What was the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

By edge in context of our exchange, means where cosmic physical manifestation, ie. galaxies,, dust, etc., ends, but empty space continues. Iow, the space which contains the physical universe extends beyond it.
The other theory is as you put it, there is no edge while also being finite and unbounded.

There is also the possibility of being infinite with no edge of the type you are describing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There was one report I saw that suggested evidence for a negatively curved, finite universe that was constructed in a way similar to this.

But most do not worry too much about these possibilities, no.

As I thought, all theoretical possibilities but no definitive theory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is also the possibility of being infinite with no edge of the type you are describing.

Do you mean a multi-universe of unbounded universes?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you mean a multi-universe of unbounded universes?

No, that is not what I said, although that is also a possibility.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This last paragraph is far from being demonstrated. There are many alternatives, none of which has convincing evidence to support them.

Alternatives to what, the acceleration of expansion, the finite divisibility of the cosmos, or the BB? I see no serious opposition to any of that.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You seem still to be avoiding the point. So let me ask you point black with a yes no answer, is it theoretically possible for the universe to have an edge?
The second question is, is it theoretically possible there is not an edge to the universe because the universe is finite an unbounded?

Everybody seems to be wanting to go off on their own tangents, or impossible yes or no questions, while avoiding the issue I brought up in the OP
The answers are:
If the curvature is negative or closed, yes, it is theoretically possible to have an edge or "outside" to the universe--and the nature of what is outside would be a timeless, distanceless non-local ether. It is necessary to understand that because the issue of what's "outside" of the universe is different that what's outside your house, car, body, spacesuit or whatever. And since our universe is finite and unbounded, the answer for the first question is the same as for the second.

IOW, the answer to your yes or no questions is, I never beat my wife.

 

[Thief]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

if I may........

science claims a primordial singularity ( at least as I was growing up)

for that to be true.....a secondary point could not be allowed

once the secondary formed....infinity was immediate

as the expansion took hold a rotation set in .......an axial movement

THEN the expansion REALLY went off.......BANG!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Everybody seems to be wanting to go off on their own tangents, or impossible yes or no questions, while avoiding the issue I brought up in the OP
The answers are:
If the curvature is negative or closed, yes, it is theoretically possible to have an edge or "outside" to the universe--and the nature of what is outside would be a timeless, distanceless non-local ether. It is necessary to understand that because the issue of what's "outside" of the universe is different that what's outside your house, car, body, spacesuit or whatever. And since our universe is finite and unbounded, the answer for the first question is the same as for the second.

IOW, the answer to your yes or no questions is, I never beat my wife.

I understand the first sentence, a theoretically possible manifested universe contained in, presumably, infinite space. But then in the last sentence, you are stating definitively that the universe is finite and unbounded, in which case the universe can not in any way be contained in space as in the first sentence. If you were to say that it is possible for there theoretically to be a finite universe that is unbounded, it would make sense, but not what you are presently saying.

 

[Polymath257]

Alternatives to what, the acceleration of expansion, the finite divisibility of the cosmos, or the BB? I see no serious opposition to any of that.

Your claim "that the Big Bang resulted from the creation or sudden existence of divisibility at a point in the ether/Quantumland which initiated the 3Dspace and time of this universe, and "into" which our universe is expanding." is unsubstantiated. It is one possibility among many.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

if I may........

science claims a primordial singularity ( at least as I was growing up)

for that to be true.....a secondary point could not be allowed

once the secondary formed....infinity was immediate

as the expansion took hold a rotation set in .......an axial movement

THEN the expansion REALLY went off.......BANG!

The singularity is only inferred by the first instance of the universe, and the minimal divisibility of it subsequently. I don't know what the secondary point is you're referring to.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Your claim "that the Big Bang resulted from the creation or sudden existence of divisibility at a point in the ether/Quantumland which initiated the 3Dspace and time of this universe, and "into" which our universe is expanding." is unsubstantiated. It is one possibility among many.

