Big banger or fictional squib? Light touchpaper here!

[Atlan0001]

I shine a flashlight from my left hand to my right hand a half meter apart. I make it that the speed of light will measure 300,000kps from left hand to right hand in this case. There are an infinity of Hawking "baby universes" between my left hand and my right hand, between and through them all, a speed of light that would measure infinity . . . if it was there to be measured, which it would not be. Locally, in each and all those infinities of Hawking "baby universes" broad and deep, the speed of light in a vacuum will measure a constant of 300,000kps.

My light is a relative constant relative to me, my locality. It is not there nonlocally to me. As far as those universes are concerned my light is dark. As far as I'm concerned, their light is dark. I, and every scientist in all those infinities of universes immeasurable in space, agree that the speed of light is approximately 300,00kps constant in a vacuum we share the quality of. Their fractal level of universe, of hypersurface of hyperspace, is not the same as mine.

Regardless, since we parallel in physics and cosmology we parallel in universe. Theirs are within ours, yet are not within ours, all at the same time. Our universe may even be a Hawking "baby universe" within one or more of theirs, with possible traversable "Through the Looking Glass" rabbit hole tunnel funnels between them whether natural or potentially artificially producible (via future invention, if not alien technology already existing to other hyperspace traveling species.

There may be lots of star systems and many worlds accessible to us in the folds of hyperspace, even hypertime, enormously closer to us than Proxima Centauri. How many paths, "forks, branches, in the road," inside each path, though?

Oh well!

 

[Classical Motion]

Wow, that was quite a channel change. Maybe I didn't understand what I was asking.

Or maybe you didn't understand what I was asking. I feel like I need an interpreter.

I don't use math. I use physical ratios. Physical abstracts. They appear to work and really exist. You can see, hear, smell, taste and feel these abstracts.

 

[Catastrophe]

As the OP, may I please suggest that we get back on topic?

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

Any offers?

 

[Catastrophe]

Whilst bearing in mind the caveats, this fits in nicely with what I have been suggesting for a long time, and have well documented:

If Universe originated as a Big Bang then there will be a point of origin for the explosion to have happened? Is that center of our Universe?

If Universe originated as a Big Bang then there will be a point of origin for the explosion to have happened? Is that center of our Universe? When we say we look back into time by measuring the infrared radiation left from those early universe, are we actually looking towards any one direction...

forums.space.com

And from 2020:

If we return to our flatlander analogy, we can say that the flatlander will know of the existence of the surface of the sphere, which will be the whole discoverable universe to him (granted it continues in a 3rd time dimension).

We know that the flatlander has no spatial sense to discover a non-existant (to him) 3rd space dimension. He may face the same dilemma that we face, namely that if his universe is expanding (as ours may be) then distances on the surface will increase, measured by his local measuring sticks.

I. . . . . ...

Now, don’t forget that the flatlander cannot perceive a dimension perpendicular to his sphere or, more correctly, to the surface of his sphere. He cannot perceive inside or outside that surface. (Leaving aside his time dimension). If we are super beings with that extra perception , we can say that his universe is expanding - the radius of his universe is increasing as well as the area of his universe. His universe has no edge. He is totally unware of expansion perpendicular to his surface.
His universe is limited to the surface of a sphere which has no edge.

. . . . . .

Coming back to the flatlander, whilst we can postulate ‘an outside’ which allows expansion along the radius as well as expansion of the area (being his entire universe) he does not have the sensory equipment or understanding to operate mentally.

If you now postulate that we are living in a closed universe, we have directly analogous limitations. There may be expansion of the Universe in some postulated dimension that we do not have the sensory equipment to understand, and some super being with extra senses may say that there is ‘an outside’ into which our Universe is impinging but these observations are not open to us and we cannot perceive an edge or an outside. It is meaningless to contrive some combination of words which endeavours to circumvent this.

It is a shame that General Semantics is not a compulsory subject in schools. Its catch phrase is The map not the territory. In this case it would be immediately visible to the GS student that to use words to describe an imaginary event is futile. The map (the words, the verbal description) IS not the territory (the reality). You cannot create a reality just by wrapping words around a verbal assertion.

On this basis, any origin/nexus would be at the centre of the sphere, whose surface we are considering, and thus unavailable to understanding.


