How could first big-bang explode?

[Ben Dhyan]

In regards to the "big bang" theory, as part of my daughter's orientation to U.C.Berkeley, I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture (it was packed, by the way) by a professor who is part of a project exploring such subject matter.

I am sorry, his name escapes me, he was definetly either Eastern European, Russian or such, not that it matters.

I make no claim that I understood his lecture, however there was one point which I made no mistake in understanding what he was saying and which was a theme of his theory, which is a developing conclusion not yet proven but evidential....

And that is, the origin of the universe was not the result of a big bang.

A vacuum is what caused, is causing, and will continue to cause, and may have always caused, an outward expansion of universes with gaps here and there and moves in directions based on two opposite "hot spots" with two counter opposite "cold spots" of which the cold spots "draw" the expansion in that direction between the "hot spots" like a highway but the highway is not a straight line but "circular".

I do not know the nature of this vacuum(s) but he wasn't talking about vacuum cleaners.

He also said it seems the universes "have no outward boundary" and goes on "boundless". No one will ever reach the outer edge of the "universe"(s), period, and that it was not a big bang.

Take that as you will, you can go anywhere with it, it doesn't mean his "perspective" is correct, but all I have to say is after hearing him, even though I make no claim of undedstanding his powerpoints, charts, math, et all .... I do not think it was a big bang.

Yes. the omnipresent vacuum of space is home to a lot of energy fields...according to the different scientific disciplines...it can be called dark energy, zero point energy, Higg's flield, quantum vacuum, etc... The energy density in zero point energy is supposed to be infinite...

 

[outhouse]

You are trying to change the subject, or you're just dumb...the evidence leads to the latter... ...the question relates to a time after the singularity came into existence...

NO YOUR IN ERROR AGAIN. A singularity expanded.


You cannot explain the expansion without defining a singularity, good luck with that.

Maybe your looking in a mirror when making comments on ones intellect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"A" cause is singular. Any cause, many causes, are not.

Infinite energy, sure, let's call that "The First and Only One Cause." Even though that's wrong.


I didn't know that the temperature caused the expansion. That's news to me. My understanding is that spacetime expanded, inflated is another term, regardless of the temperature, etc. But I could be wrong.

The problem here is the constant look for "A" cause, in singular, one single cause, the one and only. There's not a single cause. There can be many causes. There could also be that none of them are the cause.

If the cause was Quantum Loops, then what caused the quantum loops? Nothing. They're kind'a self-causing. If I understand it right.


You obviously missed the point about problem of fixating on a discontinuous cause for a continuous causation. Oh, well. I think I tried my best at least.

Besides, I was originally trying to explain what I think the Big Bang theory says about these things (no cause, expanding into nothing, etc), but you insisted on that I start to give my personal views (what is causing the universe to expand right now, which big bang theory doesn't explain well enough).

After all this, what was it that you were trying to achieve? What caused you to insist on this line of discussion?

Hey Ouroboros...you are all over the place...I was only ever dealing with a single question....what was the cause of the expansion after space time had begun?

I mostly deal in principles behind the details...only when there is a shared understanding on this, can we move on to the details if so desired...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

NO YOUR IN ERROR AGAIN. A singularity expanded.


You cannot explain the expansion without defining a singularity, good luck with that.

Maybe your looking in a mirror when making comments on ones intellect.

Astronomers are saying that dark energy is the cause....you had better tell them they can't say that until they define the singularity...

 

[Ouroboros]

Hey Ouroboros...you are all over the place...I was only ever dealing with a single question....what was the cause of the expansion after space time had begun?

Oh. Doh! I kept on thinking about the "First Cause" because that's usually what all these discussion are about. You were asking about what kept the expansion going after... I'm an idiot. I admit! You kept on saying it, and the coin never fell.

Ok. Got it.

The energy that adds to the inflation as of now. Right. Yeah. The current scientific idea is dark energy (if I understand it right). There's nothing else that can explain it as of now. Also, if I'm not completely wrong, dark energy and dark mass aren't really part of the Big Bang theory at all. No one knew about them until recently.

The way I imagine how the universe works is rather more like an ocean of water where someone drips a drop of water occasionally here or there, like raining a slow rain. Each drop creates a set of waves. But in the universe sense, each drop is a spot of dark energy. Something like that. I think that there are constant input of more energy into the universe. And the "Big Bang" event that we see in the past is more of our own matters first occurrence in the universe. We see it as a point in time of a "bang" but in reality, there never was a beginning of the total universe. Not sure if that makes any sense, but it's okay if it doesn't. Can't explain it anyway.

I mostly deal in principles behind the details...only when there is a shared understanding on this, can we move on to the details if so desired...

Got it. My bad.

