Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Zwing]

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

Then why are things Louie this published, which state unequivocally that, “…13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity…”:

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

Do they simply publish crap because they need crap to publish?

 

[wellwisher]

The BB is the beginning of space-time. Before that, there was independent space and independent time, not connected as space-time. There is no energy before space-time, since photons have wavelength; space, and connected frequency; time. Before that merger, that we had wavelengths and frequencies, but not yet permanently connected as energy; photons

The analogy is Joe and Jane get married, with the bond of marriage analogous to the forming of space-time. This ceremony marks a new beginning, away from being single, to being part of a team. Marriage; space-time, does not mean Joe and Jane did not each have a life, before marriage. There was a time and place, when each was single and each could make decisions apart from each other. The wife; Jane, may not want her husband Joe thinking too much about those older days, since he was wild back then. She would prefer him think, that their life began, with their marriage vows; BB.

I my model, we have separated space and separated time, first. Next, we have space-time. The time=0 occur at the transition between the two states; marriage of space with time for a new beginning.

If we started the universe, where space and time are not connected, one could initially move in time without the constraint of space and move in space without the constraint of time. This allows for infinite possibilities like omnipresence. This state would define infinite complexity and therefore a state of infinite entropy.

When space and time merge into space-time; singularity, and finite limits are placed, there is a drastic decrease in complexity and entropy. This will be very exothermic; energy for the BB. Since our universe is finite the energy decrease needed to form the primordial atom would be finite, separated space and separated time would still exist; infinite complexity. This potential in entropy results in the drive of the 2nd law; space-time or limited entropy, returning to divided space and time or infinite entropy.

The free energy equation is G=H-TS, where G is free energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature in degree K, while S is entropy. Since free energy G= 0, just before space-time forms; before photons; t=-0, we can rewrite the equation as H=TS. H or enthalpy is a measure of internal energy such as is within mass/substance; E=MC2, needed to bind space-time.

S is not energy, rather TS has the units of energy. Even if we had a huge entropy S value, at absolute zero; free energy will not appear, just the entropy; state variables. We will have lots of entropy S; states, both no temperature for free energy creation; TS. We will need the tiniest amount of temperature, so ST=H=mass/energy can become finite; let there be light!

 

[Zwing]

The BB is the beginning of space-time. Before that, there was independent space and independent time, not connected as space-time. There is no energy before space-time, since photons have wavelength; space, and connected frequency; time. Before that merger, that we had wavelengths and frequencies, but not yet permanently connected as energy; photons

The analogy is Joe and Jane get married, with the bond of marriage analogous to the forming of space-time. This ceremony marks a new beginning, away from being single, to being part of a team. Marriage; space-time, does not mean Joe and Jane did not each have a life, before marriage. There was a time and place, when each was single and each could make decisions apart from each other. The wife; Jane, may not want her husband Joe thinking too much about those older days, since he was wild back then. She would prefer him think, that their life began, with their marriage vows; BB.

I my model, we have separated space and separated time, first. Next, we have space-time. The time=0 occur at the transition between the two states; marriage of space with time for a new beginning.

If we started the universe, where space and time are not connected, one could initially move in time without the constraint of space and move in space without the constraint of time. This allows for infinite possibilities like omnipresence. This state would define infinite complexity and therefore a state of infinite entropy.

When space and time merge into space-time; singularity, and finite limits are placed, there is a drastic decrease in complexity and entropy. This will be very exothermic; energy for the BB. Since our universe is finite the energy decrease needed to form the primordial atom would be finite, separated space and separated time would still exist; infinite complexity. This potential in entropy results in the drive of the 2nd law; space-time or limited entropy, returning to divided space and time or infinite entropy.

The free energy equation is G=H-TS, where G is free energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature in degree K, while S is entropy. Since free energy G= 0, just before space-time forms; before photons; t=-0, we can rewrite the equation as H=TS. H or enthalpy is a measure of internal energy such as is within mass/substance; E=MC2, needed to bind space-time.

S is not energy, rather TS has the units of energy. Even if we had a huge entropy S value, at absolute zero; free energy will not appear, just the entropy; state variables. We will have lots of entropy S; states, both no temperature for free energy creation; TS. We will need the tiniest amount of temperature, so ST=H=mass/energy can become finite; let there be light!

Hey, thanks! I want to “chew that over”.

 

[ratiocinator]

…I’m not sure that I can accept this definition of “dimension”, particularly that the dimension of an object can change.

The word can actually be used in different senses. You need to understand the sense that @Polymath257 described if you want to understand the relativistic point of view. I hope you can see that you can locate a point on a sheet of paper with two numbers and an point in space with three, then that is the sense in which the first is two-dimensional and the second is three-dimensional. Space-time is four-dimensional because you need four numbers to locate the equivalent of a point, an event (a single moment at a single place), in space-time.

