Early BB at the edge of time

[Catastrophe]

Apologies for off topic, but I must respond to keeping 'dogs and cats captive in his house'. OK, not dogs but cats can be very happy and safer in the home. We have cats, and we have a 'tunnel' from upstairs, down to a 'shed', opening into 2/3rds the garden fenced in (£10,000 worth). They do not go outside that. A friend let the cat out, in a very secluded country location, and it went to sleep in front of his car's rear wheels. Say no more. End of rant. Both dogs and cats - that is a different matter.

Helio,
"The more I read his book, the more he uses Big Bang to refer to those first events, contrary to how I look at BBT by recognizing the overall theory."
That surprises me. I am off to read his article again, which I last read a couple of years ago.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

I am not in opposition to keeping dogs and cats in the house, I have both. I am in opposition to the application of revised moral standards to past history. It is unfair to those people, it is simply a "feel good" exercise, also known as "shooting ducks in a barrel".

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, re: Hooper
"The more I read his book, the more he uses Big Bang to refer to those first events,"
I have re-read the 2020 article, and, as you say here of the book, after great praise for the BB (meaning after those first events) it is just as you say of the book.
I use the term 'Big Bang' to describe the vast majority of time after those 'first events', in other words t just > = 0. Possibly, I got this first from this Hooper 2020 article. I am sorry if this has caused any confusion.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Perhaps I‘m too critical given his focus is of the first seconds of the theory. Given the extensive labeling, however, of geologists with eons —> eras —> periods —> epochs —> ages (>100), maybe I’m just desiring something used more often than “bang”, especially given his impressive first-page illustration of the temporal “taxonomy”.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, perhaps with the BB being so well defined and established, all the emphasis must be on ~ t = 0.
Did you ever read Korzybski? It really changed my life many decades ago. Words are just a smooth, superficial coating, partially covering the lumpy, underlying substrate of 'reality'. My words, not his. Big book. Well over 400 pages, maybe 600 (It is in the 'summer house' at the top of the garden.

There are still a lot of areas we could cover, if/when you are interested. You know I am very doubtful about 'singularity' and t = 0. I rather like "t = 0" being a smooth transition between 'phases'. I think of the Universe (not just observable) as being a torus, with constrictions between the phases. As I am sure you have noticed, I always have to view things 'one dimension up', so, bring inside the torus, it appears 'infinite', as in without limit (boundary).

I also think (pure speculation) that the 10^-30 times are maybe fictions required by fictitious high temperatures, required by division (or reciprocal division by 'infinity'. These are matters of metaphysics, not 'reality'. All part of the t = 0 story. Incidentally, what is your view of "singularity"? I glean that it is 'doubtful' or 'out' among many influential scientists?

Anyway, just to get back 'on' topic, or thereabouts: . . . . . . . . .

Cat

 

[Helio]

Well, perhaps with the BB being so well defined and established, all the emphasis must be on ~ t = 0.
Did you ever read Korzybski? It really changed my life many decades ago. Words are just a smooth, superficial coating, partially covering the lumpy, underlying substrate of 'reality'. My words, not his. Big book. Well over 400 pages, maybe 600 (It is in the 'summer house' at the top of the garden.

There are still a lot of areas we could cover, if/when you are interested. You know I am very doubtful about 'singularity' and t = 0. I rather like "t = 0" being a smooth transition between 'phases'. I think of the Universe (not just observable) as being a torus, with constrictions between the phases. As I am sure you have noticed, I always have to view things 'one dimension up', so, bring inside the torus, it appears 'infinite', as in without limit (boundary).

I think a sphere makes more sense due to simplicity. As long as all light and motions will curve due to the curvature of space time, as is true in the torus, I assume. It’s also hard to imagine that the beginning era was a torus.

I also think (pure speculation) that the 10^-30 times are maybe fictions required by fictitious high temperatures, required by division (or reciprocal division by 'infinity'. These are matters of metaphysics, not 'reality'.

It becomes a matter of degree (pun if you like ). Physics seems very comfortable to after the first, say, trillionth of a second. They have remarkable evidence of physics from lab (LHC) results. We lose all direct evidence before the time of Recombination, but the lab results are robust enough to be convincing, TINE (Though I’m No Expert).

