Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

[Catastrophe]

As many of you are aware, I have serious problems in the application of infinity. and related infinite descriptions, to non-mathematical (reality) situations. Here is a post from 2022:

Question - BIG BANG EVIDENCE

strophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics [Submitted on 22 Apr 2022] How the Big Bang Ends up Inside a Black Hole Enrique Gaztanaga The standard model of cosmology assumes that our Universe began 14 Gyrs (billion years) ago from a singular Big Bang creation. This can explain a vast...

forums.space.com

Why do you bring infinity into it? The CMB is good evidence of BB theory, which can be dated back to approx. 13.8 billion ya. I do not believe that science can support the idea of a singularity. Any ideas of division by zero (in GR), giving infinite density and temperatures is unsupportable.

No one knows what happened at t = 0 (where the singularity would be). There are ideas (and only ideas) about what might have occurred. One idea (and it is just imaginary) is that, at t = 0), there may have been a nexus, perhaps associated with cyclic process similar to a final 'black hole leading to a big bang, continuing a cyclic process. Some might call this infinite, but infinity is a mathematical term, which has no correspondence with reality. But no one knows what happened. Any idea of a singularity is definitely 'out'.

I am delighted to find that serious attention is being drawn to these difficulties by Open University texts published by Cambridge University Press. Here is just a start from what I have been so pleased to read regarding cosmology, and the problems arising from division by zero and like mathematical operations and trying to apply the results to reality.

In the OU text on Galaxies and Cosmology we find:

. . . . . . the cosmic microwave background and the expansion of the Universe imply that there was an early phase of the history of the Universe which was characterized by high temperatures and high densities . . . . . . A natural question to ask then is how far back towards t = 0 can we go in understanding processes in the Universe.

and

. . . . . . the Friedmann equation gives a model for a radiation dominated Universe that is characterized by the scale factor having a value of zero at the instant of t = 0 . . . . . . the naive interpretation of this is that the Universe came into existence with an infinitely high temperature; the truth of the matter is that we don't really understand the physical processes in the very early Universe

So, how early in the history of the Universe can we be confident that our physical theories really do apply? There are essentially two answers . . . . . .

The first is to say that the theories are only well tested for the ranges of physical conditions that can be explored by experiments. Thus, we have a good deal of confidence in describing the Universe at times when the particle energies were similar to the highest values that can be imparted in large accelerator experiments .

Goodbye INFINITE temperatures and densities etcetera.

(A second approach) is to apply physical theories to conditions that never have been, and probably never will be, tested in the Earth-bound laboratory and to look for observable consequences in Nature. Clearly, this is a more speculative approach than having to rely on 'tried and tested' physical theory.

While it might be expected that physical theories could be extrapolated to describe processes at ever increasing temperatures, it turns out that there is a limit to out theoretical understanding of the processes of Nature . . . . . .

I am still reading further and will add as appropriate.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Now I need your assistance please. I am not making a statement, but asking you what is the highest temperature which has actually been achieved scientifically? I am not interested in theoretical estimates like 10^32 deg. C. What has actually been achieved?

I have Googled extensively and the highest I have found so far is this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61E3OB/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Scientists%20have,the%20birth%20of%20the%20universe.

4 trillion degrees C is 4 x 10^12.

I am sure you will be able to better this, as some persons have guessed (is this comment unkind or unjustified) that INFINITE temperatures are possible. Is this utter unscientific nonsense?

The reason I am asking is to question statements like this:
One second after the Big Bang - The universe was made up of fundamental particles including quarks, electrons, photons and neutrinos. The universe continued to expand, but not as quickly as during inflation. As the universe cooled, the four fundamental forces in nature emerged: gravity, the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force. Protons and neutrons began to form. The temperature of the universe was around 10^32 Kelvin. (My emphasis).

Rather different from 4 trillion degrees C is 4 x 10^12.

Hence I consider the comment from the previous post particularly apt:

The first is to say that the theories are only well tested for the ranges of physical conditions that can be explored by experiments.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

No matter what instrumentality they used, they could not have measured that kind of heat on the spot! They had to have measured, and even then still just estimated, the temperature from a distance! The Planck (Big Bang) temperature, whatever it is or ever will be measured to be in the future, is the Big Bang (Planck) temperature! Up and out top of universe . . . and down and in bottom of universe (including distantly in levels' layers, hyperspaces' and times' horizons to the collapsed cosmological constant of P/BB 'Mirror Horizon' within us), one and the same entity.

 

[Helio]

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61E3OB/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Scientists%20have,the%20birth%20of%20the%20universe.

4 trillion degrees C is 4 x 10^12.

Yes. That should be it. Achieving greater temperatures would require more energy from the collider, which would require a much larger collider at this point, as I understand it.

I am sure you will be able to better this, as some persons have guessed (is this comment unkind or unjustified) that INFINITE temperatures are possible. Is this utter unscientific nonsense?

This might fall into a category you may wish to make... Infinitely dumb.

The evidence strongly supports that matter was born from the early nanoseconds, or earlier, perhaps just prior to when the BB theory slides into the realm from metaphysics into physics. This seems to be at a time when t= 1E-12 sec., approx.