I got stuck in thinking of the overall discussion in this thread and not the specific question you had.

I was about to call you an idiot, but finally I realized it was me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh. Doh! I kept on thinking about the "First Cause" because that's usually what all these discussion are about. You were asking about what kept the expansion going after... I'm an idiot. I admit! You kept on saying it, and the coin never fell.

Ok. Got it.

The energy that adds to the inflation as of now. Right. Yeah. The current scientific idea is dark energy (if I understand it right). There's nothing else that can explain it as of now. Also, if I'm not completely wrong, dark energy and dark mass aren't really part of the Big Bang theory at all. No one knew about them until recently.

The way I imagine how the universe works is rather more like an ocean of water where someone drips a drop of water occasionally here or there, like raining a slow rain. Each drop creates a set of waves. But in the universe sense, each drop is a spot of dark energy. Something like that. I think that there are constant input of more energy into the universe. And the "Big Bang" event that we see in the past is more of our own matters first occurrence in the universe. We see it as a point in time of a "bang" but in reality, there never was a beginning of the total universe. Not sure if that makes any sense, but it's okay if it doesn't. Can't explain it anyway.


Got it. My bad.

I got stuck in thinking of the overall discussion in this thread and not the specific question you had.

I was about to call you an idiot, but finally I realized it was me.

I'm relieved to hear that Ouroboros...I'm exhausted..

Yes...the key to further understanding of the universe will be through dark energy research...it is causing all sorts of problems for GR and orthodox big bangers... Dark energy is omnipresent and constitutes 65% of the mass of the universe...and though it was initially assumed that it was all flowing in syn with inflation...some of it appears to flowing in anomalous ways that suggest another universe nearby whose gravity is attracting the dark energy out of this one (and taking our galaxies with it)...

Cheers...

 

[YmirGF]

I'm relieved to hear that Ouroboros...I'm exhausted..

Yes...the key to further understanding of the universe will be through dark energy research...it is causing all sorts of problems for GR and orthodox big bangers... Dark energy is omnipresent and constitutes 65% of the mass of the universe...and though it was initially assumed that it was all flowing in syn with inflation...some of it appears to flowing in anomalous ways that suggest another universe nearby whose gravity is attracting the dark energy out of this one (and taking our galaxies with it)...

Cheers...

But Ben, that is still quite speculative. You are correct that the key MIGHT be research into dark energy (and perhaps gravity waves...) but we may never know the ultimate cause. If anything, current understanding of dark matter lends a bit of credence to the multiverse theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm relieved to hear that Ouroboros...I'm exhausted..

Sorry. Very sorry about that. I'm glad I didn't flip out and said something stupid that I would totally regret.

Yes...the key to further understanding of the universe will be through dark energy research...it is causing all sorts of problems for GR and orthodox big bangers...

Yup.

Dark energy is omnipresent and constitutes 65% of the mass of the universe...

Just a point. Dark energy and dark matter are two different things. Dark matter was discovered because the spin of the galaxies don't correspond to the calculated mass in them. There is more mass in them. Mass that we can't see. So they call it dark matter.

Dark energy is the explanation for why the galaxies are pushed away from each other. It's extra energy, essentially, if I understand it right, that doesn't have any explanation other than that its effects can be seen.

There's about 60-70% dark energy. Some 25% dark matter. And the last 5% is visible matter and known energy (light and such).

and though it was initially assumed that it was all flowing in syn with inflation...some of it appears to flowing in anomalous ways that suggest another universe nearby whose gravity is attracting the dark energy out of this one (and taking our galaxies with it)...

Cheers...

The thoughts I have is that dark energy is somehow relating to ripples from the dark energy.

It will be a great day when we can figure out how to harvest energy for our own use from either one. It might be necessary for warp drive.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But Ben, that is still quite speculative. You are correct that the key MIGHT be research into dark energy (and perhaps gravity waves...) but we may never know the ultimate cause. If anything, current understanding of dark matter lends a bit of credence to the multiverse theory.

Yes...the piece I mentioned about astronomers saying they have detected dark energy flowing in a different direction to that of inflationary dark energy, and suggesting a neighbouring universe. is touted as possible evidence of a multiverse.

I am more optimistic about the capability of future science...it won't be too long before they have worked out how to detect dark energy....I betcha... By ultimate cause...are you referring to the theoretical big bang singularity?

 

[YmirGF]

Yes...the piece I mentioned about astronomers saying they have detected dark energy flowing in a different direction to that of inflationary dark energy, and suggesting a neighbouring universe. is touted as possible evidence of a multiverse.

I am more optimistic about the capability of future science...it won't be too long before they have worked out how to detect dark energy....I betcha... By ultimate cause...are you referring to the theoretical big bang singularity?

