Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ratiocinator]

I am asking you to help me to conceive of that which you do, or at least to understand it.

Okay but I'm not really sure what it is that you're finding so hard.

At the simplest level, space and time are not separate but part of a 4-dimensional manifold. In the simple case of 'flat' space-time (special relativity) the direction through that manifold that each observer calls 'time' is different and depends on motion, so motion represents a kind of rotation of coordinates. It's complicated by the fact that space-time is not Euclidean but Minkowski but it's that rotation that leads directly to time dilation and length contraction in special relativity. Does that help at all?

 

[Polymath257]

It will take a revolutionary change in my belief system to conceive of time as “an entity” of any description.

What does it mean to be an 'entity'? Please clarify how space can be an entity and not time.

No ****. I am asking you to help me to conceive of that which you do, or at least to understand it.

OK, the first step is to understand the concept of cured space. I will proceed by analogy, but the math and physics is solid.

A circle (just the boundary) is a one-dimensional curved figure. it is one-dimensional because close to any point, it looks like a line. The curvature appears only on a more global scale. The circle as a whole has the property that no matter which direction you go, you will eventually get back to your starting point if you go long enough.

The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional curved figure. it is two-dimensional because close to any point, it looks like a plane (two perpendicular directions are possible). The curvature only appears on a more global scale. The sphere as a whole has the property that no matter which direction you go, you will eventually get back to your starting position if you go long enough.

I ask you do consider a curved three-dimensional figure. it is three-dimensional because at any point there are three perpendicular directions to go. The curvature only appears on a more global scale. The space as a whole has the property that no matter which direction you go, you will eventually get back to your starting point if you go long enough.

So imagine space is that three-dimensional curved figure. No matter which direction you go, you will get back to your starting point if you go long enough. In this scenario, the total volume of space is finite. But there is no boundary. No matter which direction you go, you will always find galaxies and they will always be distributed uniformly around you.

It is this type of space that is expanding over time in the BB description.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No ****. I am asking you to help me to conceive of that which you do, or at least to understand it.

Now here is an imperfect example.
Consider 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 2+2=5 and 2+2=∞ then consider that for different cognitive understandings you get different results.
Now the consider the cognitive learning psychology of learning a new cognitive understanding. And then consider this, I can only help you so far, because you as you have to learn to learn that. Go figure. I can give you the words, but you have to do it.

 

[Zwing]

does it mean to be an 'entity'? Please clarify how space can be an entity and not time.

Space is dimensional, and therefore physical. Time, on the other hand, is temporal. Temporality has no physical attribute, and therefore, to my mind, is not real. Temporality is something just made up by humans, is it not?

 

[Polymath257]

To me, it seems that it must be, for what can exist beyond it? If it is not infinite, then what is it maintained by…within what does it exist? In like manner, and as to the finity of the universe, our “universe” was created at/by the “Big Bang”, which was an inherently finite event occurring at a particular point within space (as I understand the matter). How can a finite event possibly produce something infinite? Help me out, here…

Actually, no. The BB is NOT something that happens at a definite point in space. From our perspective, it literally happened everywhere. It is in the past of *every* point in space.

The expansion of the universe is NOT a matter of galaxies moving through space. Instead, it is an expansion of space itself. Over time, the geometric expansion factor increases.

 

[Polymath257]

Space is dimensional, and therefore physical. Time, on the other hand, is temporal. Temporality has no physical attribute, and therefore, to my mind, is not real. Temporality is something just made up by humans, is it not?

Time is a dimension in spacetime. Specifically, it is one of the four dimensions (the other three are spatial). No, it is not just made up by humans. It is part of the very geometry of spacetime.

 

[Zwing]

Read my previous post.

Okay, I have, but I’m yet not comprehending that which you do. That’s what I mean when I say “it will take a revolution in my thinking” about this.

 

[Zwing]

Actually, no. The BB is NOT something that happens at a definite point in space. From our perspective, it literally happened everywhere. It is in the past of *every* point in space.

The expansion of the universe is NOT a matter of galaxies moving through space. Instead, it is an expansion of space itself. Over time, the geometric expansion factor increases.

This is not what I seem to have read… maybe that is the “old concept” in Physics? I’ve been made to think that there was a definite point of singularity…

 

[ratiocinator]

To me, it seems that it must be, for what can exist beyond it? If it is not infinite, then what is it maintained by…within what does it exist? In like manner, and as to the finity of the universe, our “universe” was created at/by the “Big Bang”, which was an inherently finite event occurring at a particular point within space (as I understand the matter). How can a finite event possibly produce something infinite?

You seem to be stuck in a Newtonian view of space and time, where space must be infinite and time ticks away regardless. This is based on intuition but has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by all the evidence for relativity.

You need to let go of your intuitive notions before you have any chance of understanding the modern scientific notion of space-time that is presented in relativity and supported by the evidence. Basically every single test of general relativity that we've been able to do supports the theory exactly. It's even necessary to use it in the GPS system.

 

[Zwing]

You seem to be stuck in a Newtonian view of space and time, where space must be infinite and time ticks away regardless. This is based on intuition but has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by all the evidence for relativity.

You need to let go of your intuitive notions before you have any chance of understanding the modern scientific notion of space-time that is presented in relativity and supported by the evidence. Basically every single test of general relativity that we've been able to do supports the theory exactly. It's even necessary to use it in the GPS system.

This seems a reasonable assessment. What should I read?

 

[Zwing]

Hawking, or…?

 

[Polymath257]

Space is dimensional, and therefore physical. Time, on the other hand, is temporal. Temporality has no physical attribute, and therefore, to my mind, is not real. Temporality is something just made up by humans, is it not?

