The pre-Big Bang singularity did not explode. It’s just the mathematical limit on that side in time (the past) of the cosmic process. There’s really only the “explosion” and its aftermath (which aren’t really distinct from each other).
Likewise, the singularity at the center of a black hole is a mathematical limit on one side in time (the future), though not of the whole cosmic process but only of the parts of the cosmos beyond the event horizon. In the very, very distant future, black holes will themselves disappear, and the only limit that remains is the post-Big Chill singularity.
Fields are prior to “objects”, yes. “Elementary particles” are quantizable fluctuations or waves on the “surface” that is a field. The Higgs boson itself is not all that interesting; what’s interesting is that it shows us that the Higgs field exists, and what’s so special about the Higgs field is that it’s always had and will always have a positive energy—i.e., not neutral. That energy is now far lower than it used to be, though, and I predict that it will become ever lower (but never zero). The Higgs constant is itself the x-axis of the universe, and it’s always had and will always have a positive value on the y-axis, but that value will approximate zero evermore.
Of course, this last sentence is quite paradoxical—I mean, how is zero on the y-axis not the same as the x-axis? Well, there are two x-axes: the ideal, mathematical one, which designates the post-Big Chill limit, and the actual, physical one, which designates the vacuum energy of the universe.
Likewise, there are two y-axes: the one designates the pre-Big Bang limit, and the other designates the energy density of the universe.
Together, these make for a total of three axes, not four…
Im familiar with this hypothesis (because youve written about it before) and find it interesting and possibly true, but I am not convinced, as you’ve not proven it. As far as I can tell James’ hypothesis is possibly true as well, as is a third one, where the big bang follows a big crunch.
This seems to contain a contradiction; if it is that futural limit, then it would not be possible for it to dissolve.
As I understand ‘singuarity’ in the sense of a black hole simply means a situation where the laws of physics no longer apply, in this case because density of mass is, or seems to be infinite, because of which some properties of time and space swap places. (E.g. spatial movement acquires properties of time, such as irreversibility).
In that sense the future does indeed take on a different meaning, but still only temporarily so if Hawking is correct and these things will dissolve.
The hypothesis of the big chill is also plausible but not proven, and I do not see how it amounts to a singularity, as the laws of physics will keep applying, just become less relevant.
How is the positive Highs field balanced into a zero sum in your model? Or does the zero sum only apply to valuing?
It’s a scientific fact that if all matter were to disappear into the multiple holes at the centre of the multiple galaxies from where it all came then the electromagnetic fields which permeate the cosmos would remain because these fields are not tied to matter.So where is the matter for your mythical single big Jakob?
Einstein’s theories are proven nonsense.The JWT is merely confirming it and is the final nail in mainstream atheistic pseudosciences coffin.
Electromagnetic energy is created by vibratory balancing the NN,NS,SN,SS electromagnetic force interactions that exist right now between all the spinning particles with N and S poles at the quantum level.Hence N/S=N/S.The spin speed of the particles regulates the frequency of these interactions and therefore the amount of electromagnetic energy (heat) emitted from a matter type.
E=mc2 is incorrect.Mass and the speed of light has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of energy.What was Einstein thinking?
E=Spin speed of particles x frequency of their interactions
Vibration is the means of communication in the cosmos.
I’m a very very good philosopher Jakob and all of the sciences are interconnected and we are totally embroiled within science either observers or players.
Philosophy dictates to science ….Science does not dictate to philosophy.
My philosophy,science and psychology is totally sound.
Your problem is you have been listening to and believing atheistic fairytales.
The proof, I think, is that if the limit were reached, the energy density of the universe would be infinite.
Indeed! Well, first, let us note that “futural limit” is not the same as “future”. A limit cannot be reached, whereas the future by definition can be reached, otherwise it’s not the future. Now compare this to Back to the Future. The future changes if the past is changed; there are alternative timelines. But this would require absolute randomness or absolute free will. Yet even in the absence of those, we may distinguish between theory and practice: in theory, a black hole could eternally continue to be fed with new positive energy, in which case the futural limit would forever be the singularity at its center. But in practice, this is not possible, so the singularity is only like a projected future: projections will have to be adjusted as the project loses steam, so to say.