Not really Ben, I'm firmly in the Multiverse camp.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry. Very sorry about that. I'm glad I didn't flip out and said something stupid that I would totally regret.

Yup.

Just a point. Dark energy and dark matter are two different things. Dark matter was discovered because the spin of the galaxies don't correspond to the calculated mass in them. There is more mass in them. Mass that we can't see. So they call it dark matter.

Dark energy is the explanation for why the galaxies are pushed away from each other. It's extra energy, essentially, if I understand it right, that doesn't have any explanation other than that its effects can be seen.

There's about 60-70% dark energy. Some 25% dark matter. And the last 5% is visible matter and known energy (light and such).

The thoughts I have is that dark energy is somehow relating to ripples from the dark energy.

It will be a great day when we can figure out how to harvest energy for our own use from either one. It might be necessary for warp drive.

Concerning universal mass...yes, I understand about dark matter mass and the relative proportions of mass of each...

I have a different understanding of dark energy, and it is related to zero point energy and the Casimir effect at work at the macro level dimensions of the universe...it would explain the inflation, and the acceleration of inflation through gravity...but orthodox science works in methodical steps based on peer review...so proof of concept may take some time..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not really Ben, I'm firmly in the Multiverse camp.

Well me too...and I might add...an infinite one...

 

[Bunyip]

And I have made progress...Ouroboros now understands that there is a cause to the expansion...astronomers say it is dark energy....time to get on board and stop your denial...

Denial of what Ben?

No offence but your insults appear largely random.

 

[paarsurrey]

How can there be a being without time and space? Being is by definition something within spacetime, hence spacetime must exist before a God-being.

It is a wrong concept. G-d is out of time and space; by definition G-d is the being who created everything but none created Him. He is only attributive, does not need any time and space rather time and space need Him to sustain them and what-ever is within them.

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Denial of what Ben?

That there is a cause behind space time universal expansion.....

 

[paarsurrey]

They say there were many big-bangs; how could they conclude that the latest big-bang created time and space while earlier one's could not?

Other spacetime vectors in an infinite n-dimensional world.

I'm sorry, but are we trying to understand and put human words on the things that we can't understand and are beyond our finite minds? Is God supposed to be easy to understand? Is the Loop Quantum Gravity something that we're supposed to be able to express in a sentence? No. That's not how neither one works. These things are beyond our ordinary language.

My point is that time and space, Loop Quantum Gravity etc, are inanimate objects distinct from a living sentient being. Only a sentient being, reason demands, can create the non-sentient not the otherwise.

The Sentient Being has communicated this to humans in different regions of the world and different times; why not accept it?
This does not stop the scientific endeavours; these must continue unhampered and unrestricted.

Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My point is that time and space, Loop Quantum Gravity etc, are inanimate objects distinct from a living sentient being. Only a sentient being, reason demands, can create the non-sentient not the otherwise.

I think you're being too anthropomorphic here, applying limited human values to an unimaginable universe.

 

[YmirGF]

They say there were many big-bangs; how could they conclude that the latest big-bang created time and space while earlier one's could not?

Are you being obtuse just for the fun of it?

My point is that time and space, Loop Quantum Gravity etc, are inanimate objects distinct from a living sentient being.

What a breathtakingly clever conclusion.

Only a sentient being, reason demands, can create the non-sentient not the otherwise.

Only a particularly stunted form of so-called reason would insist on such a trivial assumption, Paarsurrey. I'm not even sure how one could arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion.

The Sentient Being has communicated this to humans in different regions of the world and different times; why not accept it?

It has? If that is the case then said being is a very good communicator. One would expect far more profound writings from a being that created All That Is than the timid pablum we have collected over the centuries. Just sayin'.

This does not stop the scientific endeavours; these must continue unhampered and unrestricted.

And yet scientific inquiry has been virtually non-existent in the Muslim world for over 500 years... and still lags far, far, far, far behind the non-Muslim world to this day... but such skewed thinking does not affect scientific endeavors... Um, sure.

 

[YmirGF]

I think you're being too anthropomorphic here, applying limited human values to an unimaginable universe.

I know, right. It's always amusing, nonetheless, when infinitesimally small human animals rear up on their hind legs with these wild assumptions about reality based on the often conflicting prose in dusty old books they have clung to their chests for umpteen generations. One can only shake their head and smile...

 

[Ouroboros]

It is a wrong concept. G-d is out of time and space; by definition G-d is the being who created everything but none created Him. He is only attributive, does not need any time and space rather time and space need Him to sustain them and what-ever is within them.

Regards

The concept "being" and outside of spacetime are contradictory. To be, is to exist. To exist, is to be part of a space and time. Not being part of space or time makes something a not-being. Hence, if God is not part of space and time, and outside of it, then God is not a being.