and observation we learn to expect what happens when we mix A with B and heat that up by a certain amount. It allows us to trust the knowledge we have to the greatest degree possible.

Two wise statements that deserve highlighting imvho!! 

[beecee]

23 hours ago, QuantumT said:

There are plenty of ways to come from nowhere. 

I like Lawrence Krauss' speculative scenario that the universe arose from "nothing"...nothing being redefined as the quantum foam... 

[Thorham]

Not this universe from nothing nonsense again. You can't get something from nothing unless you redefine nothing to be something.

[beecee]

On 2/4/2021 at 12:25 AM, Thorham said:

Not this universe from nothing nonsense again. You can't get something from nothing unless you redefine nothing to be something.

The thing is that we are here. And obviously ignoring the creationists myths, we, the universe evolved from somewhere. The basic fundamental quantum foam, may be as close to nothing as is possible, and from which when the appropriate fluctuation arose, evolved the universe/space/time that we are familiar with.  

[Thorham]

On 2/6/2021 at 9:46 PM, beecee said:

The thing is that we are here. And obviously ignoring the creationists myths, we, the universe evolved from somewhere. The basic fundamental quantum foam, may be as close to nothing as is possible, and from which when the appropriate fluctuation arose, evolved the universe/space/time that we are familiar with.  

Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.

[Area54]

22 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness.

From my POV this cannot be said too often.

23 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.

Surely that presumes that there is always at least one time dimension in each expression of the universe? Can you demonstrate that is a necessity?

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.

Evidence?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Thorham said:

Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.

What I was trying to say, and what Krauss was saying, is that the quantum foam is nothing.

[Thorham]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

What I was trying to say, and what Krauss was saying, is that the quantum foam is nothing.

It's not nothing. This is just using the word nothing in the casual sense. Example: There's nothing in the closet, except air of course, and air isn't even remotely nothing.

A universe from nothing is the equivalent of click bait titles. A universe from something doesn't sound spectacular so you just use the word nothing in the casual sense.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Evidence?

Here we are.

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, Thorham said:

Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.

AFAIK, Any matter, like the quantum foam, which has components less than a quantum of energy has no effect on standard model particles, so energetically it's nothing. It's the lowest level of existence.

Edited February 20, 2021 by StringJunky

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Thorham said:

It's not nothing. This is just using the word nothing in the casual sense. Example: There's nothing in the closet, except air of course, and air isn't even remotely nothing.

A universe from nothing is the equivalent of click bait titles. A universe from something doesn't sound spectacular so you just use the word nothing in the casual sense.

It just maybe nothing, despite our general understanding of nothing, which simply may need redefining. Afterall we once thought space was nothing. We were wrong.

The universe/space/time isn't concerned about what we or anyone else may determine as click bait or spectacular. 

[MigL]

5 hours ago, Area54 said:

5 hours ago, Thorham said:

Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.

Surely that presumes that there is always at least one time dimension in each expression of the universe? Can you demonstrate that is a necessity?

Exactly!
What does 'always existed' mean, before time arose in spacetime geometry ?

[Thorham]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

It just maybe nothing, despite our general understanding of nothing, which simply may need redefining. Afterall we once thought space was nothing. We were wrong.

Or perhaps not use the word nothing in science if you mean something?

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

The universe/space/time isn't concerned about what we or anyone else may determine as click bait or spectacular. 

Of course not, but humans most certainly do. 

 

 

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Or perhaps not use the word nothing in science if you mean something?

Again, what is proposed is that quantum foam is nothing, despite what our human understanding of the word is.

9 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Of course not, but humans most certainly do. 

And science has continually down through the ages, shown humanity as wrong. Science is a discipline in eternal progress.

[zapatos]

59 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Here we are.

That is not evidence. It's not even bad evidence. It's more like "because I said so".

[Thorham]

52 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, what is proposed is that quantum foam is nothing, despite what our human understanding of the word is.

And that's exactly the problem with this. It's a language usage problem, namely deliberately calling something nothing while it's clearly something. It's ass backwards. If it's something just call it something. It's just like the big bang. It wasn't a bang and it wasn't big, so why is it called big bang? I have no problem with these ideas, it's not as if I have any better ones, but come on, something is nothing and a big bang that wasn't a bang and not big? These people need to take some English lessons!

26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That is not evidence. It's not even bad evidence. It's more like "because I said so".

It's a philosophical issue any way and I shouldn't have brought it up.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Thorham