 

[ratiocinator]

The BB is the beginning of space-time. Before that, there was independent space and independent time, not connected as space-time. There is no energy before space-time...

You're just making this up, aren't you? This isn't science.

Hey, thanks! I want to “chew that over”.

Please don't - if you want to understand science.

 

[Polymath257]

Then why are things Louie this published, which state unequivocally that, “…13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity…”:

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

Do they simply publish crap because they need crap to publish?

One of the problems is that many of the concepts are not easy and even the journalists that write about them don't understand them. So they do their best, but get many specifics wrong. This is particularly common when talking about singularities.

Frankly, to get the real story requires a fair amount of mathematics (at least mathematical intuition) and most popular writers simply don't have that background knowledge.

As we go back in time towards the start, the density and temperature increase without bounds. But at no point was the density or temperature infinite. Also, the singularity, as I said, is more of a description of the fact that the density, temperature, curvature, etc all increase without bounds than it is an actual 'point'. Every point in space has this in its past.

Now, it *is* possible that there was not a 'singularity' where things go unbounded, but that quantum effects 'smooth out' things and time *can* be extended back further. We simply do not know.

 

[Polymath257]

This is what I have understood, but…

…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.

OK, a couple of points here. I am using the notion of dimension in a specific sense. Yours has more to do with measurement. And, even in that case, time can be relevant: it is just the the 'dimension' of an object is the duration of that object in time.

As for whether an object at a later time is a different object or not, that is more of a philosophical question. From the 4 dimensional point of view, the 'object' has both spatial and temporal aspects. So, from this perspective, *you* are everything from when you were a baby to the time when you are old. At any particular time, the three dimensional object as you see it, is a 'time slice' of the four dimensional 'you'.

A reasonable analogy is that of a flip book animation. Here, different 'slices' are two dimensional (flat) pictures, but when you flip through them, you get an illusion of change and motion. For our universe, the slices are three dimensional figures and the motion is seen from different time slices.

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.

Yours is a very common viewpoint, but it is not the current best scientific viewpoint.

 

[shunyadragon]

The BB is the beginning of space-time. Before that, there was independent space and independent time, not connected as space-time. There is no energy before space-time, since photons have wavelength; space, and connected frequency; time. Before that merger, that we had wavelengths and frequencies, but not yet permanently connected as energy; photons.

This description is a problem. There was energy before the expansion of the universe. There was energy in singularities. I believe the matrix of the pre universe was a Quantum Matrix with energy at the zero level.

Zero-point energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] Therefore, even at absolute zero, atoms and molecules retain some vibrational motion. Apart from atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum also has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics[1][3] since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However, this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.[1]

There is math models and indirect evidence that there are singularities at the center of the formation of black holes in our universe. which as the form and merge may be the basis for the formation of another universe.

The analogy is Joe and Jane get married, with the bond of marriage analogous to the forming of space-time. This ceremony marks a new beginning, away from being single, to being part of a team. Marriage; space-time, does not mean Joe and Jane did not each have a life, before marriage. There was a time and place, when each was single and each could make decisions apart from each other. The wife; Jane, may not want her husband Joe thinking too much about those older days, since he was wild back then. She would prefer him think, that their life began, with their marriage vows; BB.

I do not consider this relevant,

 

[ratiocinator]

Then why are things Louie this published, which state unequivocally that, “…13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity…”:

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

Do they simply publish crap because they need crap to publish?

Unfortunately this sort of thing happens all the time in pop-science and science journalism. It's very frustrating. There are two things wrong with it. The wording is a bit ambiguous. It's sort of correct if you take the point to mean 'point in time', rather than a point in space. Also very few cosmologists think that it ever happened because a singularity in an equation that describes a physical system tends to indicate that you've taken the theory beyond its applicability and we know that we need a unified theory of GR and QFT, which we don't have.

Here is a theoretical physicist on the subject:

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn&#8217…

profmattstrassler.com

 

[Alien826]

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


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.

Here I am again, the pesky questioner!

If I want to proceed along the one-dimensional circle to arrive back at my starting point, I simply follow the line (or maybe there are only two directions to go in). On the two dimensional surface of the sphere, I can move around and never arrive back at the starting point, just keep changing direction. How do I know which way to go to arrive arrive back at my starting point? Pick any direction I guess (or does it have to be a great circle?), but how do I stay on that line? On Earth I would use some kind of compass based on the magnetic poles. But how to stay on a line in a three dimensional universe?

I get the principles, this is just a practical matter.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you're disagreeing current physics. What's your justification?

