What was the Big Bang

[Thief]

?????

that you were stumped at this ....'point'.....indicates you haven't really thought about it

basic geometry
two points
divide the distance between them by half
then do it again
again
infinitely

the instructor was adamant
rightly so

think that is hard to grasp?

keep thinking
the entire universe came from that one location

what we see as the universe expands.....strongly indicates a central starting 'point'

hence the belief......singularity

and don't forget the word Genesis (origin)

 

[Thief]

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



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



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

for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction
if the expansion had be simple
you would see a percussion 'shell'

the rotation had to be in play BEFORE the expansion set in

 

[james blunt]

it's not a singularity if there are two points

that you were stumped at this ....'point'.....indicates you haven't really thought about it

basic geometry
two points
divide the distance between them by half
then do it again
again
infinitely

the instructor was adamant
rightly so

think that is hard to grasp?

keep thinking
the entire universe came from that one location

what we see as the universe expands.....strongly indicates a central starting 'point'

hence the belief......singularity

and don't forget the word Genesis (origin)

Quite clearly you think you know things, repeating your education, but sorry sir you have not got a clue and explain things badly.

Firstly explaining 0 in terms of the big bang ''singularity'' can simply be expressed :

πr³

-

πr³

=0


No need for complicated explanation


Additionally a singularity is any given point of an unknown volume of geometrical points that can take on infinite values in any direction.

 

[Thief]

Quite clearly you think you know things, repeating your education, but sorry sir you have not got a clue and explain things badly.

Firstly explaining 0 in terms of the big bang ''singularity'' can simply be expressed :

πr³

-

πr³

=0


No need for complicated explanation


Additionally a singularity is any given point of an unknown volume of geometrical points that can take on infinite values in any direction.

and you speak of the unknown.....as if you do

 

[james blunt]

and you speak of the unknown.....as if you do

Not if I do, what the physics do. Impossible or possible.

No space before the big bang would mean inside of a solid . A solid still ''contains'' space, A solid would expand into space.

Solids and space, that is how easy the infinite Universe it.

Hardly difficult, no need for complexity what so ever, it is really really really simple to understand.

I can explain it with using just mainly A and B. That is how simple it is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Please assume FTL travel, so where does the traveler end up, at the edge of the universe or back where they started from?

Right now, we don't know. It could be that we are in a bubble of sorts within a larger universe. In that case we would go on sailing in a straight line, and possibly find ourselves moving into another expanding universe, like moving from bubble to bubble. Our universe could also be encapsulated which means that you would end up where you started.

 

[Polymath257]

for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction
if the expansion had be simple
you would see a percussion 'shell'

No, that is a misunderstanding. The BB is NOT an explosion: things are NOT moving through space. It is space itself that is expanding. There is no 'front' to the expansion.

the rotation had to be in play BEFORE the expansion set in

Why do you think that? Once again, any asymmetry in the forces can produce a rotation from linear motion.

 

[james blunt]

It is space itself that is expanding. There is no 'front' to the expansion.

Physically impossible sir, what you read is not always true sir. That is indeed what the big bang states, however that is not true . The physics fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is a misunderstanding. The BB is NOT an explosion: things are NOT moving through space. It is space itself that is expanding. There is no 'front' to the expansion.



Why do you think that? Once again, any asymmetry in the forces can produce a rotation from linear motion.

I remember one of "Dr" Kent Hovind's lectures where he conflated parts of the Big Bang Theory and parts of the nebular hypothesis. To put it mildly it was a hot mess.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

What, a big crunch before the BB? "Some string theory universes simply have maximum density of contraction" is total speculation without even any theoretical basis. And if the "distinction between space and time" was not maintained, how would that possibly be knowable? It could be one Planck second to an eternity. The only evidence we have to work with is the cosmos which appeared after the first Planck second, known as the Planck Epoch.

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.

