Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[We Never Know]

Oversimplification is always a strawman.

Ok. Another dodge. Move along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. Another dodge. Move along.

LMAO!! Another explanation beyond your understanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good question.

If something existed that produced the big bang, wouldn't time have to exist too?

IOW, if time started after the BB, how did the BB even happen without time?

Wouldn't time and space have to exist for a singularity to exist?

Bear with me, and we will discover, this can take time so if at any point you lose interest for whatever reason, we can just drop it.

How do we measure time, with what?

 

[Polymath257]

"There wasn't and then there was"

Do tell what the strawman is?

PS: that is a direct question. Don't try to avoid it with your proper question, didnt ask nicely, or other BS.

There was no time at which there wasn't. At all times, there was.

 

[Polymath257]

How would you define the concept of time, does it exist as some independent cosmic entity, or is it merely a measurement by proxy of some finite period of existence?

I would ask the same about space. Is it some independent cosmic entity, or is it a measurement by proxy of some finite expanse of existence?

Physical things are defined by how they interact. And that means that *for us*, they are defined by measurement. So there is no duality here.

 

[Polymath257]

Good question.

If something existed that produced the big bang, wouldn't time have to exist too?

IOW, if time started after the BB, how did the BB even happen without time?

Wouldn't time and space have to exist for a singularity to exist?

A singularity is simply a way of saying our understanding breaks down. It isn't an actual entity.

 

[Polymath257]

Bear with me, and we will discover, this can take time so if at any point you lose interest for whatever reason, we can just drop it.

How do we measure time, with what?

We measure time via comparison with some sort of phenomenon that is periodic in time.

Sort of like we often measure distances by comparison with some sort of periodic phenomenon in space (regular markings on a ruler, for example).

Of course, in both cases, there are a variety of ways that ultimately depend on that original way.

We measure mass by comparison with other masses in how they react to forces.

We measure charge by comparison to other charges in how they react to electric fields, which are produced from charges.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would ask the same about space. Is it some independent cosmic entity, or is it a measurement by proxy of some finite expanse of existence?

Physical things are defined by how they interact. And that means that *for us*, they are defined by measurement. So there is no duality here.

I am not denying the reality of time as a concept to understand reality, but what we are measuring when we 'time' some event is not an entity in of itself, but rather using a proxy timing device to measure a period of continuation of the event between a start and end point. Even if we accept it as an entity, we are still just measuring the continuation of the existence of the object/event from a start point and end point, using a proxy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We measure time via comparison with some sort of phenomenon that is periodic in time.

Sort of like we often measure distances by comparison with some sort of periodic phenomenon in space (regular markings on a ruler, for example).

Of course, in both cases, there are a variety of ways that ultimately depend on that original way.

We measure mass by comparison with other masses in how they react to forces.

We measure charge by comparison to other charges in how they react to electric fields, which are produced from charges.

But what is it that is periodic in time that is used to measure time?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just came across this and am posting it only for information purposes... Dark Matter and Gravity Waves from a Dark Big Bang

The Hot Big Bang is often considered as the origin of all matter and radiation in the Universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis (BBN) provides strong evidence that the early Universe contained a hot plasma of photons and baryons with a temperature T>MeV. However, the earliest probes of dark matter originate from much later times around the epoch of structure formation. In this work we describe a scenario in which dark matter (and possibly dark radiation) can be formed around or even after BBN in a second Big Bang which we dub the ``Dark Big Bang''. The latter occurs through a phase transition in the dark sector which transforms dark vacuum energy into a hot dark plasma of particles; in this paper we focus on a first-order phase transition for the Dark Big Bang. The correct dark matter abundance can be set by dark matter cannibalism or by pair-annihilation within the dark sector followed by a thermal freeze-out. Alternatively ultra-heavy ``dark-zilla'' dark matter can originate directly from bubble collisions during the Dark Big Bang. We will show that the Dark Big Bang is consistent with constraints from structure formation and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) if it occurred when the Universe was less than one month old, corresponding to a temperature in the visible sector above O(keV). While the dark matter evades direct and indirect detection, the Dark Big Bang gives rise to striking gravity wave signatures to be tested at pulsar timing array experiments. Furthermore, the Dark Big Bang allows for realizations of self-interacting and/or warm dark matter which suggest exciting discovery potential in future small-scale structure observations.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not denying the reality of time as a concept to understand reality, but what we are measuring when we 'time' some event is not an entity in of itself, but rather using a proxy timing device to measure a period of continuation of the event between a start and end point. Even if we accept it as an entity, we are still just measuring the continuation of the existence of the object/event from a start point and end point, using a proxy.

OK, there is some terminology difficulty here. And *event* is a specific point in spacetime. It doesn't have a 'start' or an 'end' (unless you want to say they are the same).

To measure a time interval, you need two events. But, of course, you need the same to measure a distance.

I don't see how we are using a 'proxy' any more for measuring time and we are for measuring distance. I can make an argument that this is the case for *all* physical properties: we *always* measure the effect on something else.

