Big banger or fictional squib? Light touchpaper here!

[Catastrophe]

There is a lot of discussion about the BB. I once held the opinion that BBT seemed OK down to a few millionths of a second, but broke down as one approached t = 0. Now I am beginning to wonder whether all these non-existent "infinite" temperatures and pressures are simply the result of semantic errors. Are they just letters thrown together into words with little relevance to reality. Many will know my support of General Semantics (Korzybski), the touchstone of which is "The map is not the territory". It is easy to play around with words, and believe that it means anything at all.

So I have some questions, on which I would appreciate feedback:

1. Can you have expansion of space which does not go along with expansion of material objects?
As I understand it, "space" but not the material objects in it, is expanding.
We come back to the aether. Is there something "real", as was supposed the aether, or is there any co-ordinate system devoid of physical reality? If the objects expanded with the space containing them, how would you recognise that there was any expansion? If your ruler expands at the same rate as what you are measuring, how can you detect expansion? Is there something akin to an aether, or not?

2. There is, IMHO, a lot of confusion about terms. If the Universe is all there is, how can you have universes?
OK, I can understand observed universes, as being those portions observable of the Universe by an individual observer, but these are obviously subjective. So what is a multiverse? And, more importantly, perhaps, what are multiverses? These words are being used.
Using undefined and grossly misunderstood terminology is not productive of sane discussion.

3. Is it seriously being suggested that the entropy at t = 0 is zero? I am not assuming (though many seem to) that entropy can only increase, although it does seem to be the case 'here and now'. Is our current world more random than a total mix of 'everything' at 'infinite' temperature and pressure? Are we not using meaningless words in relation to a 'real' Universe, and expecting sane answers?

There are more questions, but that will do for a start.'

Cat

 

[billslugg]

The question of whether entopy was zero at the BB is an open question in physics. All scientists agree that "at the BB, entropy was at an unusual low state."

One definition of entropy is "unusable heat in a system". Shortly after the BB, the universe was a dense gas of uniform temperature. Since there were no temperature differences, heat could not move from point A to point B. Thus no work could be done, thus no usable heat. Entropy is zero.

However, we would not be here if work had not been done. In the primeval ball of flame there were quantum fluctuations. We can see them today in the CMBR. I would argue that those fluctuations represented potential work thus make entropy some small number at the BB.

 

[Catastrophe]

Billslugg, I will rephrase that:
"After" the BB, could entropy have done anything but increase?

Cat

 

[rod]

Just my view here Cat and billslugg. The BB model today is integrated with inflation and inflation takes place before the cosmic fireball evolves into anything later. There is reporting on the 4 stages of the cosmic fireball evolution and when you go back to earlier times, that is when some very interesting physics is used to explain origins (physics not confirmed in the lab or seen operating in nature today, e.g., the inflaton).

I used material from this site, https://www.swinburne.edu.au/research/centres-groups-clinics/centre-for-astrophysics-supercomputing/ Here is another report on cosmology eras. Cosmology and the Beginning of Time, https://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lect...e matter particles than anti-matter particles. "Eras of the Big Bang The eras of the universe, from the time of the Big Bang, are listed below. We will discuss each in turn. Planck Era (All four known forces are unified.) GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Era (Gravity "freezes out" and becomes distinct.) Electroweak Era (The nuclear strong force "freezes out" and becomes distinct.) Particle Era (particles begin to form) Era of Nucleosynthesis (nuclear fusion creates Helium, and tiny amount of heavier elements) Era of Nuclei (electrons are not yet bound to nuclei) Era of Atoms (electrons recombine to form neutral atoms, and the first stars are born)
Era of Galaxies (Galaxies begin to form, leading up to the present) The earliest eras were very short lasting, and very high energy. The first few eras are when the laws of physics were considerably different than they are known, but we can still predict some of the behavior. Let's look at each era in more detail:" [My note, using Ned Wright cosmology calculator, z ~ 2.85E+8 when age of universe ~ 299 seconds after BB event, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html This is mapped to the Radiation era. The recombination z ~ 1100, "Recombination through the visibility function…and is centered around z ~= 1100 largely independent of cosmological parameters." Ref - p. 652, Cosmology, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition, 2000.] [18-July-2023 update. The main URL for this BB report is: The Big Bang model of the Universe., https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/BigBang/universe.htm, my note the 4 stage fireball evolution to explain the CMB is found in the URL too. "The First Few Minutes: It takes GUTs ... and Quantum Physics" "A Fireball in four parts." "Heavy particle era", "Light particle era", "Radiation era", "Matter era". My note, seldom do a I read about the BB model with such plain language and clarity explaining the 4 stages of the fireball said to create the Universe and the CMBR seen today, as well as primordial abundances of H, He, and perhaps a bit of Li too.