It is not pure speculation. The fabric of the universe must have a limit to its divisibility, otherwise time and length would have no meaning and the universe would be non-local. But the fact that light has a speed, alone, shows that this is a local universe. And Max Planck didn't just decide where the necessary limits to the divisibility of space and time fell.

"Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype, object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity."--Wiki

Any idea can be claimed to be only theoretical, but some "theories" have anywhere from zero to 9.999etc.% validated. The latter, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution etc. can be considered, for our purposes, to be virtually proven. And of course we haven't come close to physically probing reality at the Planck level, but it necessarily must exist at some level--since otherwise, the universe would be non-local.

And, given the recent finding of gravity waves which travel at the speed of light, string theory would also be non-applicable in a non-local existence--speed, for light and gravity et al, being dependent on time and distance.

 

[james blunt]

What, a big crunch before the BB? "Some string theory universes simply have maximum density of contraction" is total speculation without even any theoretical basis. And if the "distinction between space and time" was not maintained, how would that possibly be knowable? It could be one Planck second to an eternity. The only evidence we have to work with is the cosmos which appeared after the first Planck second, known as the Planck Epoch.



It is not pure speculation. The fabric of the universe must have a limit to its divisibility, otherwise time and length would have no meaning and the universe would be non-local. But the fact that light has a speed, alone, shows that this is a local universe. And Max Planck didn't just decide where the necessary limits to the divisibility of space and time fell.

"Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype, object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity."--Wiki

Any idea can be claimed to be only theoretical, but some "theories" have anywhere from zero to 9.999etc.% validated. The latter, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution etc. can be considered, for our purposes, to be virtually proven. And of course we haven't come close to physically probing reality at the Planck level, but it necessarily must exist at some level--since otherwise, the universe would be non-local.

And, given the recent finding of gravity waves which travel at the speed of light, string theory would also be non-applicable in a non-local existence--speed, for light and gravity et al, being dependent on time and distance.

Would I be wrong in thinking that

Δ t = tP


Would be absolute and has no negligible length to contract or dilate?


Quite clearly in any light clock experiment the Lorentz contraction is relative to the length of distance between ''ticks'' . If we remove this distance or contract the distance to a minimal such as a Planck length, then surely the context of time dilation changes?

Δ t = 1.s is designed to contract and has no other discipline or use other than that of the practitioner?

 

[Polymath257]

What, a big crunch before the BB? "Some string theory universes simply have maximum density of contraction" is total speculation without even any theoretical basis. And if the "distinction between space and time" was not maintained, how would that possibly be knowable? It could be one Planck second to an eternity. The only evidence we have to work with is the cosmos which appeared after the first Planck second, known as the Planck Epoch.

Except that is *also* total speculation. EVERYTHING in this topic is speculation at this point. We do not have a tested quantum theory of gravity.

NOTHING with Planck lengths or times has been tested: we simply don't have the capabilities at this point.

It is not pure speculation. The fabric of the universe must have a limit to its divisibility, otherwise time and length would have no meaning and the universe would be non-local. But the fact that light has a speed, alone, shows that this is a local universe. And Max Planck didn't just decide where the necessary limits to the divisibility of space and time fell.

And at the Planck scale, this is *all* pure speculation. We simply don't have any access to test at that level.

"Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype, object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity.

"--Wiki

Any idea can be claimed to be only theoretical, but some "theories" have anywhere from zero to 9.999etc.% validated. The latter, such as relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution etc. can be considered, for our purposes, to be virtually proven. And of course we haven't come close to physically probing reality at the Planck level, but it necessarily must exist at some level--since otherwise, the universe would be non-local.

And, given the recent finding of gravity waves which travel at the speed of light, string theory would also be non-applicable in a non-local existence--speed, for light and gravity et al, being dependent on time and distance.

And again, this is speculation based on the current theories we have. But so are string theory and loop quantum gravity, and all the other speculations. In this sense, all of them have been tested to the 99.999% level. But only at a much larger scale. NOTHING has been tested at the Planck scale.