I would also point out that you are using time laden language even when you say things like 'continuation of the existence from a start point to an end point'. The exact same thing is true, though, for measurements of distance. When we measure distance, we are measuring the 'continuation of an object from a start point to an end point' *in space* and we use a proxy (a ruler, maybe trigonometry, whatever).

But what is it that is periodic in time that is used to measure time?

All sorts of things. The definition of a second is in terms of a number of wavelengths of light emitted by Cesium. That is usually used to calibrate other periodic systems.

 

[Polymath257]

Just came across this and am posting it only for information purposes... Dark Matter and Gravity Waves from a Dark Big Bang

The Hot Big Bang is often considered as the origin of all matter and radiation in the Universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis (BBN) provides strong evidence that the early Universe contained a hot plasma of photons and baryons with a temperature T>MeV. However, the earliest probes of dark matter originate from much later times around the epoch of structure formation. In this work we describe a scenario in which dark matter (and possibly dark radiation) can be formed around or even after BBN in a second Big Bang which we dub the ``Dark Big Bang''. The latter occurs through a phase transition in the dark sector which transforms dark vacuum energy into a hot dark plasma of particles; in this paper we focus on a first-order phase transition for the Dark Big Bang. The correct dark matter abundance can be set by dark matter cannibalism or by pair-annihilation within the dark sector followed by a thermal freeze-out. Alternatively ultra-heavy ``dark-zilla'' dark matter can originate directly from bubble collisions during the Dark Big Bang. We will show that the Dark Big Bang is consistent with constraints from structure formation and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) if it occurred when the Universe was less than one month old, corresponding to a temperature in the visible sector above O(keV). While the dark matter evades direct and indirect detection, the Dark Big Bang gives rise to striking gravity wave signatures to be tested at pulsar timing array experiments. Furthermore, the Dark Big Bang allows for realizations of self-interacting and/or warm dark matter which suggest exciting discovery potential in future small-scale structure observations.

Interesting bit of speculation. I'll wait until actual data comes in, though.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, there is some terminology difficulty here. And *event* is a specific point in spacetime. It doesn't have a 'start' or an 'end' (unless you want to say they are the same).

To measure a time interval, you need two events. But, of course, you need the same to measure a distance.

I don't see how we are using a 'proxy' any more for measuring time and we are for measuring distance. I can make an argument that this is the case for *all* physical properties: we *always* measure the effect on something else.

I would also point out that you are using time laden language even when you say things like 'continuation of the existence from a start point to an end point'. The exact same thing is true, though, for measurements of distance. When we measure distance, we are measuring the 'continuation of an object from a start point to an end point' *in space* and we use a proxy (a ruler, maybe trigonometry, whatever).


All sorts of things. The definition of a second is in terms of a number of wavelengths of light emitted by Cesium. That is usually used to calibrate other periodic systems.

Ok, space is a 3D continuum which contains all that is, it can be seen and measured.
Time otoh is the measurement of the continuity of existence, time can not be seen.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Just watching a show on cable about astronomy and exploration of space and the possibility scientists say of life out there. (It's so stupid...) So they say they see no signs of life out there, and then wonder if there is life like ours. Imagine that. Life like ours somewhere out there maybe. So it just hasn't "evolved" yet, I suppose. Or maybe these evolved beings look like? a horror being?

We're probably the North Sentinel Island of space races.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, space is a 3D continuum which contains all that is, it can be seen and measured.
Time otoh is the measurement of the continuity of existence, time can not be seen.

Lots and lots of assumptions here. First, space is simply a slice of spacetime. it depends on the observer doing the slice. Whether it is a continuum or not depends on what happens that the Planck scale: we simply don't know.

But, time also 'contains all that is'. It can also be measured. And I would argue that you cannot 'see' space. You can see things *in space*, but you can also see things *in time*. We detect spacial intervals in a variety of ways, but we also detect temporal intervals.

Both time and space are aspects of the 'continuity of existence', just in different dimensions. Time itself is not a measurement, just as space itself is not a measurement. But both can be measured.

There is a big symmetry between space and time. Most concepts that apply to one also apply to the other in some form. The reason is that neither has an independent existence (sort of like there is no 'right' and 'left', only right and left compared to some other direction). What actually has an independent existence away from observers is spacetime.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lots and lots of assumptions here. First, space is simply a slice of spacetime. it depends on the observer doing the slice. Whether it is a continuum or not depends on what happens that the Planck scale: we simply don't know.

But, time also 'contains all that is'. It can also be measured. And I would argue that you cannot 'see' space. You can see things *in space*, but you can also see things *in time*. We detect spacial intervals in a variety of ways, but we also detect temporal intervals.

Both time and space are aspects of the 'continuity of existence', just in different dimensions. Time itself is not a measurement, just as space itself is not a measurement. But both can be measured.

