Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

The following is an interesting series of three articles discussing the controversy, disagreement, and a summary of the science concerning the steady state theory, expansion of the universe and Bib Bang Theories. It is a bit long and involved to specifically cite.

A Cosmic Journey: A History of Scientific Cosmology

This web exhibit from the American Institute of Physics explores the history of cosmology from ancient Greek astronomy to modern space telescopes.

history.aip.org

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The universe began with the moment of expansion of a singularity. We are not playing golf.

The concept of a small sphere the size of something or other is used in the explanation of the BB, I've read them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ambiguous question. When the current observable universe was the size of a golfball, the rest of the universe was outside of it, just like today.

If the universe as a whole is finite in size, then there would no no 'outside of it'.

I guessed you would say that, so then why use a sphere as a concept for the early universe, it has an edge between what is inside and what is outside, and the universe is said to not have an edge.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seriously, I do not yet understand what nothing you are talking about, I presume it is an relative nothing such as an absence of something and some underlying energy is still present, is this what you mean,

If not, don't go off, try to explain further and you have my attention.

I do not consider this an adequate response. The 'nothing' I am specifically referring to is what Hawking referred to concerning his theorem involving the origins of the universe. It is not 'absolutely nothing.'' Your persistent confusing statement only complicate the dialogue.

You have not acknowledged simple facts of physics that the continuous time/space we experience on the macro scale does not exist at the smallest scale of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Problem with this since there is no such thing as absolute nothing in the science of physics, cosmology and Quantum Mechanics.

So at time = 0 of the BB, what existed?

 

[shunyadragon]

I guessed you would say that, so then why use a sphere as a concept for the early universe, it has an edge between what is inside and what is outside, and the universe is said to not have an edge.

Neither Hawking nor I would use a 'sphere' to explain the nature of a singularity. We are not playing golf.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I do not consider this an adequate response. The 'nothing' I am specifically referring to is what Hawking referred to concerning his theorem involving the origins of the universe. It is not 'absolutely nothing.'' Your persistent confusing statement only complicate the dialogue.

You have not acknowledged simple facts of physics that the continuous time/space we experience on the macro scale does not exist at the smallest scale of Quantum Mechanics.

Time is not dependent of what humans experience, so time must be present on the smallest scale of QM,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Neither Hawking nor I would use a 'sphere' to explain the nature of a singularity. We are not playing golf.

Ok, but others do.

 

[shunyadragon]

So at time = 0 of the BB, what existed?

The singularity

 

[Polymath257]

Where is your evidence that there is no "before" the BB? And no, that there is no north of the north pole is not good enough!

The evidence is that general relativity is an incredibly good description of gravity and, when applied to cosmology, leads to the BB description. That description fits the observations incredibly well.

Also, GR, as applied to cosmology, inevitably predicts certain types of singularities, including one at the start of the universe. For this singularity, there is literally no 'before the BB'.

So, it is a theoretical view based on massive amounts of evidence from our best descriptions of physics.

Could it be wrong? Yes. This description does not include quantum mechanics. But we have no tested theories of quantum gravity. We have a lot of speculation, but even that splits between whether there is a singularity at the start or whether time is infinite into the past.

Based on what we know, both are definite possibilities.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, but others do.

Hawking nor I could care less about the vague nebulous 'others.' You need to try and understand how this analogy is used.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, but others do.

ALL of Hawking's ideas are speculative. Even his most famous one, Hawking radiation, has not been verified (except by analogy).

 

[Polymath257]

I guessed you would say that, so then why use a sphere as a concept for the early universe, it has an edge between what is inside and what is outside, and the universe is said to not have an edge.

And again, you don't get the analogy. We are talking only about the surface of the sphere. That is, in the analogy, spacetime, with time corresponding to latitude. There is no outside: only that surface.

Also, this is a two dimensional analogy of a four dimensional geometry. The sphere in my previous answer was only the spatial slice at some particular time. It would correspond in the analogy to a circle at a particular latitude.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The singularity

Time = 0 is not yet the singularity, the start of the singularity is time = 0 plus.
Time = 0 represent the very moment time started to be followed then by the BB.
What existed?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The evidence is that general relativity is an incredibly good description of gravity and, when applied to cosmology, leads to the BB description. That description fits the observations incredibly well.

Also, GR, as applied to cosmology, inevitably predicts certain types of singularities, including one at the start of the universe. For this singularity, there is literally no 'before the BB'.

So, it is a theoretical view based on massive amounts of evidence from our best descriptions of physics.

Could it be wrong? Yes. This description does not include quantum mechanics. But we have no tested theories of quantum gravity. We have a lot of speculation, but even that splits between whether there is a singularity at the start or whether time is infinite into the past.

Based on what we know, both are definite possibilities.

Thank you for your reply, I accept it is theoretical view, but fwiw, not one I share.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And again, you don't get the analogy. We are talking only about the surface of the sphere. That is, in the analogy, spacetime, with time corresponding to latitude. There is no outside: only that surface.

Also, this is a two dimensional analogy of a four dimensional geometry. The sphere in my previous answer was only the spatial slice at some particular time. It would correspond in the analogy to a circle at a particular latitude.

I get it, thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

ALL of Hawking's ideas are speculative. Even his most famous one, Hawking radiation, has not been verified (except by analogy).

I believe this is a yes no proposition concerning how the science of Cosmology works beyond the objective verifiable evidence concerning our universe. His Theorem and predictive models involving 'Hawking radiation' are valid, but not yet falsified hypothesis nor theories. It is unlikely that the Hawking Theorem can ever be falsified, but only supported by future discoveries and research The problem is the lack of objective evidence of what existed before the expansion of the singularity. The 'cutting edge' of physics and cosmology today is in the realm of moving beyond the objective evidence of our universe to questions that may never be objectively answered. Also much of our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics was theoretically predictive models and hypothesis in the past and only recently falsified by contemporary science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Time = 0 is not yet the singularity, the start of the singularity is time = 0 plus.
Time = 0 represent the very moment time started to be followed then by the BB.
What existed?

Your wording is confusing and awkward. This is not what the Hawking Theorem proposes. T=0 for our universe is the point of the beginning of expansion of the singularity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guessed you would say that, so then why use a sphere as a concept for the early universe, it has an edge between what is inside and what is outside, and the universe is said to not have an edge.

This is why you should link your sources. The size of the current observable universe was once the size of a golf ball. That is not the entire universe. Do you not understand that? Many of your questions cannot be answered as asked because your understanding of what you are arguing against is wrong.

I know that you do not like it when people point out that no one believes what you claim they believe, but if yo cannot link a source properly then we can claim that.

 

[shunyadragon]

The interesting theory of a cyclic universe is that like in our universe the black hole form over time, merge and grow until a singularity forms that expands into the next universe. Yes there are still many problems with the hypothesis of a cyclic universe, but I consider it a possibility. Theoretically every black hole has a singularity forming in it.