There is only so much energy and mater in the universe so "infinite" would not apply, though there will always be those that view the universe as being infinite in size, which seems strange given its start from a very tiny spot. For that very reason, BBT had a rough start including Einstein's rejection of it.

IIRC, there was a recent fusion driving event that reached temperatures around 40 million, which is a little greater than the laser fusion event out of Livermore a few months ago.

 

[Atlan0001]

I find it odd so few people realize an infinite density has to have duality with an infinite void (has to double as an infinite "Abyss"), an absolute void! That there can't be anything colder in the universe than an infinite heat where the switch flips, has flipped, somewhere along the line over and off. Everywhere being nowhere, and vice-versa, leaving a relative and localized somewhere; Everything being nothing, and vice-versa, leaving a relative and localized something (a finite and, at once, an infinite potential (an infinite finite) . . . only. No more. No less)! Oh, well!

What is infinitely dumb is when someone can't and won't think "+1" ("+n") and/or "-1" ("-n") doesn't mean "to infinity!"
----------------------

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

The time of the universe's "Creation" wraps, circles, around to today, this universal instant in time (New Beginnings . . . an endless beginning). The constant of the Planck (Big Bang) instant!

 

[Atlan0001]

Some things like indirect face slapping words, clearly meant to slap other forum members but by indirection, get awfully tiresome! ("Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance."):

Scientists, when made, and self-make themselves, elite GODS of science, are inhumanly stupid gods in the extreme of "stupid" who create tyranny, anarchy, mayhem and murder 'en masse' "for the good of all mankind" in their 'Brave New World'! Their arrogance against, and ignorance of, life, wisdom, freedom, liberty, knows no bounds! Is anyone on the forums (in their writings) "infinitely dumb"? "Is any try to describe and understand a truly indiscernible universe "utter unscientific nonsense?" Though some obviously think others are too dumb, or too into the "magic", to be here, in my "OPINION"!!! NO ONE ALLOWED TO BE HERE AND WORK ON THEORIES THAT MIGHT JUST HAVE THE TINIEST, SLIGHTEST, GRAIN OF BREAKTHROUGH IS THAT DUMB OR NONSENSICAL!

 

[Atlan0001]

There is such a thing as "invariant relativity." A temperature, like a speed, or other quantity or quality, might go higher and ever higher on the spot, or ever broader and/or ever deeper on the spot, but at a certain point of uncertainty, relativity takes over what has become a treadmill to nowhere in an observer's observation or detection, and won't allow any nonlocal, nonrelative, observer to observe what is then a nonrelative continuance on the spot. A speeder has left the observer's "observable universe," leaving behind a belief he is still in the observer's "observable universe" but asymptotically slowing down in still going, fading, away. A possibly still climbing temperature has become locked into an "observable" upper limit, the actual reality on the spot of climb slowing in distant view to become asymptotically "relatively" meaningless to the distant observer's own local detection.... Truly meaningless in the case of temperature.

 

[Gibsense]

At the risk of venturing into an area of my total ignorance does this make any sense:

1. Temperature is the vibration of 'bits'
2. It needs time to 'be'
3. The vibration implies movement (over a tiny distance (?))
4. A limiting factor: the speed of light (if it applies at a quantum 'level')
5. Therefore an upper limit must exist

 

[Catastrophe]

CERN scientists may have set new man-made heat record: 9.9 trillion degrees Fahrenheit

Scientists at CERN's Large Hadron Collider may have created the world's hottest man-made temperature, forming a quark-gluon plasma that could have reached temperatures of 5.5 trillion degrees Celsius or 9.9 trillion Fahrenheit.

www.theverge.com

Cat

 

[mdswartz]

As many of you are aware, I have serious problems in the application of infinity. and related infinite descriptions, to non-mathematical (reality) situations. Here is a post from 2022:




I am delighted to find that serious attention is being drawn to these difficulties by Open University texts published by Cambridge University Press. Here is just a start from what I have been so pleased to read regarding cosmology, and the problems arising from division by zero and like mathematical operations and trying to apply the results to reality.

In the OU text on Galaxies and Cosmology we find:



and





Goodbye INFINITE temperatures and densities etcetera.




I am still reading further and will add as appropriate.

Cat

Nah, not a final black hole, just a plain old regular black hole, but big, that reached cosmic mass limit #3, resulting in transition from primordial matter to regular matter in a natural pulverizing big bang explosion from a single hot dark dense state into the existing open spaces of the universe. Just a natural occurrence, it happens from time to time. No hotter than any other black hole. No denser than any other black hole. Just more massive. Black holes aren't infinitely hot, they only hold the heat of the trillions of stars they took in, and upon transition back to regular matter, temperatures revert back to the temperatures of the original stars before transition to primordial matter in a black hole. Anything that might have been in the way was either pushed back or pulverised, resulting in a big bang bubble in a pushed back section of the rest of the universe, except the biggest black holes and galactic cores were moved less and partially held their relative positions in the new section of the universe. They survived the big bang, but were mostly stripped of stars. These galactic remnants became some of the drivers for very early galaxy formation and quasars very soon after our big bang. Just as we can see that feeding or forming black holes remove regular matter from existing spaces, and leave the original space behind, and safely store the primordial matter for accumulation in a black hole by denying any further access to open spaces, we can surmise that the opposite is true, namely, that big bangs replace matter into the open spaces of the universe, as compared to space itself expanding. If the universe is already everywhere and already holds all of the open spaces in existence, then expansion of space is nonsensical because space can't expand beyond everywhere, again pointing to expansion of regular matter into existing open spaces, not expansion of space itself or expansion of the universe. And if everything occurs naturally and occurs inside the universe, then big bangs must be natural occurrences in the greater universe. And if big bangs occur from primordial matter transitioning into regular atomic matter, and the only source of primordial matter is inside black holes, then big bangs must come from black holes.

