^There's plenty around us greater than ourselves (life, nature, gravity, space, time, spacetime, etc). We just don't believe any of it is due to god. That simple, really.

I just upvoted two comments on my own profile through sheer ignorance - have I endangered the very fabric of space/time as we know it? And why am I directing these questions at myself?

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
This is probably not going to make me many friends, but does our compassion as a species make us unnatural?



What does that even mean? How could anything we do "conflict with nature"? Did our capacity for compassion come from some rift in space-time, bestowed upon us by trans-dimensional higher beings? Hell, even that wouldn't actually be unnatural, because everything that exists is by definition part of the natural world.

Correction to the previous comment : extrinsic backgrounds fields certainly are not Schwinger sources for the string excitations in the space-time .No problem by imposing world sheet conformal sigma model invariance and thus evaluating strings scattering amplitudes in higher dimensional critical space-time

Well, space-time coordinate of one of those space-time manifold charts (covering the space-time manifold) is one object that you certainly can "travel" back and forth(remember Godel formal PDE's solution for Einstein equation ). However , what realy counts and play the role of the Newtonian time in general Einstein relativity is the unique proper-time of a given event !(this can not be back!). Note that still remains a problem to "adjust" colectivelly the proper time of several geodesics associated to the motion of several particles moving in the back ground of a given relativistic gravitational field (The twin paradox has not been fully understood !).Let me explain better : In the Einstein framework , one gives a certain energy-momentum configuration (the "Sun") (mathematically a tensor of rank two in relation to the Local dipheomorffism space-time manifold group) in the (tensorial bundle) of space-time manifold :a object from the beginning possesing solely a differentiable topological structure and after that (and if compatible with the manifold topology-Chern /Gauss theorem constraint, Riemann completeness ,etc..), one determines the topologically compatible local metric structure of the smooth space-time by means of the famous Einstein Equations.If everything is smooth from a geometrical point of view , one starts the prediction of the "falling" bodies trajectories in this gravitational field throught the solution of the Boundary-Value Sturm liouville like problem associated to the geodesics non linear equations (you should know the beginning and the final point of the falling body trajectory into the space-time ,not the initial point and its "initial velocity" as in Newton Equation).Now one can make further steps on the Einstein program by exchanging the mater-energy Einstein's source by boundary ad-hoc conditions simulating point sources -delta sources-(not dipheomorffism covariant) ,like the Schwartz-Schild solution for Einsteinian particle motions around the Sun), and thus leading to a rich mathematical universe ( astronomical and astrophysical/cosmological observable ?)

Let us put in a correct perspective quantum string theory for TOE. Firstly it is important to remark that a full understanding of what is really Quantum Mechanics is far to be completely understood in its foundational aspects ,althougth its huge operational-quantitative success.For instance, even in the usual non relativistic quantum mechanics , certainly the notion of electronic orbitals in N-electron atomic physics appears to be a mathematical suitable approximation for the full N-electron atomic wave function.On the other hand in Quantum Field Theory , this ad-hoc choice of what is free and what is interaction is not so "ad-hoc", at least in the QFT (perturbative) scattering sector: free in and out fields are primary objects producing physically observables free N-particles (lorentz invariant!) wave functions-so perturbation is building around them and carrying with the formalism all notions of renormalizations , dispersions relations etc.. .Now quantum strings : Strings are supossedly observable for us mainly through scattering among its excitations by means of an already fixed sigma-model two-dimensional quantum dynamics taking place in the somewhat ficticious purely two dimensional string parameter space-time, where are operating two scales of interaction : one is entirely ruled by the intrinsic string topological genera and other governed by the extrinsic space-time coupling constant , namely : The Regge Slope parameter. So string theory for TOE is a proposal for pure S-Matrix "Heisenbergnian" on-shell "theory" for all particles scattering in Nature (including gravitons). Now the theory's "granus salis" (points not completely grasped-at least for this reader !): Back ground fields are fixed extrinsic classical field configurations fully determined by the imposition of conformal invariance for any genera (which certainly does not affects the intrinsic 2d UV-theories'behavior,but affects its IR intrinsic behavior as a 2d QFT) and at any order in the Regge Slope coupling (all these conformal invariance phenomena quite specific to Polyakov's action proposal , possibly not for a Nambu-Goto string action reformulation of TOE).And at the same time , they are expected to be Schwinger sources (even quite non linear) for the string excitations and to be functionally differentiated in the string path-integral later .Another point is related to Kaluza-Klein Theories -It appears that quantum geometrical theories appear to be trivial QFT theories when used to describe scattering in space-time extrinsic manifolds of higher dimensionality (lambda four scalar QFT is expected to be trivial for D strictly greater than four!). As a conclusion : at most Strings are useful theoretical labs for a fully understanding of what really is Quantum Mechanics (SchrodingerX HeisenbergXEinsteinXNelson) , if there are no experimental tests for its predictions .By the way,space-time supersymmetry still remains solely as a theoretical lab in Particle Physics, nothing more!.

