Gggg102:



-In physical cosmology , cosmic inflation , cosmological inflation , or just
inflation , is a theory of exponential
expansion of space in the early
universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10 −36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to sometime between 10 −33 and 10 −32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.-


inflation started 1*10^-36 seconds after the singularity like I said before. the energy in the inflation is different from quantum fluctuation. before 1*10^-36 seconds, science can't say what happened for now at least.

My response

In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force

This is his explanation for the inflation

Based on this, did Alan Guth and NASA lie?

Butterflyleo:


The law of cause and effect implies this because unintelligence does not produce orderliness such as was done by this energy which brought about the big bang and our universe.

Can we get intelligence from non intelligence?

WHAT CAUSED THIS EXTREMELY HIGH ENERGY?

it is uncaused.

Gggg102:


it is uncaused.

It cannot be uncaused because something has to have caused an intense energy surge of such a manner.

Remember quantum fluctuations?

Butterflyleo:


It cannot be uncaused because something has to have caused an intense energy surge of such a manner.

Remember quantum fluctuations?

it can be uncaused since it exists outside our universe and therefore our universe laws don't apply to it.


quantum fluctuation that shows something comes from nothing.

Gggg102:


it can be uncaused since it exists outside our universe and therefore our universe laws don't apply to it.


quantum fluctuation that shows something comes from nothing.

You seem not to follow. Something that isn't conscious cannot determine its own existence. There must be a first cause prior to such a non conscious thing to become a cause to anything else.

Butterflyleo:


My response




This is his explanation for the inflation

Based on this, did Alan Guth and NASA lie?

first you are using two versions of the big bang theories.

the one where the big bang acts on the singularity.

and the one where the big bang occurs 1*10^-36 seconds after the singularity.


I will use the second since it is more recent.

according to science, we cannot know what happens from the singularity point(which according to the newer version might not even have existed) to 1*10^-36 seconds after. at 1*10^-36 seconds after something happened to the theoretical singularity point, the inflation occurs which is the big bang except it isn't an explosion but an expansion.

we can't know if there was a singularity.

Butterflyleo:


You seem not to follow. Something that isn't conscious cannot determine its own existence. There must be a first cause prior to such a non conscious thing to become a cause to anything else.

then the energy is an exception.

Gggg102:



first you are using two versions of the big bang theories.

the one where the big bang acts on the singularity.

and the one where the big bang occurs 1*10^-36 seconds after the singularity.


I will use the second since it is more recent.

according to science, we cannot know what happens from the singularity point(which according to the newer version might not even have existed) to 1*10^-36 seconds after. at 1*10^-36 seconds after something happened to the theoretical singularity point, the inflation occurs which is the big bang except it isn't an explosion but an expansion.

I am using the very words of the originator of the inflation theory which aided NASA with the diagram of the origin of the universe and he said

In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force

Is BEHIND now to mean AFTER?

Gggg102:



then the energy is an exception.

Did the energy cause it's own surge? If yes, why? Why did it even impact the singularity to bring about our known universe since it isn't intelligent.

This means it isn't an exception

Butterflyleo:


I am using the very words of the originator of the inflation theory which aided NASA with the diagram of the origin of the universe and he said



Is BEHIND now to mean AFTER?

you are still using two different versions of the big bang.


in the first version, the big bang occurs at the singularity.

in the second model, the person that originated inflation's model, we cannot know if there was a singularity. if there was a singularity, the inflation occurs 1*10^-36 seconds after it. this inflation led to the expansion of the universe which we know as the big bang.
in this model, the inflation happens before the big bang but the big bang does not happen at the singularity(we do not even know if there was a singularity). if there was a singularity, the big bang occurred 1*10^-36 seconds after something happened to the singularity.

in the second theory, we don't know what happened between the possible singularity and 1*10^-36 seconds after. we know that after 1*10^-36 seconds the inflation happened leading to the big bang.

Gggg102:



you are still using two different versions of the big bang.


in the first version, the big bang occurs at the singularity.

in the second model, the person that originated inflation's model, we cannot know if there was a singularity. if there was a singularity, the inflation occurs 1*10^-36 seconds after it. this inflation led to the expansion of the universe which we know as the big bang.
in this model, the inflation happens before the big bang but the big bang does not happen at the singularity(we do not even know if there was a singularity). if there was a singularity, the big bang occurred 1*10^-36 seconds after something happened to the singularity.

in the second theory, we don't know what happened between the possible singularity and 1*10^-36 seconds after. we know that after 1*10^-36 seconds the inflation happened leading to the big bang.

I am using one and matching it to the inflation theory. Something NASA also did using their diagram.

I ask again, are you saying NASA and Alan Guth are liars?

Butterflyleo:
I have come again. I did a lot of thinking today and while in this state I decided to put down some very interesting scientific stuff that can be said to prove that there is a creator or a God as it were. I will be very brief so I appeal to you the reader to bear with me. If you are an atheist I would like you to disprove these three proofs of a creator God if you can.

I rarely comment on the religious section of this forum, it has been soiled by angry kids who just come here to vent their frustrations on atheist and anyone who have different faiths and point of view from them.
Having said that, I cringe when read the rubbish being peddled in the name of science. If the OP was preferring religious and faith, that would be his perogative, but to cloth faith in scientific garb, either deliberately or ignorantly is unacceptable. Science and technology is the only advantage have as a society, without it we can not even dream of development and progress.

Here are my proofs

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

The principle of causality is valid only on the macro or even micro world, but does not hold true in the quantum world. Even Einstein could not fantom the indeterministic nature of the quantum level and hence his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe " what this means is that while most of the universe is deterministic and measurable, quantum mechanics says there's a world of tiny particles behind everything that's governed by total randomness.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

Your definition of movement (motion) is not only wrong, it is nonsense. Motion is simply a change of position in unit time.

Motion itself is a form of energy and can be converted to other forms of energy, ie electromagnetic, heat, light.

Every object in the universe is moving relative to every other object. There is no absolute motion in the universe as it's measurement depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

All you are talking about motion is absolute rubbish.

2nd Proof. Argument from Final Causality

It is obvious in everything without intelligence that there is what architects and industrial designers called the ordering of structure to function. All the planning is the adaptation of a means to an end, the end in unintelligent things being hearing or seeing or being green coloured.
Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end, for the end must be known in the first place and the relationship of the means to the end clearly seen. This order we find in things requires a final ultimate cause or the problem is recreated. This final uncreated, uncaused and unplanned Cause is God.

What you wrote here could only be understood by someone possessed by either holy spirit or the other type of spirit (bottled one)

3rd Proof. Gravity

Gravity according to its definition is the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth or towards any other physical body having mass.

We know that all the planets including the sun are said to have gravity which pull on each other in order to maintain an equilibrium and keep their orbits constant. How is this even possible if it came about by chance. For this feat to be possible it would require a lot of deliberate calculations and fine tuning in order for this balance to occur otherwise the earth would fall into the sun or collide with another planet eventually.

Your definition of gravity is outdated, that is the newtonian definition of gravity. The modern definition of gravity as expounded by Einstein defines gravity as a warp in the fabric of spacetime. This means gravity is a feature of space and not neccessarily a feature of matter or mass.

The red quote is also false. The sun loses 5million tons of mass every second converting hydrogen to helium, so the earth is actually slowly (very slowly) going from the sun.

The earth is orbiting the sun at a speed of 110,000km an hour which is about 30km per second which is more than enough to break it free from the gravitational pull of the sun and send the earth falling through space due to a force known as centrifugal force.

You are lying or ignorant about the earths escape velocity. The escape velocity of an object from the earth's position from the solar system is 42.1km/s while the earth travels around the solar system at 29.78km/s.
- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3612/calculating-solar-system-escape-and-and-sun-dive-delta-v-from-lower-earth-orbit

Every other thing you wrote is false.

Butterflyleo:


Did the energy cause it's own surge? If yes, why? Why did it even impact the singularity to bring about our known universe since it isn't intelligent.

This means it isn't an exception

no one knows. but it happened.

author=wirinet post=66742566]
I rarely comment on the religious section of this forum, it has been soiled by angry kids who just come here to vent their vent their frustrations on atheist and anyone who have different faiths and point of view from them.
Having said that, I cringe when read the rubbish being peddled in the name of science. If the OP was preferring religious and faith, that would be his perogative, but to cloth faith in scientific garb, either deliberately or ignorantly is unacceptable. Science and technology is the only advantage have as a society, without it we can not even dream of development and progress.

The principle of causality is valid only on the macro or even micro world, but does not hold true in the quantum world. Even Einstein could not fantom the indeterministic nature of the quantum level and hence his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe " what this means is that while most of the universe is deterministic and measurable, quantum mechanics says there's a world of tiny particles behind everything that's governed by total randomness.

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics. Causality means that an effect cannot occur from a cause which is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone.

Its either you are truly ignorant or you wish to lie unashamedly.

Your definition of movement (motion) is not only wrong, it is nonsense. Motion is simply a change of position in unit time.

Motion itself is a form of energy and can be converted to other forms of energy, ie electromagnetic, heat, light.

Every object in the universe is moving relative to every other object. There is no absolute motion in the universe as it's measurement depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

All you are talking about motion is absolute rubbish.

Actually the one saying rubbish is you. I am not talking about electromagnetic induction. I am simply talking about motion. And motion in a broad sense is defined as In physics, a change in position of an object over time. Motion is described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, time, and speed. And this marries my definition of a gradual process of becoming. Velocity, acceleration, time and speed are all an outcome of motion and this is the becoming part.

Butterflyleo:


I am using one and matching it to the inflation theory. Something NASA also did using their diagram.

I ask again, are you saying NASA and Alan Guth are liars?

the inflation happened before the big bang.
NASA and Alan are right.


but both the inflation and the big bang occurs after the singularity.

Wirinet my quote is below and be mindful of the use of the word ABOUT.

The earth is orbiting the sun at a speed of 110,000km an hour which is about 30km per second which is more than enough to break it free from the gravitational pull of the sun and send the earth falling through space due to a force known as centrifugal force.

You now said I am lying yet said it is 29.78km/sec

By approximation isn't 29.78km/sec ABOUT 30km/sec?

Every other thing you said is rubbish especially when NASA also says you are saying rubbish.

From the screengrab from NASA.GOV it says the escape velocity is 7miles per sec and when converted is about 11km/sec so who is lying now?

I am sure in your ignorance you saw 40000km per hr and thought it was 42km/sec yet NASA says its 11km/sec

Please stop deliberately lying

[quote author=budaatum post=66737942]

Some claims are untrue. An example is, 'Prince Harry is the current President of Nigeria', and it does not matter how strongly I, in my subjective right, make that statement, it is untrue, and everyone knows it to be untrue. Yet, as you claim, truth is subjective, even though you will probably claim Prince Harry is most certainly not the current President of Nigeria. And I might have difficulty providing objective evidence to prove it is a true and valid statement if you were to ask me for evidence to collaborate my assertion. Surely, both our contradicting statements regarding whether Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria or not cannot be true. So how is truth subjective in this case especially when it fails to correspond to objective reality?

Prince Harry as the current president of Nigeria is a claim that fall under objective claim and not subjective claim even with the objective evidence that ''prince harry is not the president of NIGERIA, this can still change overtime base on time, place and circumstances, which means this truth cannot stand the test of time. What is assumed as truth is only a “Reality” for given situation since “Absolute Truth” is not reachable. Do not overlaps objective truth with subjective truth, for subjective It cannot be subjected to scientific analysis or observation and there is no way to confirm affirmatively or refer to it base on what is objectively accepted, The truth one believes is dependent on one’s knowledge, understanding and experience which cannot be proven to be false. so making a claim that '' prince harry is the president of NIGERIA is an objective claim and not subjective since it can be objectively verified base on what is objectively accepted.(note that, verification of objective evidence is accepted base on mental convenience).so whether it is subjective or objective, the truth is only relative and realistic based on time, place & circumstances and “Absolute Truth” is beyond the reach of humanity, as it is shrouded in mystery.