"The temperature of the fireball drives the resulting mix of particles and radiation, and we can divide the Universe evolution into four stages; heavy particle era; light particle era; a radiation era and the present day era of matter. As the Universe expands its temperature and density decline. A Fireball in four parts. Heavy particle era - temperature > 10^12K, time < 10^-6 s - Massive particles and antiparticles are made from energetic photons and these particles can also be annihilated. Light particle era – 10^12K > temperature > 6 x 10^9K, 10^-6 s < time < 6 s - As the temperature declines not enough energy exists to create many massive particles, so light particles (electrons) are preferentially formed. Protons and electrons interact to form neutrons. As the temperature falls to 6 x 10^9K photons do not have enough energy to form proton-electron pairs, and the radiation era begins. Many neutrons decay into protons and electrons, but a reservoir of neutrons is left to play an important part in the radiation era. Radiation era - temperature approx. 10^9K, 6 s < time < 300 s - Key nuclear reactions occur in this era. The nuclei of simple elements are made from the remaining neutrons and protons. Deuterium (2H) is made by combining a neutron and proton. Further reactions create 4He (normal helium) at about 25% of the total mass (with the remaining ~75% being hydrogen). Nucleosynthesis stops at the production of 4He because at this stage (unstable) nuclei with atomic masses of 5 or 8 can only be bypassed by stellar nucleosynthesis, and stars have not yet formed! Matter era - temperature < 3000 K, time > 1 million years - At about 1 million years the temperature has dropped to about 3000 K, which allows nuclei to capture electrons and form neutral atoms (this process is called recombination). Radiation and matter decouple, such that matter becomes transparent to radiation. The CMB detected by Penzias and Wilson (and COBE) is emitted. Matter can now clump together because previously radiation could exert pressure to combat gravity. Galaxies and stars eventually form. Stellar nucleosynthesis produces heavy (eg. C,N,O,Fe) elements. Gravitational effects determine the large-scale structure of the Universe. The Big Bang theory developed after about 15 billion years!”

This discussion shows inflation takes place when the Universe we see today was some 10^-51 cm size or perhaps 10^-24 cm size and expands to some 46 billion years in radius as measured from Earth today in 13.8 billion years. If folks believe all this new physics is on solid ground and confirmed in science by lab work for example or directly seen operating in nature today, I do not think this is the case. Inflation is used to solve the conservation of energy problem in the BB model so there is no violation using negative energy borrowed from gravity to balance the Universe expansion vs. violate the conservation law of energy. However, such a universe like described seen operating in nature today does not exist, thus we have entropy and not zero entropy or zero energy at the beginning and then the Universe evolves from that initial condition.

I do agree with Cat on his point #2.

"2. There is, IMHO, a lot of confusion about terms. If the Universe is all there is, how can you have universes?
OK, I can understand observed universes, as being those portions observable of the Universe by an individual observer, but these are obviously subjective. So what is a multiverse? And, more importantly, perhaps, what are multiverses? These words are being used. Using undefined and grossly misunderstood terminology is not productive of sane discussion."

Multiverse thinking has been around now for many years and some claim to calculate 10^500 different universes, each arising from different vacuum energy conditions, likely with each evolving into different universes with perhaps different physical laws too. Space.com reported on this along with other sites. I have already pointed out that the BB model does violate conservation of energy, you need the inflation patch to get around this and the BB model creates space everywhere at a moment in time, thus an instantaneous-action-at-a-distance force is used too. I agree, "a lot of confusion" seems apparent when discussing and reporting on the BB model, especially the origin of the cosmic fireball and its 4 stages and how the CMBR appears as light some 380,000 years after BB event, and what is claimed to take place in nature before these 4 stages, extrapolated back to the beginning. A beginning that according to Alan Guth must be some 10^-51 cm size or perhaps 10^-24 cm size using his 1997 and 2013 references.

 

[rod]

Billslugg, I will rephrase that:
"After" the BB, could entropy have done anything but increase?

Cat

Consider inflation starting size, "This discussion shows inflation takes place when the Universe we see today was some 10^-51 cm size or perhaps 10^-24 cm size and expands to some 46 billion light years in radius as measured from Earth today in 13.8 billion years."

Apparently someone can measure entropy and energy in this very small universe size using observations from nature today

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, you seem to have an issue with (1):

1. Can you have expansion of space which does not go along with expansion of material objects?
As I understand it, "space" but not the material objects in it, is expanding.
We come back to the aether. Is there something "real", as was supposed the aether, or is there any co-ordinate system devoid of physical reality? If the objects expanded with the space containing them, how would you recognise that there was any expansion? If your ruler expands at the same rate as what you are measuring, how can you detect expansion? Is there something akin to an aether, or not?

I am sorry, but I cannot really understand your long comment. May I please simplify and ask you to have another go at responding please?

Does "space" expand without affecting its contained matter?
Or, in other words, is there some sort of ether, irrespective (or other than) a purely imaginary set of coordinates? Does saying that a purely imaginary set of coordinates "expands" have any meaning whatsoever in reality? Can the Universe expand into more than itself? Or, in any real way, expand into a theoretical absurdity?

Billslugg,
I am concerned about this entropy question. Maybe we should not expect our simple inadequate knowledge to apply to the whole of space-time. Newton's ideas on gravity were refined by Einstein. Without going back to primitive medieval ideas, I don't believe that it is worthy of even our 21st century to believe that something so extreme (or anything at all) just came out of nothing, and developed into even our modest "civilisation". Infinitely hot particles dashing around insanely developing into the Internet. Surely not an increase in entropy?

I don't know if either of you are aware of Korzybski, but I find his ideas of immense value in extracting real meaning from a man-made assemblage of words - which often contain nothing but confused thought and inbuilt assumptions.

I do very much appreciate your thoughts on these matters.

Cat

 

[rod]

Rod, you seem to have an issue with (1):



I am sorry, but I cannot really understand your long comment. May I please simplify and ask you to have another go at responding please?

Does "space" expand without affecting its contained matter?
Or, in other words, is there some sort of ether, irrespective (or other than) a purely imaginary set of coordinates? Does saying that a purely imaginary set of coordinates "expands" have any meaning whatsoever in reality? Can the Universe expand into more than itself? Or, in any real way, expand into a theoretical absurdity?

Billslugg,
I am concerned about this entropy question. Maybe be should not expect our simple inadequate knowledge to apply to the whole of space-time. Newton's ideas on gravity were refined by Einstein. Without going back to primitive medieval ideas, I don't believe that it is worthy of even our 21st century to believe that something so extreme (or anything at all) just came out of nothing, and developed into even our modest "civilisation". Infinitely hot particles dashing around insanely developing into the Internet. Surely not an increase in entropy?

I don't know if either of you are aware of Korzybski, but I find his ideas of immense value in extracting real meaning from a man-made assemblage of words - which often contain nothing but confused thought and inbuilt assumptions.

I do very much appreciate your thoughts on these matters.

Cat

Cat, I hear you here You asked, "Does "space" expand without affecting its contained matter?"

As far as I can see using the cosmology calculators (based upon the FLRW metric in GR math), the redshifts show space expanding in the Universe with matter in it carried along for the ride, like galaxies farther and farther apart. Those calculators do not show quantum space like the space inside atoms expanding along with space expanding. Others on the forums like Harry Costa apparently have issues here, I think there could be some issues too. As far as I understand, the cosmological redshift interpretation for the expanding Universe does not show the space inside atoms expanding too. Cat you did say, "Rod, you seem to have an issue with (1):"

You are correct, I have a problem when extrapolating expanding space using redshifts in astronomy today, places me in a starting size some 10^-51 cm or 10^-24 cm size for the origin of everything we can observe in nature today. When I read Charles Darwin 1871 and 1882 letters on his warm little pond, Darwin appealed to the *law of continuity* of nature for his model what we call abiogenesis today. It looks to me like the law of continuity in nature collapses when you keep working your way backwards to a smaller, and smaller size Universe at the beginning.

 

[Catastrophe]

Just another thought, and I mention it only as an alternative idea - not as something I am trying to 'push'. Many, if not all, of the problems of the BB, can be circumvented by a cyclic Universe. Instead of a singularity, you just have a nexus. I know that this is not without its problems, but it seems to be much more "idiocy-free" than the BB alternative.

Also, without getting into forbidden areas, it has always been the reaction of mankind to invent answers to unknowns, vide Newton and Einstein. Once established (vide BB) it seems its proponents will "defend it to the death". I think all will agree that this tendency is perfectly general and applies in all areas of life.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Just another thought, and I mention it only as an alternative idea - not as something I am trying to 'push'. Many, if not all, of the problems of the BB, can be circumvented by a cyclic Universe. Instead of a singularity, you just have a nexus. I know that this is not without its problems, but it seems to be much more "idiocy-free" than the BB alternative.

Also, without getting into forbidden areas, it has always been the reaction of mankind to invent answers to unknowns, vide Newton and Einstein. Once established (vide BB) it seems its proponents will "defend it to the death". I think all will agree that this tendency is perfectly general and applies in all areas of life.

Cat

Rod, thanks for the "like".
I suppose the biggest difficulty is how a BB might turn into a BC (Big Crunch), and whether or not entropy would reverse, or whether or not entropy would continue to increase through each nexus.

My thoughts are that, in a contracting Universe, would not entropy automatically decrease?
I don't know.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

Entropy can't decrease because it would require parcels of heat to move all by themselves to warmer areas rather than flowing to cooler areas. It would be like a heat pump that didn't need a motor.

OR, you could have time go backwards.

Neither of them is possible and I don't know of any other ways to do it.

So, entropy goes up whether the universe is expanding or contracting it would seem.

 

[Catastrophe]

Entropy can't decrease because it would require parcels of heat to move all by themselves to warmer areas rather than flowing to cooler areas. It would be like a heat pump that didn't need a motor.

OR, you could have time go backwards.

Neither of them is possible and I don't know of any other ways to do it.

So, entropy goes up whether the universe is expanding or contracting it would seem.

Neither of them is possible and I don't know of any other ways to do it.

I don't believe that either of us (or anyone else) knows everything.

Cat

 

[rod]

Going back to what Cat said in post #6, I provide this shorter summary

My summary on 4 stage cosmic fireball evolution used in the BB model to explain our origins today and the Universe origin.

1. Heavy particle era - temperature > 10^12K, time < 10^-6 s
2. Light particle era – 10^12K > temperature > 6 x 10^9K, 10^-6 s < time < 6 s
3. Radiation era - temperature approx. 10^9K, 6 s < time < 300 s
4. Matter era - temperature < 3000 K, time > 1 million years.

I use this URL to define the 4 stages of the cosmic fireball that is claimed to create our Universe we see today in the beginning. Ref - The Big Bang model of the Universe., https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/BigBang/universe.htm, the 4-stage fireball evolution to explain the CMB is found in the URL too. "The First Few Minutes: It takes GUTs ... and Quantum Physics" "A Fireball in four parts." "Heavy particle era", "Light particle era", "Radiation era", "Matter era".

Using Ned Wright cosmology calculator, the radiation era after BB event, about 299 seconds, z=2.85E+8 or 2.85 x 10^8 for the redshift value calculated. Ned Wright cosmology calculator, z ~ 2.85E+8 when age of universe ~ 299 seconds after BB event, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html This is mapped to the Radiation era. The recombination z ~ 1100, "Recombination through the visibility function…and is centered around z ~= 1100 largely independent of cosmological parameters." Ref - p. 652, Cosmology, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition, 2000. It is critical to define BB cosmology era or periods. If discussing inflation and the inflaton, that is before the Heavy particle era where Alan Guth in 1997 reported the Universe size perhaps 10^-24 cm at start of inflation, later in 2013 revised to perhaps 10^-51 cm, 18 order of magnitudes below the Planck length.

There is plenty to chew on now in BB cosmology studies like how much space was created before the Heavy particle era or inflation let alone questions about the Cosmological Constant and how fast space could expand if the wrong value used here.

 

[Catastrophe]

As far as I can see, all our knowledge is filtered through our (extremely limited) senses.
This conclusion is unavoidable, unless you propose telepathy (with what?) and then telepathy would be a sense. How related are telepathy and imagination?

It is, of course, true that we have extended our senses mechanically, to translate other electromagnetic data to be accessible to our visual range. This simply pushes the translation back a step. There is still the reality/brain interface.

The next step is another translation of abstracting such abstracted information into mathematical form. This is then manipulated, and back translated into the second abstraction, and some attempt is made at relating this back to the parent reality.

It should not be any surprise that "The map is not the territory" is highly relevant here.
Is this not fair comment?

I am not, in any way, criticising science or maths. I am just saying that we should be aware of their limitations. Any problems are in interpretation within our brains. An epistemological matter.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

There are minimally two fundamental states of a fundamental base2 universe . . . and a third, trojan, parity state. Even at primordial base it's a multiverse universe.

 

[Classical Motion]

It's all fiction. We do not realize our fundamentals are false.

What limits us is our method. Unfortunately our method is the only method available to us. And our method can only result is an un-referenced ratio. What am I saying?

We have no innate knowledge. So our only option is to compare. This to that. The result is a ratio.

These ratios give us a practical knowledge. We have been extremely successful with them. Our medicine is a result of that ratio knowledge..........NOT fundamental understanding......we have none. And when we guess, we try to verify with a ratio. Anyone can build circuits, cars and practice medicine with these ratios. Anyone. As we have witnessed.