The Planck length and times are where we *suspect* that quantum aspects of gravity become dominant. You assume the universe is local at that level, but even that is speculation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Right now, we don't know. It could be that we are in a bubble of sorts within a larger universe. In that case we would go on sailing in a straight line, and possibly find ourselves moving into another expanding universe, like moving from bubble to bubble. Our universe could also be encapsulated which means that you would end up where you started.

As I thought, nothing definitive is known, only possibilities. And many others beside those you've described. Perhaps even, imho, a reality that is beyond conception.

 

[Thief]

things are NOT moving through space.

were you watching yourself as you typed that line?

all fine and good that we have an expansion
we would not be here without it

so.....you think the universe has a boundary?
and the boundary expands allowing the universe to do so?

I cannot agree
and I think you will have great difficulty supporting an observation that cannot be made

the boundary will never be seen

 

[Polymath257]

were you watching yourself as you typed that line?

What we call the expansion of the universe is NOT a motion through space. It is an expansion *of* space. It was NOT an explosion in any conventional sense.

all fine and good that we have an expansion
we would not be here without it

so.....you think the universe has a boundary?
and the boundary expands allowing the universe to do so?

No. That is NOT what I claimed.

I cannot agree
and I think you will have great difficulty supporting an observation that cannot be made

the boundary will never be seen

Well, it isn't a claim I made. In fact, I made the claim that the model does NOT have a wave front: no boundary.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Would I be wrong in thinking that

Δ t = tP


Would be absolute and has no negligible length to contract or dilate?


Quite clearly in any light clock experiment the Lorentz contraction is relative to the length of distance between ''ticks'' . If we remove this distance or contract the distance to a minimal such as a Planck length, then surely the context of time dilation changes?

Δ t = 1.s is designed to contract and has no other discipline or use other than that of the practitioner?

The definition of Planck time is the time it takes light to travel one Planck length, and vice versa. And according to Relativity, the speed of light is constant from all perspectives. The time and distance of clock's movement would only change, inversely, for an external observer. The speed of light, Planck length and Planck time are the same when measured at the clock or at the observer, though they are warped by their movement relative to each other.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Except that is *also* total speculation. EVERYTHING in this topic is speculation at this point. We do not have a tested quantum theory of gravity.

NOTHING with Planck lengths or times has been tested: we simply don't have the capabilities at this point.

And at the Planck scale, this is *all* pure speculation. We simply don't have any access to test at that level.

We can deduce the existence of, and at least the approximation values of Planck space-time, unless you're saying that time and space are infinitely divisible--in which case time, distance, time and motion would not be possible or meaningless, re: Zeno's Paradox and non-local space. That is not speculation. The non-infinite divisibility of distance and time is the key point of the OP, but one which the main opponents here are either talking around or ignoring altogether.

The Planck length and times are where we *suspect* that quantum aspects of gravity become dominant. You assume the universe is local at that level, but even that is speculation.

No, the evidence is overwhelming that the cosmos is local down to that limits of the divisibility of the cosmos, whatever that level is. But in fact, as some point (Planck space-time limits, whatever they are), quantum mechanics must shift over to a non-local environment or what I've been calling Quantumland, likely due, as you say, to the dominance of string theory/quantum gravity. The necessity and coexistence of a non-local Quantumland is best explained by Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM).

 

[james blunt]

though they are warped by their movement relative to each other.

A Planck length is fractional 0, how do you propose 0 can ''warp'' or dilate?

There is no negligible length to contract, may I suggest you please think about the question rather than repeating what Wiki says.

 

[james blunt]

Quite clearly in this light clock thought experiment the observer, observes the light travelling with the carriage and not back and forth across the length of the carriage.

 

[`mud]

All of the examples of `light` are assumed to be directional ?
Light is the `cause`, in all directions, with no interruptive opposition.
Light can be re-directed, can't it ?And of course, absorbed.
Are we still talking about the BB itself ? Not the `container` ?