All part of the t = 0 story. Incidentally, what is your view of "singularity"? I glean that it is 'doubtful' or 'out' not among many influential scientists?

It’s a novelty and, as you’ve properly stated, beyond the purview of science.

I’m really enjoying the a zee book on gravity. I’m learning a tiny bit about modern physics’ use of the principal of “action”. It sees beyond Newton. He mentions how Hilbert understood it and was quick to use it to present GR ahead of Einstein, by a few days. Einstein was quite stressed about it. It reminds me of Darwin calling Kelvin an”odious specter”, or Darwin’s reaction to the letter he received from Wallace announcing the same evolution model Darwin had spent years developing.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, thank you for reminding me on "Gravity". I must go check it out again.

As for the rest, well, it is all metaphysics and opinion.

Except, maybe:
"Physics seems very comfortable to after the first, say, trillionth of a second."
Is that not from assumption(s) brought forward from t = 0?

Cat )

 

[Helio]

Except, maybe:
"Physics seems very comfortable to after the first, say, trillionth of a second."
Is that not from assumption(s) brought forward from t = 0?

Good question since it goes to my criticism of not working from today then working backwards in time. It’s ironic that going forward (from t=0) is working science backwards. . Science is always wiser to start with known models and stretching them, rather than trying to stretch wild speculation to fit known science. Each stretch (new or improved hypothesis) must be falsifiable.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Science is always wiser to start with known models and stretching them, rather than trying to stretch wild speculation to fit known science. Each stretch (new or improved hypothesis) must be falsifiable." My emphasis.

Very wise Sir! Well said. To stretch the song title a little:
"Wild Speculation is the root of all ignorance".

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

It would be interesting to follow up on this: do many (if not all) problems in science involving extreme numerical values, arise from questions where mathematics is being used inappropriately to insert division by zero or similar error? Vide t = 0.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Chapter 4

It often takes years for the scientific community to change their minds in favoring one theory over another. The author states this happens when the “evidence calls for it. And the evidence in favor of the Big Bang has called loudly, howling from the rooftops.”

He shows that the redshift of light due to expansion causes the energy ratio of light to matter decreases with expansion. A 1000x increase in volume reduces the light energy by 10,000x. This gives even more credence to the idea that it all began in light (no matter).

In the 1940’s, nucleosynthesis seemed to be explainable by star fusion processes alone. But by the late 1950’s, stars alone could not account for all the vast amounts of He (25% by mass).

In 1946, Gamow proposed, using BBT (still controversial into the 1960’s), that fusion took place in the earliest moments. The author found errors in his paper’s calculations that would have shown that only the lighter elements could form during this brief period when conditions were hot enough.

Photons were also important during those early moments. “The quantities of helium and other nuclear species that were synthesized in the Big Bang depend critically on how many photons were present during that time.”

I like his point that at 3000K (at Recombination), “…is not just any temperature – it’s a key thermal landmark. It’s the freezing point of atoms.”

He gives some details on the early predictions of today’s CMBR temperatures. Gamow was first with an estimate of 50K, but improved on this by estimating a 7K temp. (1953); then 6K (1956). Alpher and Herman calculated a 5K result (1948). But others, he notes, had different values, so there was little to convergence, thus limiting BBT acceptance.

Once discovered, this changed for BBT. Today we know it is 2.728K.

The author notes that no other model made such background temperature predictions. [It’s often said that the CMBR was the nail in the coffins of other competing models. Hoyle, however, never gave up on his Steady State model.]

He states that BBT, after the CMBR discovery, “had matured into what can only be called a scientific fact.” Ug. Facts and theories, that are based on “facts”, are not one in the same. I wish scientists would limit such hyperbole.

We now know that the average density of our universe is “3.3E-24 grams/cu. meter -- to better than 3 percent precision and the amount of time that has passed since the Big Bang to an amazing precision of better than 0.2 percent.”

Nevertheless, we still don’t know, for example, “how the protons and neutrons that make up the atoms in our universe survived the heat of the Big Bang… something that we don’t yet understand must have prevented this from taking place.” [I suspect he is referring to the idea that an equal number of particles and anti-particles should have cancelled one another completely.]