Now look at the statement "Muhammad Buhari is the current president of Nigeria". It's still my subjective opinion, but I can provide objective evidence, like a statement from the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, confirming it is true. Or would that not be objective enough for you?

this is an objective claim and not subjective. you need to check on what can be consider objective and what can be consider subjective . so that you will not be overlapping it. The simple way to know this is to consider objective claim as what is universally accepted to be fact for the sake of mental convenience while subjective claims is simply an individual choices of claim .

Oh my! I think you mistake 'parameter' to mean something else! No one is suggesting they are fixed. However, we fix them in order to take measurements or make observations. This is the same error I tried pointing out in your driver analogy. You fixed the parameter as "permission was required from another driver, who required permission from another driver ad infinitum". Then you complain that the driver never gets to drive since another driver's permission will constantly have to be sought. If you wanted a driver to drive, why set up the parameter in the first place?

It is the same error butter makes in claiming all effects have a cause. If all effects have a cause, how come you nullify that statement with the exception. Once you have, it makes the initial statement "all effects have a cause", invalid, since by his own admission, at least one effect, god, has no cause.

This is an issue when we begin to use one own perspective to look at one thing, it makes us close minded. most the '' cause '' be bound by the same theory, the uncause is not contingent and it is necessary, therefore it can be independent on his own,just like sub atomic particles. for instance the minister of transportation can not be bound by the law given to the bus coaches since he is not a driver, the minister is necessary to appoint the drivers but the drivers cannot by themselves become independent without instruction from the minister. but what of a case of a loose system? that is my argument.

Now, take the following statement about Gravity, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter:

On Earth all bodies have a weight, or downward force of gravity, proportional to their mass, which Earth’s mass exerts on them. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects. At Earth’s surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 metres per second.

The 'parameter', which is the limit or boundary which defines the scope of a particular process or activity (gravity in this case), is 'Earth'. Basically, on 'Earth', 'gravity is about 9.8 metres per second per second'.

Now read the following:

At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 metres per second per second.

Different 'parameter' - the moon, different measurement of gravity - 1.6 metres per second per second.

Are you trying to educate me on gravitational law? if so that is not what i ask of , i only postulate that no sciencetical law which law of gravity is no exception is immune to scrutiny,since it is base on time , space, resources and circumstances.in other words science does not presume they are general law that govern the behavior of the universe . No scientific theory/belief/fact/law is immune to scrutiny. Even if it is consistent with whatever we know at present, it will be disputed if it is inconsistent with one experiment/observation. therefore science is not absolute true

What "absolute truth" are you referring to exactly?

In general, absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context, emotions, personal inference or logical conclusion. it transcend all these. i prefer to call the absolute truth olodumare in my own perspective,THE only consciousness that exist , every other things are simply electric magnetic wave.

No scientific laws are considered absolute truths within the scientific community. A “law”, once accepted, sets the expectations for observations made under the circumstances covered by the lay. If new observations under the proper circumstances are later accepted as contradicting the law, then the law is rejected or modified or the circumstances are revised

Its actual quantity, which is location dependent, as opposed to person dependent, while not constant everywhere, is not subjective at all. No one can stand on the moon and claim a gravitational force of 9.8 metres per second per second and hope to be taken seriously! Not by people with brains, at least!

AS i said earlier , you need not to overlaps, there is difference between them, and both cannot be apply for the same concept.i will be glad you study where, how and ways of using them.objective and subjective claim.

Gggg102:



no one knows. but it happened.

Well we can tell from the law of cause and effect that this energy surge was as a result of another cause as it was an effect which itself became a cause to the expansion of the singularity

Butterflyleo:


Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics. Causality means that an effect cannot occur from a cause which is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone.