Cat

 

[rod]

Whilst bearing in mind the caveats, this fits in nicely with what I have been suggesting for a long time, and have well documented:

If Universe originated as a Big Bang then there will be a point of origin for the explosion to have happened? Is that center of our Universe?

If Universe originated as a Big Bang then there will be a point of origin for the explosion to have happened? Is that center of our Universe? When we say we look back into time by measuring the infrared radiation left from those early universe, are we actually looking towards any one direction...

forums.space.com

And from 2020:


On this basis, any origin/nexus would be at the centre of the sphere, whose surface we are considering, and thus unavailable to understanding.


Cat

The concept of the Big Bang as an explosion or single point of origin for space-time is discussed in various places on the forums as well as other sources. IMO, that idea is not what the Big Bang model is teaching and never did.

5 fascinating facts about the Big Bang, the theory that defines the history of the universe, https://www.livescience.com/space/c...eory-that-defines-the-history-of-the-universe

"1. A Catholic priest first thought of it 2. It was verified accidentally 3. It's not a theory of creation 4. We can (almost) see it 5. It happened everywhere" [Note on point #4, "4. We can (almost) see it" "The cosmic microwave background is a huge deal. It not only cemented the Big Bang as the sole theory capable of explaining all of the observational data but also serves as a window into our distant past. When our universe was about a million times smaller than its present-day size, it had a temperature of over 10,000 Kelvin (more than 17,000 degrees Fahrenheit) and was in a plasma state. As it expanded and cooled, that plasma converted into a neutral gas as the first atoms formed. That event released a tremendous amount of radiation, which remains today as the cosmic microwave background, or CMB. The CMB is responsible for over 99.999% of all the radiation in the universe." "The CMB formed when the cosmos was about 380,000 years old. Compared with its present-day age of 13.77 billion years, that's the equivalent of a baby picture taken of you when you were a mere 10 hours old."

My note, using 46E+9 light-years for the radius where the CMBR is at today in expanding space (comoving radial distance for redshift about 1100), the universe size about 1E+6 smaller was about 46,000 light-years across during the *plasma state* after the postulated Big Bang event.

My observation. Interesting 5 point *fascinating facts about the Big Bang* presented in this livescience.com report. I note on point #5, "...Similarly, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space — it was an explosion of space. The Big Bang happened to everything in the universe simultaneously. It did not happen in one particular location in space, but in a particular location in time. It's hard to think about, but that's why we have mathematics: to help us grapple with concepts we normally couldn't."

My thought, this is an instantaneous-action-at-a-distance force used in the BB model to explain the origin of space, *everywhere*, thus no center to the expanding universe model. Also, the conservation law of energy is violated, energy appears at a moment in time. Today a GRB documented released about 10^55 erg, how much energy was released at the moment of the Big Bang? Now we have the instantaneous-action-at-a-distance force too for expanding space to appear, *everywhere*. Without this in the BB model, space must be created again and again as new space as the Universe continues to expand. Whether it was 10^-51 cm size at inflation as Alan Guth presents in 2013 or a room size, grapefruit size or largemouth bass size, the Big Bang does not create new space for the Universe to continue expanding into.

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod,

Whilst bearing in mind the caveats, this fits in nicely with what I have been suggesting for a long time, and have well documented:

This should have covered the eventuality. Anyway, I never suggested that the surface of a sphere had a centre. The idea included the possibility of a centre to the (n + 1)th dimension view, but also said that this would not be understandable to the flatlander. I did not claim anything like a sufficient similarity to the Universe to suggest that it does, or ever did, have a centre.

Therefore, I think that you are misrepresenting. a little, what I suggested, which was a possible vague parallel between expansion and extent. In the (n + 1)th dimension, if a centre is implied, it is also stated that it would be unavailable to the understanding of the flatlander, and thus, to him, non existent. I was not in any way advocating a centre, but it possibly suggested, according to the loose analogy, that an undiscoverable centre could be present, though it was never my intention to support the matter. It is really very similar (although not intended, I understand) to the idea that a Universe starting from a point and expanded (equally?) in all directions - I am sure that most people would call that initial point the centre, even if that is not the case. Very similar?
Never mind.


Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Two points (past || future (at once, future || past . . . just in case someone doesn't get it)) is the "dipole moment."

(I also wanted and inserted the above into post #129 of "From a drop of water...." as an edit).

 

[Catastrophe]

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.

. . . . . . . . .

With the best will in the world, I cannot see that if you could not disagree more with something which seems more logical to me than anything else, then we have a mammoth difficulty in trying to understand each other.

In fact, and I do NOT mean this in any argumentative way, I do not understand statement of argument as having any relevance.

To me, it is totally obvious that a description of anything IS NOT the object itself. A description IS NOT the object it describes.

To make any progress, we must have shared assumptions. I therefore offer the following reference as a start. Please respond with anything which you believe helps to clarify your point of view.

The Map Is Not the Territory (fs.blog)

The map of reality is not reality. Even the best maps are imperfect. That’s because they are reductions of what they represent.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

SPACE and TIME, as I see them and have described them over and over again, are not the same thing. The third and 'trojan' SPACETIME is neither of them but a light condensed matrix map of two uncondensed territories, one infinite (SPACE), one finite (TIME (time constant with one exception (t = 0 (dipole moment 0-point)): "the only constant is change" . . . with two exceptions (infinite '0' (null unity) || finite '1' (unity)).

SPACE is open systemic ("fractal zoom universe" (gravitational / antigravitational strong binding force (GSBF))).

TIME is closed systemic "entropy" (eternally round robin complex ordered / chaotic disordered quantum physics' "entropic" (magnetic monopole (dipole moment) point portal singularity, aka "discrete quanta").

SPACETIME ("The map is not the territory" ("always a day late and a dollar short!" ("money is a token of energy" // "time is money!" ("Ask of me anything but time!" -- Napoleon Bonaparte).

Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (The more space, the more time // the less space, the less time // no room to maneuver, no time to maneuver (as with our ever-enclosing closed systemic black hole-like world now without an open systemic space frontier universe to expand, to do big bang, out into, so to -- overall -- gain more and ever more time for life).

 

[Helio]

1. Can you have expansion of space which does not go along with expansion of material objects?

My 2 cents:

It's likely that whatever the force proves to be, now loosely called DE, that the normal application of the sum of forces will be found to hold for matter within an expanding space. We both know that a tiny force applied to the end of a steel rod will cause the rod to slightly change in its length, but the strong elastic strength will prevent it from expanding, or shrinking, further if that force is maintained.

Similarly, IMO, DE is a force that is ubiquitous but extremely tiny when measured locally. The gravitational force that binds us to the Sun (Newton or GR) is much stronger than the DE force acting on the small space between us and the Sun. We need lots of space (millions of lightyears) to notice expansion. Indeed, it was Slipher's redshift measurements of galaxies found to be many millions of lightyears away that gave the first evidence for expansion, which Lemaitre, and his great knowledge of GR, was able to combine into the original model that became known later as the Big Bang.

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.

The Universe that includes the observable universe is all that science can address in any scientific, non-metaphysical, manner. Too often people, not as often in science forums fortunately, forget that science is self-restricted to objective-based hypotheses - things that allow direct or indirect (e.g. blackholes) evidence, even if some of these are in principle to allow for a much more advanced level of plausible science. Pure imagination is merely supposition (al ? -- calling Cat. ), and should be noted as such.

The suppositional multiverse has always lacked the tests required of a theory -- it must be objective based and allow for physical, measurable tests of its predictions.

Suppositions, however, are the precursors to theories, so the amazing math that hints of other out-of-this-universe other universes is certainly of interest. The latest work of the juxtaposition of String "theory" and quantum theory producing a finite limit on the number of possible multiverses is also worthy of note. But there is only very weak evidence, IMO, for it.... so far.

There is no evidence they don't exist, which is why this subject will never die. This is one time when "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" cannot be used against it. This is true for another, and very popular view, that God created the beginning, but there is no evidence for this as well, if you discount the fine-tunning of the universe and tons of subjective (non-scientific evidence).

The more we open the door to subjective claims for a beginning, as I have just done for both a pseudoscience claim and a religious one, the farther we get from real science. Hence, I argue against the use of both of these if we want to protect and defend science, even if they prove true someday. [The rules protect us from religions claims, but less so for pseudoscience, not that I'm complaining.]