Well , it appears to me that string theory is a interesting attempt to "quantize" the space-time manifold (added with suitable supersymmetric structures ).Everything in higher dimensions become reduced to two-dimensional quantum field path integral models "living"on the string chart manifold (the intrinsic two-dimensional "string space-time").However , people impose dipheomorffism invariance on this intrinsic string parameter "space-time" which unfortunatelly get mixed with 2D conformal invariance , when one uses the sigma model Polyakov' action to assign "energy" for these "quantum -fluctuating extrinsic /observable higher dimension space-time process (quite different from the more geometrical Nambu-Goto string action ).In order to solve this problem one thus impose full sigma model conformal invariance by restricting that all strings Schwinger sources (the string higher dimensional field back grounds-including the own extrinsic space time manifold dimension!)to lead to a vanishing beta function for the sigma model Polyakov action at any perturbative order of the new universal coupling constant-the String length scale/Regge parameter.This produces an apparently well defined (?,and about the infrared 2D cut-off remotion on the perturbative Feynman calculationson the intrinsic string space-time ?) 2D Field theory for the extrinsic space-time quantum energy action, besides of fixing the string Schwinger sources to satisfy the usual Einstein-Maxwell-etc field equations at one loop and the extrinsic space-time dimension and the classical manifold topology of the extrinsic space-time to be fixed, when one has supersymmetry (Spin manifold space time structures,etc..).At this point , one has an apparently well defined quantum -mechanical framework to evaluate numerically scattering amplitudes (including quantum gravity!-the old dream ) to compare with the experimental results.That is the problem on this new quantum-mechanical framework : as far as I know nothing has been matched with the usual qed,qcd,etc results!(anomalous particle magnetic momentum, deduction of the asymptotic freedom in QCD ,The Higgs mechanism on the weak sector ,etc.

I guess I'm not. Thanks for trying to explain it. I'll go back to what I know now .

In reply to this comment by mentality:
>> ^KnivesOut:
You have to extrapolate that there was an order of events. If space-time began to exist at some point, there there was certainly in immeasurable "non-time" BEFORE that point when it began to exist. Things DIDN'T, then they DID. There's your order of events. I'm not saying you can use a stop-watch and compare the two, but there was certainly an order.

No. What we perceive as the big bang can just be a local minimum of universal entropy on the time axis. Imagine a universe on the time axis at the point of local minimum of entropy. No matter which direction you're moving on the time axis, time will be moving forward. There will not be a time before this local minimum. You're not getting the relationship between entropy, the arrow of time, causality and the order of events.

We do not have to win 1000 lotteries and on specific days. The universe does. And with each planet being a ticket, the metaphorical(?) probability you're proposing seems easily obtainable, if not a given.



>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Raigen:
http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/insignificance.jpg
The next person that tells me our planet is the only one with life, or even intelligent life, in the whole goddamned Universe is going to get a telescope to the face.

Certainty on the issue is amusing. =)
It is difficult to imagine a lack of some form of life elsewhere in the universe, but intelligent life is tricky. We don't have a good understanding of the probabilities involved in the development of lifeforms with the capability of creating, for instance, long range electromagnetic communication.
It's quite possible that we are the only, or at least the first, highly intelligent life in the Milky Way. There's no scientific reason to conclude that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, but we may be the only ones within any practical distance.

Yeah. And remember the time factor. In those billions of years that have passed since the universe began, what are the chances of us being alive at the DURING THE SAME SPAN OF TIME as another intelligent species? Let alone aliens being out there and within reach. Take a look at the average life span of the species on earth - it isn't very long at all. You need an appropriate star, an appropriate planet, the planet to be during the prime period for life to develop, the necessary environmental and evolutionary developments to have taken place to allow an intelligent creature to prosper..
Not only have you got to win 1000 lotteries, but you have to win them all on specific days.
Reminds me of the weak anthropic principle - the question of "why are we so lucky that we find ourselves born into life in the most hospitable perfect area of space and time which allows us to live" is answered by "because if we weren't in this perfect area of space/time, we wouldn't be here to ponder such a thing".