Perhaps the place to start is with the notion of dimension. The surface of the Earth is *2* dimensional. It takes two numbers (latitude and longitude) to describe where a point is on the surface of the Earth. That makes it 2 dimensional.

Similarly, a plane is 2 dimensional because it takes two numbers (say, x and y) to describe the location of a point in the plane. Notice that we can also use polar coordinates and use radius and an angle, but we always need two numbers.

Standard space is three dimensional: it takes three numbers (x,y,z, for example) to describe the location of any point. There are many other coordinate systems, but all require three numbers to determine the location of a point in space.

Now, in spacetime, there are 4 numbers required: three for space and one for the time of the event. This makes spacetime a four dimensional figure. And time is one of those dimensions.

The dimension of a geometric figure is simply how many numbers are required to locate a point in the figure. In the case of spacetime, that dimension is 4 and one of those dimensions is time.

Now, the individual coordinate systems are set up by humans to help us understand things. And there are usually many different coordinate systems that can do this. But in all cases, the dimension is independent of how humans do things.

The great discovery of Einstein is that spacetime is a geometric entity that is four dimensional and that matter and energy exist in/on this four dimensional figure and even affect how it curves. That curvature *is* gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

This seems a reasonable assessment. What should I read?

I would start with a book that either discusses general relativity at a popular level or maybe the book 'The Shape of Space' by Jeff Weeks. The latter can definitely expand a person's mind.

One of the nice things about the book by Weeks is that there are no 'formulas' to scare people. There is a LOT of geometric intuition, but it is at a level that I *think* is accessible by educated people with little math background.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps the place to start is with the notion of dimension. The surface of the Earth is *2* dimensional. It takes two numbers (latitude and longitude) to describe where a point is on the surface of the Earth. That makes it 2 dimensional.

Similarly, a plane is 2 dimensional because it takes two numbers (say, x and y) to describe the location of a point in the plane. Notice that we can also use polar coordinates and use radius and an angle, but we always need two numbers.

Standard space is three dimensional: it takes three numbers (x,y,z, for example) to describe the location of any point. There are many other coordinate systems, but all require three numbers to determine the location of a point in space.

Now, in spacetime, there are 4 numbers required: three for space and one for the time of the event. This makes spacetime a four dimensional figure. And time is one of those dimensions.

The dimension of a geometric figure is simply how many numbers are required to locate a point in the figure. In the case of spacetime, that dimension is 4 and one of those dimensions is time.

Now, the individual coordinate systems are set up by humans to help us understand things. And there are usually many different coordinate systems that can do this. But in all cases, the dimension is independent of how humans do things.

The great discovery of Einstein is that spacetime is a geometric entity that is four dimensional and that matter and energy exist in/on this four dimensional figure and even affect how it curves. That curvature *is* gravity.

Even I understand that and I struggle with that kind of cognition.

 

[Polymath257]

This is not what I seem to have read… maybe that is the “old concept” in Physics? I’ve been made to think that there was a definite point of singularity…

That, unfortunately, is a popular description that has been conveyed a lot, but it is NOT what the actual BB theory says.

The 'singularity' is NOT a point in any typical sense. It is more of a *description* of what happens as we move backwards in time towards the start

 

[Polymath257]

Hawking, or…?

I would stay away from Hawking until you have the basic concepts. He can be a hard read for beginners.

 

[Polymath257]

Even I understand that and I struggle with that kind of cognition.

I've been thinking about these concepts since I was 14 years old (I am 60 now). I am also a professional mathematician and have studied graduate physics. So I am *very* accustomed to these ideas. I also realize that most people are not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would start with a book that either discusses general relativity at a popular level or maybe the book 'The Shape of Space' by Jeff Weeks. The latter can definitely expand a person's mind.

So here is the joke from my form of training. I get objective and all that. This is a cognitive measurement standard for certain experiences.
But social and mental are the same yet for a different cognitive measurement standards for certain different experiences(domains).
There is nothing new in that, it is already stated here:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras

The trick is for reductionism that if you reduce for a different measurement standard to the standard of another domain, I can "catch" you. Not that it matters, because that it matters, is relative and subjective as long as it is subjective/social as different to the objective. Neat, right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've been thinking about these concepts since I was 14 years old (I am 60 now). I am also a professional mathematician and have studied graduate physics. So I am *very* accustomed to these ideas. I also realize that most people are not.

Well, I am good at "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." That is another "game".

 

[Zwing]

…in spacetime, there are 4 numbers required: three for space and one for the time of the event. This makes spacetime a four dimensional figure. And time is one of those dimensions.

This is what I have understood, but…

The dimension of a geometric figure is simply how many numbers are required to locate a point in the figure. In the case of spacetime, that dimension is 4 and one of those dimensions is time.

…I’m not sure that I can accept this definition of “dimension”, particularly that the dimension of an object can change. I think dimension to be descriptive of a physical whole at a point in time, for which the physical whole at another point in time is a different object. A man at forty years old is a different object from the same human at two years old, no? When an apple is placed in the sun in the morning, by a week later it is not the same object, but is a fundamentally different object. I guess in my view of things, an object is defined by its dimension. In this construct, the universe, which is expanding, is continually a different object. Each universe only exists momentarily, in “the now”. Space, though, I have always viewed as constant… the same object always, and infinite (in fact the only infinite thing… the real numbers can de viewed as being infinite, but they are not real).

Maybe I am “all f¥<{€d up” by not having the necessary scientific vocabulary for this (?) It is entirely possible; I have never attended college.