3. Is it seriously being suggested that the entropy at t = 0 is zero?

Science demonstrates that entropy only increases with forward time. Reverse the clock, then entropy was less in the past than today. It only seems logical that at some early point it had to be zero, but there is no law that says this is true, just as, so far, there is no math solution that the beginning moment had to be a certain low-level value, only that it had to be the lowest in a Universe that sees only increasing entropy with time. Perhaps Inflation "theory" tweaks this somehow, but keep in mind that this theory precedes the time when our best particle accelerators can address scientifically.

Imagine what it was like 2400 years ago when people (scholars) would sit around and talk about infinity. How cool that must have been since, even today, we hear too much of it because it sounds cool, I think.

It was then that Archimedes countered the infinity idea that the Earth had that many grains of sands. He argued, logically of course, that the Earth was smaller than the size of the universe -- with a diameter of 10 billion stadia, per Aristarchus -- so there could not be an infinite number of sand grains. He calculated a limit of a myriad of myraids (10,000 x 10,000). He, likely borrowing from India mathematicians, got the ball rolling for exponents to express such crazy numbers. [In The Sand Reckoner]

But the infinitely small was also addressed, which resolved Zeno's apparent paradox.

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.

The answer lies in the meaning of "meaning". A lot of people find pleasure in suppositions. There's nothing wrong with that, but science requires a higher level of efficacy before it can be honored as such.

 

[Atlan0001]

The answer lies in the meaning of "meaning". A lot of people find pleasure in suppositions. There's nothing wrong with that, but science requires a higher level of efficacy before it can be honored as such.

When was "science" ever not "supposition" and "theory" until an engineer, or an artist of one kind or another, physically purposes it?! "Science" has throughout history -- which is to say "scientists" have throughout history -- produced some of the most ridiculous claims to the nature of things (the natural order of things). The "gods of science" have proven over and over again throughout history to be ridiculously nonsensical false gods.

If we ever breakout into the unobserved frontier SPACEs of the frontier universe from Earth, many more "gods of science" will probably yet again prove to have been ridiculously nonsensical false gods.
----------------------

"Heavier than air craft can never fly!" -- William Thompson, Lord Baron Kelvin (1890s CE).

"The future of computers is warehoused computers that will occupy entire city blocks that no one but the richest corporations and nations will be able to afford." -- John von Neumann (1940s CE).

....

 

[Helio]

When was "science" ever not "supposition" and "theory" until an engineer, or an artist of one kind or another, physically purposes it?!

Yes, I mentioned that suppositions (ideas) are what begin the pathway to a theory or hypothesis.

The key is that in "modern science", where the SM (Scientific Method) is applied, a theory must be objective-based. Hard evidence presents some ideas and if one of them presents very plausible explanation in describing a given phenomena, and testable predictions come from it, then you have a theory, a scientific one.

"Science" has throughout history -- which is to say "scientists" have throughout history -- produced some of the most ridiculous claims to the nature of things (the natural order of things).

Indeed. The planets were once thought to be a result of the Sun spewing matter outward, perhaps by a fly-by of another star causing tidal disruption. This was because the math only of the day did not appreciate MHD, magneto hydro dynamics, which is how all that angular momentum ended up being in the planets, not the Sun.

There are probably more debunked theories than solid, long-standing ones. I think a decade ago there were at least 24 DE theories. Most of these are mutually exclusive, and they all present claims that can be tested, else they aren't considered a theory, or shouldn't be.

That's the beauty of science, it encourages tests and falsification. This makes it self-correcting and not as subject to dogma as other realms. Unfortunately, this can take time. Someone (Planck?) once remarked , roughly, that science advances with each new scientist's grave. [The rejection of the 3 dozen or so aerosol scientists' Zoom meeting with the WHO arguing Covid is also and aerosol took almost a year to get recognized. But, once again, science has, finally, corrected itself and it is now listed as also an aerosol on the CDC website.]

The "gods of science" have proven over and over again throughout history to be ridiculously nonsensical false gods.

You are talking about religion, not science. Any scientist can appear, or even claim, to be a god. But we shouldn't judge crazy ideas without the vast limitations they had by not having the objective evidence we enjoy today.