There is a big symmetry between space and time. Most concepts that apply to one also apply to the other in some form. The reason is that neither has an independent existence (sort of like there is no 'right' and 'left', only right and left compared to some other direction). What actually has an independent existence away from observers is spacetime.

Wonderful, just wonderful. (sarcasm...)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Lots and lots of assumptions here. First, space is simply a slice of spacetime. it depends on the observer doing the slice. Whether it is a continuum or not depends on what happens that the Planck scale: we simply don't know.

But, time also 'contains all that is'. It can also be measured. And I would argue that you cannot 'see' space. You can see things *in space*, but you can also see things *in time*. We detect spacial intervals in a variety of ways, but we also detect temporal intervals.

Both time and space are aspects of the 'continuity of existence', just in different dimensions. Time itself is not a measurement, just as space itself is not a measurement. But both can be measured.

There is a big symmetry between space and time. Most concepts that apply to one also apply to the other in some form. The reason is that neither has an independent existence (sort of like there is no 'right' and 'left', only right and left compared to some other direction). What actually has an independent existence away from observers is spacetime.

The concept of spacetime to my mind is seen as the continuity of existence, existence being analogous to space and continuity to time. So space and time are not two separate things, space continuing to exist is called spacetime by science. That is the point I've been trying to make, existence doing nothing but continuing to exist is called time. Timing otoh is something else altogether, it is the measuring by proxy of finite periods/segments abstracted from the unbroken continuity of existence.

Btw, wrt Planck scale, do you think there may be a form of vibrating energy existing at wavelengths smaller than Planck length?
When it is said that Dark Energy comprises 65% of the mass of the universe, what sort of dark energy wavelength range are we looking at?

 

[Valjean]

Evolved, right? Hey maybe they even look like humans? Or cockroaches? Which species, you figure it might be? OK, just thought I'd throw it out there -- sooo stupid...lol...Oh, and maybe there is a liveable place like the earth with ingredients for, um, animals? (again -- uh huh...) lol...OK, have a good time...

Life develops as local conditions dictate, and adapts/evolves to better fit in.
Given the likelihood of billions of planets with conditions suitable for life of some kind, I'd expect quite a variety of forms, many with nothing remotely comparable to what we're familiar with here.
Alas, I doubt we'll ever meet any.

 

[Valjean]

Like I ask, maybe they evolved? Maybe they look like, um...something...lol. Exploration is one thing. Wondering if there is "life" out there maybe like ours is beyond the beyond. Anyway, enjoy.

Life forms evolve to meet changing conditions, and conditions are always changing; sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes quickly. If the condition in which you initially arose changes, it's usually either adapt or go extinct.

So far scientists have found no evidence of life beyond the earth. And especially life that looks like humans. I mean maybe the atoms and molecules will configure together differently, if you believe it all happened by chance force. Or -- maybe these particles will not configure and "become alive" at all.

So far, nobody's been in a position to look for any, so it's no surprise we haven't found any.

Q: Are you talking about life arising, or evolving? They're two different things.

Let's be honest. There have been reports by some that spaceships landed on the earth, and "aliens" visited the Pentagon. Some people probably really believe that. Then again, I have seen some here claim dead people can visit humans in their dreams and that they're REAL. So if someone wants to reason that maybe life evolved somewhere else in the universe despite lack of evidence, might as well say that for other things, too.

Yes, people believe all sorts of crazy things, especially people who don't think critically or form opinions based on evidence. but what does this have to do with the probability of extraterrestrial life?
Drawing a single royal flush is improbable, but given trillions of tries, it becomes nearly inevitable.

Again, the lack of evidence you speak of, that is, the actual discovery of extraterrestrial life, doesn't apply here. Until we have the technology to actually explore multiple planets for life, the lack of this type of evidence is to be expected, even if the universe is full of life.

OK... You keep talking about life "evolving" somewhere else. I think you must be talking about life developing or arising somewhere else, since, once life exists, it's probably either going to change (evolve/adapt), or not last very long.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, well maybe the planets and stars are alive also. (You think?)

What are you getting on about, Yours True?
There are always "maybes," but thinking people assign varying probabilities to different maybes, based on likelihood; the likelihood being determined by known, natural laws, forces and conditions.

But I suppose if you believe in a magical universe where things appear and disappear at the whim of an invisible creator, with no natural causes, everything seems equally probable.

I am saying that there's a lot of work to be done and improved on this earth, not to spend so much brain power asking and examining if there's life out there.

Spoken like a veritable troglodyte, incurious and unmotivated to look into anything that doesn't promise immediate reward.

There are eight billion people on this earth. Do you expect everyone to have the same interests and aptitudes?

Improving things here on Earth would be great, but many of the mechanisms for doing so are already well known. The problems lie in motivation and implementation.
Certain conservative types resist altering the status quo they're familiar with.

Again -- it's a waste of brainpower to spend good IQ's to figure if there's life out there.

There are plenty of brains to go around, and curious minds are not restricted from philanthropic endeavors outside their fields of study.