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Raigen:
http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/insignificance.jpg
The next person that tells me our planet is the only one with life, or even intelligent life, in the whole goddamned Universe is going to get a telescope to the face.

Certainty on the issue is amusing. =)
It is difficult to imagine a lack of some form of life elsewhere in the universe, but intelligent life is tricky. We don't have a good understanding of the probabilities involved in the development of lifeforms with the capability of creating, for instance, long range electromagnetic communication.
It's quite possible that we are the only, or at least the first, highly intelligent life in the Milky Way. There's no scientific reason to conclude that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, but we may be the only ones within any practical distance.


Yeah. And remember the time factor. In those billions of years that have passed since the universe began, what are the chances of us being alive at the DURING THE SAME SPAN OF TIME as another intelligent species? Let alone aliens being out there and within reach. Take a look at the average life span of the species on earth - it isn't very long at all. You need an appropriate star, an appropriate planet, the planet to be during the prime period for life to develop, the necessary environmental and evolutionary developments to have taken place to allow an intelligent creature to prosper..

Not only have you got to win 1000 lotteries, but you have to win them all on specific days.

Reminds me of the weak anthropic principle - the question of "why are we so lucky that we find ourselves born into life in the most hospitable perfect area of space and time which allows us to live" is answered by "because if we weren't in this perfect area of space/time, we wouldn't be here to ponder such a thing".

>> ^KnivesOut:
You have to extrapolate that there was an order of events. If space-time began to exist at some point, there there was certainly in immeasurable "non-time" BEFORE that point when it began to exist. Things DIDN'T, then they DID. There's your order of events. I'm not saying you can use a stop-watch and compare the two, but there was certainly an order.

No. What we perceive as the big bang can just be a local minimum of universal entropy on the time axis. Imagine a universe on the time axis at the point of local minimum of entropy. No matter which direction you're moving on the time axis, time will be moving forward. There will not be a time before this local minimum. You're not getting the relationship between entropy, the arrow of time, causality and the order of events.

>> ^mentality:
>> ^KnivesOut:
If time is said to have begun to exist at some point then there was certainly a "before time". Yes, you can't measure "before time" because there's no unit to measure nothing by. But there was a before.
No, this is another common mistake. You're assuming that without time, there is still an order to events. What we perceive as time flowing in the forward direction is simply the direction of increasing entropy. We say event A happened before event B, because event A happened at a time of lesser universal entropy than event B. There is no before without time and the universe.
As for the discussion of the nothing that existed before the something that is now everything... our universe is a bubble of reality that was blown into existence, by some external force. External? External to what?
No. Nobody says that it was created by an external force. That is just silly and makes no sense.


You have to extrapolate that there was an order of events. If space-time began to exist at some point, there there was certainly in immeasurable "non-time" BEFORE that point when it began to exist. Things DIDN'T, then they DID. There's your order of events. I'm not saying you can use a stop-watch and compare the two, but there was certainly an order.

And by external force, I'm not claiming that some supernatural being had a hand in any of this. I like the idea of realities colliding in M-dimensional space, with massive amounts of energy blowing bubbles of reality into existence. No god necessary. The external forces that I'm imagining are invisible and immeasurable only because of our lack of technology to look outside the reality that we exist in.

The reason there's so much conjecture about the conditions before the big bang is because we have absolutely no way of observing what came before. It seems that everything about our universe that we can detect or experience; space, time, light, matter and energy were all created at the Big Bang.

This is exactly why the Catholic church accepts the Big Bang as the method of creation. They know that what came before is safely outside the realm of empirical knowledge. It is the final sanctuary for their "God of the gaps".

If you watch it again you'll see she wasn't saying any one theory was correct. She started out by saying that generation from nothingness was the "simplest" theory, then went on to give a couple of very different alternatives.

>> ^gwiz665:
Oh, and sideboob at 1:08... you're welcome.


She is quite bangable... sorry...

On a serious note: excellent animation, excellent explanations, but I don't agree with one thing: she states that there was "nothing" before the big bang. I agree that there was probably no space/time, but I feel there was something there that actually "banged." I would imagine that it would be something that is entirely incomprehensible to us (as is the stuff that exists outside of that), but it seems logical that for there to be a big bang, there had to be some sort of thing that would do it...

Then again, wtf do I know?

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Don't actually MAKE the dog bark, ffs. God, their poor neighbours.

That's a Jack Russell. It's going to bark incessantly regardless, so at least they're getting some entertainment out of it.