I do not consider this disagreeing with current physics. The time at the Quantum smallest scale level is not continuous time and three dimensional like our universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately this sort of thing happens all the time in pop-science and science journalism. It's very frustrating. There are two things wrong with it. The wording is a bit ambiguous. It's sort of correct if you take the point to mean 'point in time', rather than a point in space. Also very few cosmologists think that it ever happened because a singularity in an equation that describes a physical system tends to indicate that you've taken the theory beyond its applicability and we know that we need a unified theory of GR and QFT, which we don't have.

Here is a theoretical physicist on the subject:

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn&#8217…

profmattstrassler.com

Intersecting, I leaned something new. A side note as per Charles Sanders Peirce. It is not given that will ever be a unified theory of GR and QFT. Do what ever you want with that.

 

[Polymath257]

Here I am again, the pesky questioner!

If I want to proceed along the one-dimensional circle to arrive back at my starting point, I simply follow the line (or maybe there are only two directions to go in). On the two dimensional surface of the sphere, I can move around and never arrive back at the starting point, just keep changing direction. How do I know which way to go to arrive arrive back at my starting point? Pick any direction I guess (or does it have to be a great circle?), but how do I stay on that line? On Earth I would use some kind of compass based on the magnetic poles. But how to stay on a line in a three dimensional universe?

I get the principles, this is just a practical matter.

Mathematically, the 'straight line path' is known as a geodesic. And, yes, the great circles form the geodesics on a sphere.

The basic requirement of a geodesic is that you 'parallel translate' your direction along the curve to get the direction of the curve. In other words, you keep going as straight as possible in the direction you have been going.

And, yes, the practical aspects are that if you deviate, you will miss the starting point, but if you don't deviate much, you will at least come close. This is in contrast to Euclidean space where you won't ever get back to your starting point or even close.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is that? Basic compounds are all over space, amino acids and such. There are trillions of planets and billions of years. We know basic organic compounds organize to form nucleobase structures and things of that nature. A basic replication isn't impossible and a RNA pre-cursor also isn't impossible. Rare but there are so many planets and so much time that it becomes reasonable.

What part of life formation hangs you up and makes you feel it's not probable.

Another thing is anything with any probability will happen given enough time and area, that is built into physics.

National Geographic just had a description of reactions by astronauts, saying that they were astounded at the inhospitality of the universe towards life. Only the earth was awesome insofar as the majesty and beauty of life in their observation. And -- it's true.

 

[ratiocinator]

I do not consider this disagreeing with current physics. The time at the Quantum smallest scale level is not continuous time and three dimensional like our universe.

You started off by saying that "...time is not a thing that physically exists." (#2,806). Now you seem to have moved the goalposts to it not being continuous, which isn't the same thing at all.

I also didn't think even this claim stands up as current physics. Certainly standard quantum mechanics is formulated against a classical continuous space and time background, and, as far as I know, quantum field theory uses special relativity. I think you only get actually quantised space-time in hypotheses like loop quantum gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is that? Basic compounds are all over space, amino acids and such. There are trillions of planets and billions of years. We know basic organic compounds organize to form nucleobase structures and things of that nature. A basic replication isn't impossible and a RNA pre-cursor also isn't impossible. Rare but there are so many planets and so much time that it becomes reasonable.

What part of life formation hangs you up and makes you feel it's not probable.

Another thing is anything with any probability will happen given enough time and area, that is built into physics.

As I said, and I agree with the statement in National Geographic that astronauts feel "awed and overwhelmed when seeing the beauty and fragility of our planet from the inhospitable reaches of space."

 

[Polymath257]

National Geographic just had a description of reactions by astronauts, saying that they were astounded at the inhospitality of the universe towards life. Only the earth was awesome insofar as the majesty and beauty of life in their observation. And -- it's true.

Yes, the vast majority of space is completely inhospitable to life. but then, the vast majority of space isn't on the surface of any planet.

We know there are many planets in the galaxy. We know that the basic materials for life are common and would make it onto those planets. So, we expect (but do not know) that life will be fairly common in the universe.

The Earth is *probably* the only planet in our solar system that has life (although a couple of moons are also candidates). But those astronauts were at *most* the distance from us to our moon. And that is incredibly close on the scale of the galaxy. And yes, things are *very* hostile to life away from planets and perhaps a few moons.

 

[Zwing]

…Louie this published…

Hahaha…I hate the AI with which I constantly battle.

 

[Zwing]

National Geographic just had a description of reactions by astronauts, saying that they were astounded at the inhospitality of the universe towards life. Only the earth was awesome insofar as the majesty and beauty of life in their observation. And -- it's true.

There are almost certainly other planets “out there” which, with some terraformal tweaking, could support human life, but all excepting Mars would be too distant to consider as an option.

 

[Tinker Grey]

This is what I have understood, but…

…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.

This may help -- Brian Greene explains time in 5 levels of difficulty: