Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[We Never Know]

No, there is nothing about marriage in those calculations.

I figured your answer would not be much but you did even worse than I expected lol.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Energy is just bookkeeping. There is both positive and negative energy in physics.

No, energy is real, not bookkeeping. The energy of a positive positron and a negative electron coming together can never become zero energy.

 

[We Never Know]

I figured your answer would not be much but you did even worse than I expected lol.

Lets see what discussion this brings up....

"Every physics process we know of creates equal amounts of matter and antimatter. When a particle meets its antiparticle however, it 'annihilates', ultimately into high-energy photons. As such, the Universe should contain no matter or antimatter, and just be a sea of photons"

What is antimatter, and why is it missing from the Universe today?​

What is antimatter, and why is it missing from the Universe today?

Some of our antimatter must be missing, given the amount of matter leftover in the Universe.

www-sciencefocus-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[YoursTrue]

I figured your answer would not be much but you did even worse than I expected lol.

LOL, but they think they're so smart.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lets see what discussion this brings up....

"Every physics process we know of creates equal amounts of matter and antimatter. When a particle meets its antiparticle however, it 'annihilates', ultimately into high-energy photons. As such, the Universe should contain no matter or antimatter, and just be a sea of photons"

What is antimatter, and why is it missing from the Universe today?​

What is antimatter, and why is it missing from the Universe today?

Some of our antimatter must be missing, given the amount of matter leftover in the Universe.

www-sciencefocus-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Antimatter? There is something called antimatter?? LOL...this is getting worse than I expected.

 

[Polymath257]

"In fact, t-0 is exactly the singularity"

So are you......

-saying the singularity existed before the BB?
-saying the singularity just poofed into existence and began expanding?

No, neither. I am saying that, technically, the singularity doesn't exist. it is a description of what happens as t gets close to 0. But t=0 does not exist in standard BB cosmology (Hawking allows it in some of his speculations).

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, we will go with your wording, what existed at T=0 the instant the expansion of the singularity began.

In BB cosmology, there is no t=0, only t>0.

 

[Polymath257]

You say that the early universe the size of a golf ball was not the entire universe, I presume you mean that there was more energy to emerge, where was this energy coming from? Iow, where did the energy of the BB universe come from?

First, make a distinction between the observable universe and the universe. The observable universe is only what we can see now and is the parts where light has had enough time to reach us since the beginning.

When the observable universe was the size of a golf ball, the rest of the universe was still outside of it. We do not know what size it is. But if it is finite now, it was finite then.

If ALL of the universe was the size of a golf ball (meaning the radius was the same as such), then there was simply no 'outside'. No energy 'emerges'.

The energy of the BB is mixed between matter and gravitational energy (given by curvature). The initial curavture was very large, and the associated energy was converted into matter and other forms of energy over time. The total energy at any time is the same as for any other time.

 

[Polymath257]

The BBT has flaws too, and so I keep an open mind. An eternal infinite SS universe makes sense to me whereas the BB expanding universe theory does not. The JWST may be the instrument that end the BBT, we will see.

SSU is already dead. Whatever replaces LCDM will still have an expanding universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In BB cosmology, there is no t=0, only t>0.

So there was no 'start point', only an 'after the beginning'. How can science even pretend to be science when every question to try and understand the what, the where, the when, the how, and the why of the BB is made 'out of bounds' by the very BB science that is meant to understand and find answers to these questions,

 

[Polymath257]

Antimatter? There is something called antimatter?? LOL...this is getting worse than I expected.

Um, yes, there is. We know it exists. We produce it regularly. If you have ever had a PET scan, the positrons for that scan are a type of anti-matter.

 

[Polymath257]

So there was no 'start point', only an 'after the beginning'. How can science even pretend to be science when every question to try and understand the what, the where, the when, the how, and the why of the BB is made 'out of bounds' by the very BB science that is meant to understand and find answers to these questions,

Well, you are expecting certain types of answers and that expectation is the problem. A similr thing happens in quantum mechanics if you ask about complimentary variables. Some questions cannot be answered because they have hidden assumptions that are factually incorrect.

In your case, you seem to be focused on an infinite 3D universe and an infinite duration into the past. That is certainly *one* possibility, but it is far from the only possibility and is definitely not the one supported by the most evidence. The problem is that you have an intuition that may simply be wrong.

For example, you seem to not get the concept of curved space, let alone curved spacetime.

For a spatially finite universe, no matter which direction you set out, you will eventually come back to the point you started from. This is a 3D version of the 2D surface of the Earth. In this, the volume of the universe is finite and there are no boundaries, no edges. Every point in space has the same property that you can set out in any direction and get back. But space is still 3D and there is no 'outside' of it.

Once you grasp that as a possibility, we can continue to curved 4D spacetime. It is at this level that the BB cosmology is best understood. But if you have problems with 3D curved space, you won't be able to grasp 4D curved spacetime.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

First, make a distinction between the observable universe and the universe. The observable universe is only what we can see now and is the parts where light has had enough time to reach us since the beginning.

When the observable universe was the size of a golf ball, the rest of the universe was still outside of it. We do not know what size it is. But if it is finite now, it was finite then.

If ALL of the universe was the size of a golf ball (meaning the radius was the same as such), then there was simply no 'outside'. No energy 'emerges'.

The energy of the BB is mixed between matter and gravitational energy (given by curvature). The initial curavture was very large, and the associated energy was converted into matter and other forms of energy over time. The total energy at any time is the same as for any other time.

So if the observable universe is only what we see now, who is able to see the observable universe when it was the size of a golf ball?

Do you mean those in the rest of the universe when it was outside the golf ball sized universe?

So if the total energy of the universe is the same at any time since the BB, do you mean it is zero as SZ claims.

The BB is certainly a complicated beast!

 

[Polymath257]

Based on my understanding of Polymath, you do not understand what Polymath is saying. I understand him to be implying there were no edges, no outside, the only reality is inside the golf ball.

It depends on whether you are talking about the observable universe or the whole universe.

SZ has the correct description for the observable universe being the size of a golf ball. You are closer to the description for the whole universe being that size.

Also, in the case of the whole universe being the size of a golf ball, it is not the inside of some sphere. The *radius* is that of a golf ball, but we have a full 3D universe with no boundaries: it is a 3D analog of the 2D surface of a sphere.

But you are saying that "anything further away than that golf ball sized diameter would have been two far away to affect us". What is it that you say is two (sic) far away to affect us, and what form does it take?

Nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Anything outside has not had enough time for light to reach us from there.

So where did this expanding space come from?

There is no law of conservation of space.

 

[Polymath257]

Energy is not nothing.

Energy is a property of particles. It is not a separate substance. it is more like momentum and charge than a separate stuff.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

SSU is already dead. Whatever replaces LCDM will still have an expanding universe.

Only in your dreams, the SSU is still in play and there is no actual expansion of the universe, there are only BB models that presently exist in the present primitive stage of science,

 

[Polymath257]

So if the observable universe is only what we see now, who is able to see the observable universe when it was the size of a golf ball?

OK, look at the universe we can see right now. Since the universe is expanding, the size of what we can see right now was smaller in the past. At the point when it was the size of a golf ball, the rest of the universe (which we cannot see now) was still outside of that golf ball.

There was no 'who' at that point, but anyone living beyond our observable universe would be able to see parts of the universe we cannot see (and also would not be able to see us).

Do you mean those in the rest of the universe when it was outside the golf ball sized universe?

Again, ambiguous. Do you mean the observable universe when it was golf ball sized? Then there was an outside which consists of everything that would expand to be outside of what we can see now.

if you mean the *whole* universe, then there was no outside.

So if the total energy of the universe is the same at any time since the BB, do you mean it is zero as SZ claims.

That is still not determined, but it is likely. The gravitational energy (from curvature of space) balances the energy of particles and the total is 0. Thi sis certainly true for a finite universe. For a spatially infinite universe, there are issues even defining the total energy.

The BB is certainly a complicated beast!

Especially if you refuse to learn about it.

 

[Polymath257]

Only in your dreams, the SSU is still in play and there is no actual expansion of the universe, there are only BB models that presently exist in the present primitive stage of science,

NO cosmologist has the SSU in play these days. it is now a crank viewpoint.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, you are expecting certain types of answers and that expectation is the problem. A similr thing happens in quantum mechanics if you ask about complimentary variables. Some questions cannot be answered because they have hidden assumptions that are factually incorrect.

In your case, you seem to be focused on an infinite 3D universe and an infinite duration into the past. That is certainly *one* possibility, but it is far from the only possibility and is definitely not the one supported by the most evidence. The problem is that you have an intuition that may simply be wrong.

For example, you seem to not get the concept of curved space, let alone curved spacetime.

For a spatially finite universe, no matter which direction you set out, you will eventually come back to the point you started from. This is a 3D version of the 2D surface of the Earth. In this, the volume of the universe is finite and there are no boundaries, no edges. Every point in space has the same property that you can set out in any direction and get back. But space is still 3D and there is no 'outside' of it.

Once you grasp that as a possibility, we can continue to curved 4D spacetime. It is at this level that the BB cosmology is best understood. But if you have problems with 3D curved space, you won't be able to grasp 4D curved spacetime.

Hold on, this is me, an expression of the universe, I have no other goal in life except to establish what and who I am in the context of the absolute. Telling me that there was no before my beginning is a lie.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It depends on whether you are talking about the observable universe or the whole universe.

SZ has the correct description for the observable universe being the size of a golf ball. You are closer to the description for the whole universe being that size.

Also, in the case of the whole universe being the size of a golf ball, it is not the inside of some sphere. The *radius* is that of a golf ball, but we have a full 3D universe with no boundaries: it is a 3D analog of the 2D surface of a sphere.

Nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Anything outside has not had enough time for light to reach us from there.

There is no law of conservation of space.

Thank you, but it does not make sense to me.