The minimum divisibility of time and distance, Planck-length and Planck-time, has been theoretically and observationaly substantiated. What is the scientific opposition to it is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The minimum divisibility of time and distance, Planck-length and Planck-time, has been theoretically and observationaly substantiated. What is the scientific opposition to it is?

I think that you are still confused about the singularity.

 

[Thief]

The singularity is only inferred by the first instance of the universe, and the minimal divisibility of it subsequently. I don't know what the secondary point is you're referring to.

at the point of singularity.....there is only one point

it's not a singularity if there are two points

when the secondary forms infinity forms with it
an infinite number of points exist between any two

what science cannot explain is the rotation
the rotation must be present BEFORE the expansion begins

if not.....the expansion would be as any other explosion
one pulse of energy in the form of a sphere

that is not what we see when we look up

the rotation prior to the bang.....set the universe to gel as it did

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

at the point of singularity.....there is only one point

Exactly.

it's not a singularity if there are two points

I never said or implied that there were.

when the secondary forms infinity forms with it
an infinite number of points exist between any two

?????

what science cannot explain is the rotation
the rotation must be present BEFORE the expansion begins

I don't think it's been explained why that's necessary. Fact is, we don't know what caused the impetus for the BB in the first place.

if not.....the expansion would be as any other explosion
one pulse of energy in the form of a sphere

Yes, so do we know it wasn't? What's your point.

that is not what we see when we look up

So?

[quote\the rotation prior to the bang.....set the universe to gel as it did[/QUOTE]

Back to the rotation thing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ThePainfulTruth, I am still waiting for a reply to my post #148?

 

[Polymath257]

The minimum divisibility of time and distance, Planck-length and Planck-time, has been theoretically and observationaly substantiated. What is the scientific opposition to it is?

Actually, no. Planck distance and time are still theoretical only. We have nothing that comes even close to probing the Planck level.

For example,some string theory universes simply have maximum density of contraction with contraction before and expansion after. In such, there is *always* a distinction between space and time.

Again, ALL of this is pure speculation at this point. Anything prior to the inflationary epoch is pure speculation and much of the period of inflation is also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

at the point of singularity.....there is only one point

it's not a singularity if there are two points

when the secondary forms infinity forms with it
an infinite number of points exist between any two

what science cannot explain is the rotation
the rotation must be present BEFORE the expansion begins

if not.....the expansion would be as any other explosion
one pulse of energy in the form of a sphere

that is not what we see when we look up

the rotation prior to the bang.....set the universe to gel as it did

And this is why the word "singularity" is not as well favored as it was in the past. In the Big Bang the singularity is simply when our "laws of physics" as we know them no longer work. That is long before all mass is concentrated in one point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And this is why the word "singularity" is not as well favored as it was in the past. In the Big Bang the singularity is simply when our "laws of physics" as we know them no longer work. That is long before all mass is concentrated in one point.

How did all mass concentrate at one point?

 

[dfnj]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

Nothingness is an imaginary state that has never been shown to exist by evidence. Since somethingness exists, based on our only existing evidence, something has always existed.

I like the idea that white holes are created by black holes. The Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black-hole in a previously existing space-time Universe. Why would we think our Universe is the only one true Universe?

If our Universe and the Big Bang came into existence from Quantumland then say you travel a trillion light years away another Universe exactly like this one may exist! Trillions and trillions of Universes!! Every quantum state must be realized in order for hard determinism to exist in reality..

 

[Polymath257]

at the point of singularity.....there is only one point

it's not a singularity if there are two points

when the secondary forms infinity forms with it
an infinite number of points exist between any two

what science cannot explain is the rotation
the rotation must be present BEFORE the expansion begins

Do you have any evidence that the *total* angular momentum of the universe is non-zero?

if not.....the expansion would be as any other explosion
one pulse of energy in the form of a sphere

Except that it was NOT an explosion in any conventional sense. That's sort of the whole point.

that is not what we see when we look up

the rotation prior to the bang.....set the universe to gel as it did

Rotation happens when forces are not directed radially. Any instability in the expansion will produce this.