I distinguish between the singularity at the center of the black hole and the black hole itself. Beyond the event horizon of the black hole, reckoning from an outside observer, temporal and spatial properties already swap places, because gravity pulls particles in at a rate that’s faster than the speed of light. (At the event horizon itself, the rate is exactly the speed of light.) So even light that’s moving “away” from the center, toward the event horizon, has a worldline that would lead to the singularity at the center.
The River Model of General Relativity (Dialect)
Well, I think that’s the whole point. If the pre-Big Bang singularity is only a limit, the laws of physics have always applied; likewise if the singularity at the center of a black hole is only a limit.
No, the zero sum in my model is positive in the sense that there is something, and not rather nothing (zero). This “something” is a no-thingness and thereby literally a nothing-ness, but this nothingness still exists; if nothingness did not exist, then there would be truly Something, the opposite of true Nothing. In other words, there is Becoming, but this Becoming never becomes Being and has never become Becoming out of Nothing—nor vice versa. In fact, we may say Being and Nothing are the same, would be the same, and simply designate the severance of the existence of no-thingness. (The pre-Big Bang limit is “Being”; the post-Big Chill limit is “Nothing”. This y-axis and x-axis, respectively, are sublated in/as the cosmic process.)
All of the physical is binary……The physical body automated machine is constructed by adopting binary science.The physical body machine is held together by vibratory balancing the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS that exist right now between all the spinning particles with N and S poles at the quantum level which make it up.The physical body machine vibrates therefore.All other physical matter is held together by the same binary science.
The spin speed of the particles which make up a particular matter type regulates the frequency of the interactions and thus the amount of electromagnetic energy (heat) emitted from that matter.These varying frequency energy waves are picked up by the physical body automated machine senses and the binary data contained within the analogue waves are converted into binary electrical signals and a software program which operates the physical body machine.
Vibration is the means of communication in the cosmos.
There was no single big bang…That’s an atheistic fairy tale myth.
We need to stop listening to atheists and their pseudo philosophy and science because they are absolutely no authority when it comes to reality…….These individuals claim that they and everything else is a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) remember.
They say this about the energy density of black holes too, that it is infinite. From that would follow the same thing; because no meatter how think the density of the rest of the cosmos is, if one element is truly infinite in tensity, that would make the whole universes density mathematically infinite.
Why does time travel require absolute randomness or free will?
I think it would ‘merelty’ require that there is a deeper ground to things than this physical universe, which is something String Theory proposes.
On this deeper ground, things would or could still be determined, by a different, more powerful geometry.
Not to say I necessarily believe in time travel, but I can’t refute it either.
On time - thinking about Hume’s scepticism about Newtonean law, suggesting that there is only correlation, not cause, I came to the clonclusion that there is something to this, that effect and cause are in fact quite literally the same, much as the 1+1 and the 2 are the same. There is no ‘moment of impact’, there is just mirrored action. It appears Einstein thought the same, that time might as well be seen to move backwards. I’m not really going anywhere with this, just mentioning it.
A particle at the EH does not necessarily move at the speed of light; it’s the escape velocity that equals or surpasses the speed of light and is thus impossible.
I watched much of it but do not find it convincing. Though it is indeed the case that gravity equals accelleration (as Newton formulated), I do not think he has made his case about space.
I find Einsteins idea of space-time curvature more compelling.
I have not done the observations and the math, so I have go by what I read, but according to Relativity the laws do break down in the black hole.
I interpet this as the singularity being beyond the limit of the laws of physics, and I consider seriously that the math would have to work with higher dimensionalities to do any erxplaining there.
Some stuff I read about String Theory put me up to this idea.
That makes sense to me.
One view I consider is that our existence is the result of the self-contradiction implicit in the absolute, which is pure Being.
Ha, yes. But the energy density of black holes is not infinite. It would only be infinite at the exact center, which however—or so I contend—can never be reached. In the 2D model shown in the video I posted, it would not be a curve stretching from outside the event horizon to the center, but a straight line shooting straight up from the center (and thereby never reaching to the event horizon, let alone beyond it; in fact, never even reaching anything inside the black hole…). The curves, which had been nearly but not completely horizontal outside the event horizon, can never reach complete verticality, i.e. they can never reach that limit.
I wasn’t actually talking about time travel. I was just invoking Back to the Future for the notion of alternate timelines. Such an alternative would require absolute randomness—an exact 50/50 chance for it to go one way or the other—or absolute free will, the freedom to make it go one way or the other.
I know. I meant that the fields (Higgs etc.) are pulled in at a rate exceeding the speed of light, and the particles are in those fields. Massless particles still move at the speed of light through their respective fields, and particles with mass move through them even more slowly, of course.
In my understanding it’s the same thing. Black holes are waterfalls of space because their mass makes the river curve into them. And so do all bodies and particles with mass to an extent.
As I’ve been wanting to say since soon after posting this, it’s not just the Higgs field; there may be other positive fields, and in fact it seems there must be in order to account for all dark energy (a.k.a. vacuum energy). So it’s rather that dark energy is the x-axis of the universe in this sense.
Actually, scratch that. I just looked it up to refresh my memory, and it’s actually the other way round: there seems to be far more Higgs energy than dark energy! (Also, the decrease of the Higgs energy was not an even remotely gradual thing, but a phase transition.) Could mass’s “swallowing” of the various fields, including the Higgs one, account for the seeming lack of dark energy? For I seem to remember that there would have to be a far greater density of dark energy to account for the “expansion” of the universe… Although, why then would it have to have negative pressure? I will investigate further.
Alright, so I just realized there wouldn’t have to be far more dark energy to account for the “expansion”, but just far more energy than is observed: whence the very postulation of dark energy.
So it seems we just have to account for the Higgs energy, which is far greater than even the dark energy required. I just learned the phrase that the Higgs energy does not gravitate, i.e. it does not contribute to gravity. But this seems to make intuitive sense if the various fields are precisely what “disappears” into bodies and particles with mass! It seems to me that to have mass, to “exert gravity”, means just this: to “absorb” the various fields in this way.
By it do you mean space?
But then is there no space absent black holes?
Conceivably there isnt space absent the BB, if the hypothesis is correct; or - would the fileds still exist?
Im confused as to how a field would move ueberhaupt, as movement is a property of that which can be wirht respect to something else, particles, ‘things’ …; hiow would we measure, establish the movement of a field?
The notion you proposed of particles deriving their gravitation from their interaction with the Higgs field is very interesting, and as far as I can be the judge of that, plausible.
I dont follow this; one’s choice of steering reality one way or the other would still be determined by what one is. I don’t see the tie to randomness.
Alternative universe theory is plausible to me in terms of superposition, the idea that from its conception, the universe keeps splitting up in different porbable states. Not that I’d necessarily bet on it, but I can see how it would work.
Even a photon has Relativistic mass from its momentum; how can a massless thing even have momentum to acquire mass from? From its interaction with fields, apparently, but I think it only interacts with the EM-, not the Higgs-field. Not sure.
I mean I don’t see that space shoots outward in the way he describes.
What I find compelling about spacetime-curvature is the relationship of gravity and time. Also such concepts as that time stands still at the speed of light, that photons heading directly at each other still approach each other at 1 not 2 times c; etc. The speed of light as an almost metaphysical limit, which I tie directly to the absolute;
(The absolute includes everything, including its own negation, and light, which is its own velocity, which is a limit, and thus a negative, I can see as a property of this negation.)
Dark energy is not vacuum energy is it? vacuum energy is the fluctuations of the quantum field, and we can observe it. It consists of pairs of positive and negative particles. Dark energy’s nature is unknown to us.
The plate-experiment to register the existence of vacuum energy is interesting, I dont know how it is performed, it involves two metal plates suspended alongside each other in vacuum, and results in the plates moving closer together, supposedly because the vcacuum energy outside of the plates (as opposed to in between them) involves the whole range of frequencies, whereas the energy between the plates can only include those frequencies which amount exactly to the length of the plates.
I have no idea how the plates are suspended. But a smiliar effect occurs with two nearby ships. The waves between them are limited in their wavelength and thus generate less pressure than the waves on the outside.
Can everyone in this conversation please state your credentials? Are you just talking about what you have studied independently? If so, please list what you have studied.
Which ‘it’ do you mean? The first two both refer to ‘the energy density of black holes’; the third refers to ‘the event horizon’. But I suppose you’re talking about the second. That energy density is indeed tantamount to space, since outside the black hole, where space is almost flat, the energy density is at its lowest, whereas near its center, where space is almost “vertical”, the energy density is at its highest.
There would be no space absent bodies or particles with mass… (A black hole is simply a body with a great amount of mass.) There could be no completely flat space; if space were completely flat, it would not exist. (Let us note at this point that what’s so special about the Higgs field is not just the fact that it has a positive charge, but also the related fact that it’s what gives electrons their mass—in other words, what slows them down from their ‘natural’ speed c…)
We know that massless particles always move at the speed of light through their respective fields. Therefore, we know that the light which seems to stand still at the event horizon of black holes still moves at that same speed with respect to its field, which means their field moves at that same speed in the opposite direction!
Possibly from other, as yet unknown fields as well, but yeah.
But then it was already predetermined, and it wasn’t really a choice—nor randomness, which is not the same. Choice implies free will. That is to say, a choice is a completely deterministic event accompanied by the feeling of freedom… Unless it’s not deterministic but truly random, but that seems just as inconceivable as metaphysical free will.
From Google’s AI overview:
“Yes, photons have ‘relativistic mass’ because they have energy and momentum, but modern physics prefers to say they have zero rest mass and describe their properties using energy/momentum, as the concept of ‘relativistic mass’ (which changes with speed) is outdated and confusing.”
And yes, photons do indeed not interact with the Higgs field, otherwise they would have a rest mass and not move at c.
He doesn’t say space shoots outward, but that which occupies space does: bodies and particles with rest mass “shoot outward” in the sense that they resist their own “gravity”, i.e. they move in all directions in the opposite direction of the fields that flow into them like into a drain. (Interestingly, the fields never run out, which I connect with the inference that ever more dark energy emerges.)
Yes, that’s because we measure time by the motion of light itself (particles without rest mass).
Indeed, instead of exceeding c, light blueshifts. So if pilot wave theory were true, the classical particle riding the lightwave would move faster on a blueshifted wave, and more slowly on a redshifted wave. Because then we’d measure the distance by the crests and troughs instead of by the horizontal centerline (x-axis)…
It may be unknown to us, though we do know it has negative pressure… But the reason we can’t just say dark energy is vacuum energy is not that vacuum energy does not suffice to account for all the workings of dark energy, but on the contrary, that there seems to be far too much vacuum energy to account for the workings of dark energy alone…
Again from Gooble’s AI overview:
“This event, known as the electroweak phase transition, occurred a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang, when the universe cooled to a critical temperature of approximately 159.5 GeV (around a trillion degrees).”
I do not have the credentials to speak on this topic, but I have read on it. However, I don’t remember everything at the same time. I don’t trust a lot of the things I read on the Internet. You want a link to my Goodreads? Probably needs updating.
I use Gemini and ChatGPT, but that requires that you have, well, a sense of what makes sense and ask smart follow-up questions when you have doubts or unclarity. I’ve also watched quite a few good YouTube-videos, especially from PBS Space Time, and thought about the things I learned. But I’m a philosopher, not a scientist; an amator, not a prof.
I like talking to Meta and Copilot. I occasionally mediate conversations between them.
Yes. And have you noticed they are familiar with the Socratic method? Not just asking questions …but taking the position that agitates, or presenting the positions that give birth to the synthesis?
Have you noticed a lot of inconsistency across sources, and even within sources?
Why do you persist with the religious cult of atheism doctrine now that it’s proven to be dead?
This religious cult needs an “I don’t exist” to get it to work which it doesn’t have because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist so if you claim that you don’t exist then you are a liar that exists.
Atheists have been proven to be “prisoners of consciousness” who exist.
Philsophy has moved on now…..come on people….keep up.
You can think/reason what you like in your EXISTENCE but it does mean that it’s true or false.
The first two both refer to ‘the energy density of black holes’; the third refers to ‘the event horizon’. But I suppose you’re talking about the second. That energy density is indeed tantamount to space, since outside the black hole, where space is almost flat, the energy density is at its lowest, whereas near its center, where space is almost “vertical”, the energy density is at its highest.