Our nuclear weapons and ALL else, is a product of ratio. Not understanding.

For people who have the time and inclination........we try to find the true reference for our ratios. We try to rationalize the ratios. Some of us, like me......can not help ourselves. Practical knowledge does not satisfy us enough. Curiosity might turn out to be ego. My goal is NOT to understand creation. My goal is to understand the entities within creation. The here and now creation. What truly is mass and light? We are assured that we understand light.........and I am sure that we don't.

The problem is the rules we have imposed on ourselves to solve the puzzle. We have self produced the worse kind of trap.....a snare. The harder we try to escape, the tighter the trap becomes.

 

[Atlan0001]

To some people there is such a thing as a finite brain, yes, but there is no such thing as "infinity of the mind," something that is much, very much, more than the sum of its parts . . . or in some cases, much, very much, less, infinitesimal, than the sum of its parts.

 

[Catastrophe]

Classical Motion:

The problem is the rules we have imposed on ourselves to solve the puzzle. We have self produced the worse kind of trap.....a snare. The harder we try to escape, the tighter the trap becomes.

Would you not agree that this trap is General Semantic in nature?
Brought about by mistaking the words for the reality?
The map for the territory?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Classical Motion:



Would you not agree that this trap is General Semantic in nature?
Brought about by mistaking the words for the reality?
The map for the territory?

Cat

What is "THE map"? Some maps are better than others, but there is no ONE map 'really' suitable to fit the territory.

 

[Catastrophe]

Korzybski stated that the map IS not the territory - nothing about "fitting", which I take to mean more like "describing", "identifying" -- words I take as being intended to mean similarity rather than congruency.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Korzybski stated that the map IS not the territory - nothing about "fitting", which I take to mean more like "describing", "identifying" -- words I take as being intended to mean similarity rather than congruency.

Cat

Strange! I thought a map is in itself a territory all its own. Like the microcosm mapping, modeling, the reality of the macrocosm . . . as opposed to being relative.

 

[Catastrophe]

Google offers:

A map is a symbolic depiction emphasizing relationships between elements of some space, such as objects, regions, or themes. Many maps are static, fixed to paper or some other durable medium, while others are dynamic or interactive. Wikipedia

A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.

Map–territory relation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

"Light" is a cosmic map of territory that is a cosmic territory in its own right.

 

[Atlan0001]

As a matter of fact, all "observation" is a map of territory also considered territory, as in the "observable universe," in its own right.

 

[Classical Motion]

Dear Mr. Cat,

I couldn't disagree more. I will state my argument simply, and please show me my mis-understanding of it. And I truly hope I do mis-understand.......because these theories are insane.

I can understand Maxwell's mistake. It's an honest mistake and easy to see how such was made. The information he was working with was true and accurate information. He mistake was a REASONABLE mistake. A wave goes into antenna, wave comes out of antenna, a normal conclusion is that a wave travels between antennas. A common mistake.

Einstein was not a reasonable mistake. The mistake was not Einstein. He did the math. The math allowed one solution and Einstein had to take it. It's a math rule. And it perplexed him. It haunted him til the end.

We along with Einstein are told that no matter what V we are going, all the lite from external sources hits us at a c V. Why? Why do you(science) tell us this? Please tell me how you measure and verify this?

This is the IMPOSSIBILITY that Einstein had to prove. And to do this, he had to reverse ALL principles.

Instead of length(constant) ratio-d with time(constant) to result in V(variable)......V now ratio-d length and time.

He inversed our constants. Made V constant and time and length variable.

And for one hundred years you have been trying to prove this contradiction.

This modern pillar has never been verified. You have verified it in every way......except to measure it directly. And your answer to that.......is that it can't be verified because of space-time wont let you.

Your proof is.....that you can't prove it.

This snare is so complete.....most can not see that they are in one.

With all respect.

Classical Motion

 

[Catastrophe]

Classical Motion

I will try to respond over several edits:

1. The math allowed one solution
"The math allowed one solution"
The math is only a second-hand abstraction and does not have the power to "allow only one solution"

2." We along with Einstein are told that no matter what V we are going, all the lite from external sources hits us at a c V. Why? Why do you(science) tell us this? Please tell me how you measure and verify this?

Is this not arrived at by a mathematical abstraction? Examine the assumptions.

3. "This is the IMPOSSIBILITY that Einstein had to prove. And to do this, he had to reverse ALL principles."
The answer should be becoming clear. Examine the assumptions, bearing in mind that the words employed are not, the reality, but only abstractions limited by our vocabulary and our lack of understanding.

4. "He inversed our constants. Made V constant and time and length variable."
Can you see how this came about?


Cat