One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.
The findings will be published this week in Nature Communications .
Although it is still not known if such situations can be actually found in nature, the sheer possibility that they could exist may have far-reaching implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and quantum computing.
Causal relations: who influences whom
In everyday life and in classical physics, events are ordered in time: a cause can only influence an effect in its future not in its past. As a simple example, imagine a person, Alice, walking into a room and finding there a piece of paper. After reading what is written on the paper Alice erases the message and leaves her own message on the piece of paper. Another person, Bob, walks into the same room at some other time and does the same: he reads, erases and re-writes some message on the paper. If Bob enters the room after Alice, he will be able to read what she wrote; however Alice will not have a chance to know Bob's message. In this case, Alice's writing is the "cause" and what Bob reads the "effect." Each time the two repeat the procedure, only one will be able to read what the other wrote. Even if they don't have watches and don't know who enters the room first, they can deduce it by what they write and read on the paper. For example, Alice might write "Alice was here today," such that if Bob reads the message, he will know that he came to the room after her.
Quantum violation of causal order
As long as only the laws of classical physics are allowed, the order of events is fixed: either Bob or Alice is first to enter the room and leave a message for the other person. When quantum mechanics enters into play, however, the picture may change drastically. According to quantum mechanics, objects can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is called a "superposition."
Now an international team of physicists led by Caslav Brukner from the University of Vienna have shown that even the causal order of events could be in such a superposition. If -- in our example -- Alice and Bob have a quantum system instead of an ordinary piece of paper to write their messages on, they can end up in a situation where each of them can read a part of the message written by the other. Effectively, one has a superposition of two situations: "Alice enters the room first and leaves a message before Bob" and "Bob enters the room first and leaves a message before Alice."
"Such a superposition, however, has not been considered in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics since the theory always assumes a definite causal order between events," says Ognyan Oreshkov from the Université Libre de Bruxelles (formerly University of Vienna). "But if we believe that quantum mechanics governs all phenomena, it is natural to expect that the order of events could also be indefinite, similarly to the location of a particle or its velocity," adds Fabio Costa from the University of Vienna.
The work provides an important step towards understanding that definite causal order might not be a mandatory property of nature. "The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of causal orders," explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

Gggg102:



the inflation happened before the big bang.
NASA and Alan are right.


but both the inflation and the big bang occurs after the singularity.

So you now agree that there was an energy surge prior to the inflation of the singularity and this energy surge also passed on energy to the singularity which enabled an expansion and what we see today scientifically is the RESIDUAL energy from this big bang as it cooled and it was this same residual energy footprint that was used to determine the beginning of the universe

Butterflyleo:


Well we can tell from the law of cause and effect that this energy surge was as a result of another cause as it was an effect which itself became a cause to the expansion of the singularity

in quantum physics, an effect can be the cause of its cause.

Butterflyleo:


Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics. Causality means that an effect cannot occur from a cause which is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone.

Its either you are truly ignorant or you wish to lie unashamedly.

I know the explanation is beyond you, but the simple explanation is that on the quantum level you cannot determine the effect of a cause or the cause of an effect accurately.

Actually the one saying rubbish is you. I am not talking about electromagnetic induction. I am simply talking about motion. And motion in a broad sense is defined as In physics, a change in position of an object over time. Motion is described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, time, and speed. And this marries my definition of a gradual process of becoming. Velocity, acceleration, time and speed are all an outcome of motion and this is the becoming part.

I am also not talking about electromagnetic induction, I was explaining motion. Motion itself is a form of energy. Relativistic kinetic energy can be converted to an equvalent mass.

The equation E=mc^2 simply means energy can be converted into mass and velocity. (c is velocity which is motion). In effect velocity =(E/m)^1/2 meaning motion can be gotten from dividing the square root of energy by motion

Gggg102:



One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.
The findings will be published this week in Nature Communications .
Although it is still not known if such situations can be actually found in nature, the sheer possibility that they could exist may have far-reaching implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and quantum computing.
Causal relations: who influences whom
In everyday life and in classical physics, events are ordered in time: a cause can only influence an effect in its future not in its past. As a simple example, imagine a person, Alice, walking into a room and finding there a piece of paper. After reading what is written on the paper Alice erases the message and leaves her own message on the piece of paper. Another person, Bob, walks into the same room at some other time and does the same: he reads, erases and re-writes some message on the paper. If Bob enters the room after Alice, he will be able to read what she wrote; however Alice will not have a chance to know Bob's message. In this case, Alice's writing is the "cause" and what Bob reads the "effect." Each time the two repeat the procedure, only one will be able to read what the other wrote. Even if they don't have watches and don't know who enters the room first, they can deduce it by what they write and read on the paper. For example, Alice might write "Alice was here today," such that if Bob reads the message, he will know that he came to the room after her.
Quantum violation of causal order
As long as only the laws of classical physics are allowed, the order of events is fixed: either Bob or Alice is first to enter the room and leave a message for the other person. When quantum mechanics enters into play, however, the picture may change drastically. According to quantum mechanics, objects can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is called a "superposition."
Now an international team of physicists led by Caslav Brukner from the University of Vienna have shown that even the causal order of events could be in such a superposition. If -- in our example -- Alice and Bob have a quantum system instead of an ordinary piece of paper to write their messages on, they can end up in a situation where each of them can read a part of the message written by the other. Effectively, one has a superposition of two situations: "Alice enters the room first and leaves a message before Bob" and "Bob enters the room first and leaves a message before Alice."
"Such a superposition, however, has not been considered in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics since the theory always assumes a definite causal order between events," says Ognyan Oreshkov from the Université Libre de Bruxelles (formerly University of Vienna). "But if we believe that quantum mechanics governs all phenomena, it is natural to expect that the order of events could also be indefinite, similarly to the location of a particle or its velocity," adds Fabio Costa from the University of Vienna.
The work provides an important step towards understanding that definite causal order might not be a mandatory property of nature. "The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of causal orders," explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

The words in bold explains it all.

Gggg102:


in quantum physics, an effect can be the cause of its cause.

And derive purpose, order, direction, a definite outcome of purpose when it is unintelligent? Are you loosing focus of your own argument?

wirinet:

I know the explanation is beyond you, but the simple explanation is that on the quantum level you cannot determine the effect of a cause or the cause of an effect accurately.




I am also not talking about electromagnetic induction, I was explaining motion. Motion itself is a form of energy. Relativistic kinetic energy can be converted to an equvalent mass.

The equation E=mc^2 simply means energy can be converted into mass and velocity. (c is velocity which is motion). In effect velocity =(E/m)^1/2 meaning motion can be gotten from dividing the square root of energy by motion

And I am not talking about CONVERSION. Is that too hard to understand?

Butterflyleo:


So you now agree that there was an energy surge prior to the inflation of the singularity and this energy surge also passed on energy to the singularity which enabled an expansion and what we see today scientifically is the RESIDUAL energy from this big bang as it cooled and it was this same residual energy footprint that was used to determine the beginning of the universe

there was a singularity first(not confirmed in recent inflation big bang model) something happened to this singularity expanding it(we can't tell what. our laws of physics were not operational). then the inflation happened briefly leading to the expansion of the universe(what is called the big bang) this expansion led to us today.

Butterflyleo:


And derive purpose, order, direction, a definite outcome of purpose when it is unintelligent? Are you loosing focus of your own argument?

you are applying the laws of our universe to something that exists outside our universe.

Butterflyleo:


The words in bold explains it all.

key word; assumes


"But if we believe that quantum mechanics governs all phenomena, it is natural to expect that the order of events could also be indefinite, similarly to the location of a particle or its velocity," adds Fabio Costa from the University of Vienna.

Gggg102:


there was a singularity first(not confirmed in recent inflation big bang model) something happened to this singularity expanding it(we can't tell what. our laws of physics were not operational). then the inflation happened briefly leading to the expansion of the universe(what is called the big bang) this expansion led to us today.

This is what happened prior to the expansion of the singularity according to Alan Guth himself which he referenced from his own observations in particle physics.

In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force

Gggg102:



you are applying the laws of our universe to something that exists outside our universe.

I am not. I am simply stating the obvious and that is that this energy was itself an effect from a cause despite it being a cause to the singularity.

Gggg102:


key word; assumes


"But if we believe that quantum mechanics governs all phenomena, it is natural to expect that the order of events could also be indefinite, similarly to the location of a particle or its velocity," adds Fabio Costa from the University of Vienna.

Key words (IF AND COULD)

Butterflyleo:


This is what happened prior to the expansion of the singularity according to Alan Guth himself which he referenced from his own observations in particle physics.

Alan guth's big bang happens after the expansion of the singularity.