 

[Atlan0001]

There is no objective evidence for a Big Bang Creation of the universe, or that our "observable" universe is the only universe there is, yet there is radical, fanatical, insistence in the science community, in the media, and among some on this very forum, that there is. The CMBR exists but the claim that it belongs to a [once-upon-a-time] Big Bang Creation event of universe is nothing but opinionated theory being presented by the physics and astronomical communities and being taken by many other communities as pure gospel . . . a pure and known physical absolute evidence of science, tangible indisputable evidence of original Creation, rather than an opinionated theory of just one possible reason among more than one for the existence of that Horizon to our universe . . . possibly just one observable among countless unobservable.

SPACE is an unobservable! Infinity is an unobservable! Both being among other very probable and very possible unobservable entities broadly and deeply unobservable from Earth.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

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.

All the so called laws that relate to space-time and entropy are derived from what happens within the expanding instance of space-time which constitutes our reality, If space-time was instead contracting our reality and all those so called laws would probably need to be re-written. Until a crunch happens, we will never actually know. I can't understand why so many people think that the arrow of a time would have to reverse in a contracting instance of space-time. Time is simply progression and wether that progression is away from ,or toward its point of origin, it is still progression

 

[billslugg]

In order to have a contracting universe we would need a lot more mass than we have. The laws of physics would be the same, no need to change them.
Yes, a contracting universe would not entail a reversal of time.

 

[Atlan0001]

The local relative universe is expanding into its past (future): its future (past); its Horizon (horizons) of infinity. Physics, at least as I understand the physics, tells us that it is going to divide into two or more, or an infinity of, universes . . . thus ever locally relative conserving mass and energy. That is, if un-observably, as SPACE is the unobservable, it hasn't already done so, isn't already doing so, infinitely many times over. Whether any scientist knows it, divisions -- fissions and fusions -- in SPACE are turnovers in TIME . . . altogether the steady state reborning, returning, frontier universe 'Wild', the highest energy state of 'entropy', and not freezer cold. The universe's longitudinal lines massively melt together into point-horizons in overall Horizon non-locally "at a distance" from Hawking's pictured equatorial temperate life zone. They do not freeze together. Well, actually, they kind of do both, and neither.

Like the librarian in Star Wars Episode II, there are Earthly scientific bureaucrats, among others, who say if it isn't current conventional wisdom, "it doesn't exist!"
---------------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds ...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Catastrophe]

billslugg:

In order to have a contracting universe we would need a lot more mass than we have.

or do the usual thing, and just invent another fudge factor.

Cat

 

[Helio]

In order to have a contracting universe we would need a lot more mass than we have. The laws of physics would be the same, no need to change them.
Yes, a contracting universe would not entail a reversal of time.

Yes. I'm fairly sure that it was all the gravity out there that forced Einstein to push back against it by incorporating his surprisingly elegant cosmological constant, though he seemed to recognize it was ad hoc. [It was only Gamow, apparently, that claimed Einstein told him it was his biggest blunder.]

Though originally mocked by Einstein, Friedmann demonstrated GR math models favoring contraction or expansion, but not a static universe (mainstream at the time). The Static Model was a bias held by Einstein, and practically everyone else, for the ageless Static model.

The crack in the dam began with Slipher's very fast redshifts for spiral nebulae, which Lemaitre recognized as the evidence needed to favor expansion, giving us the first model (now BBT).

 

[Atlan0001]

In order to have a contracting universe we would need a lot more mass than we have. The laws of physics would be the same, no need to change them.
Yes, a contracting universe would not entail a reversal of time.

The observable local relative universe could be more local and relative than it is believed to be, an observation of a divided many -- rather than just one -- being made from inside the expansive stretching of a deeply multilayered, deeply distorting, deeply enclosing funnel of well as it is. Such, of course, will always be expanding from the inside out.

 

[Atlan0001]

Besides the above, #44, or simply describing it differently, Chaos Theory's structure of "fractal zoom universe" is boundaryless and will always appear expansive (it is expansive in that direction) to the collapsed cosmological constant Horizon of infinity up and out from the relative local and appear contractive (it is contractive in that direction) to the same collapsed cosmological constant Horizon of infinity in the other direction down and in from the relative local. Relativity, as I've read a few times, predicting its own breakdown (its own collapse).