As many of you are aware, I have serious problems in the application of infinity. and related infinite descriptions, to non-mathematical (reality) situations. Here is a post from 2022:




I am delighted to find that serious attention is being drawn to these difficulties by Open University texts published by Cambridge University Press. Here is just a start from what I have been so pleased to read regarding cosmology, and the problems arising from division by zero and like mathematical operations and trying to apply the results to reality.

In the OU text on Galaxies and Cosmology we find:



and





Goodbye INFINITE temperatures and densities etcetera.




I am still reading further and will add as appropriate.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

MDS: Not sure how relevant this is to infinite/infinity, but I will return to that.
Meanwhile, re: "And if big bangs occur from primordial matter transitioning into regular atomic matter, and the only source of primordial matter is inside black holes, then big bangs must come from black holes."
Are you meaning regular atomic as baryonic? I am thinking in terms of the following Google.

Astronomers therefore use the term 'baryonic' to refer to all objects made of normal atomic matter, essentially ignoring the presence of electrons which, after all, represent only ~0.0005 of the mass. Neutrinos, on the other hand, are (correctly) considered non-baryonic by astronomers.

Re: first "quote" above, are you suggesting a form of cyclic Universe? If so, would this be a higher dimensional version of Moebius Strip or Klein Bottle? I mean as opposed to a simple "BB>BH>BB>BH . . . ".
To explain a little . . . . . .
To a flatlander, the surface of a sphere (viable consideration of a two-dimensional surface existing in three space dimensions) is "all there is". To a higher dimensional being, the surface of a sphere expands (compare expansion of "a universe" - this equates to observed universe of a flatlander in time) as the radius of the sphere expands, This explains "expands into" question by invoking higher dimensional observer. One difference is that the "BB>BH>BB>BH . . . " model cycles in time, whereas the "strip/bottle . . . " models contain their time elements.

If you consider the "BB>BH>BB>BH . . . " model, presumably there would be a return to primordial matter. Of course, you may consider that the "strip/bottle . . . " alternative exists in a similar "time" dimension. I have yet to see translations of these ideas into a space-time framewrk.

I want to return to the original infinite/infinity BBT ramifications regarding FTL expansion of the Universe involving matter. (Vide matter/energy).

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

mdswartz. Just noticed that was only your second post. Welcome to the forum. That was quite a heavyweight second post, and I can see that you will be livening up the proceedings here.
Well done, and please hang around. You are very welcome in keeping the forum on its toes.

However, another question, please, to quickly appreciate where you are coming from.

You raise another interesting question, which I have alluded to above, but which probably merits further consideration:

This has, imho, considerable importance in discussing such matters as "Where did the Universe expand into?". Although analogies have their shortcomings, this one has helped me enormously, and I therefore feel justified in passing it on. It concerns a flatlander confined to the surface of a sphere. I have checked that it is admissible to consider this mathematically, although I crave a little indulgence in allowing a higher dimensional being the ability to observe the radius as the sphere expands.
From a drop of water.... | Page 18 | Space.com Forums

So our flatlander, existing on his surface, considers time as something separate, as so many of us do, for practical purposes. Please accept this as part of the setting up of the analogy.
So, having much in common with humanity in our observed universe, he works out that his universe is expanding, although the sizes of material objects do not increase in size in relation to the perceived expansion of his observed universe. He wonders what his perceived universe is expanding into, since all there is should not have an outside.

However, unbeknownst to our flatlander, there is a superior being who appreciates that the flatlander's observed universe is simply the surface of a sphere which is really quite an insignificant part of "superbeing"s perceived universe. This superbeing sees that the flatlander's observed universe is simply his little playground, and does not merit the term "Universe". The flatlander's two dimensional surface still has no boundary to its surface area, which, nevertheless is increasing in area as the radius increases, and still (in the flatlander's mind) has nowhere to expand into. Problem solved. We just have to see such problems from the standpoint of beings with the ability to perceive higher dimensions.

Incidentally, this analogy also has something to offer on the question of semantics, viz What do we mean by Universe? Either we keep "Universe" as "all there is", or we use a global observable universe to cover all that might be appreciated by all sentient beings everywhere (and perhaps including all observable by them and by their instruments), which we might term "Superverse". The term "Universe" would then no longer exist, and the various "sub-domain Universes" would then be observable universe sub-groups defined in terms of their observers. Apart from being differentiated by location, their observable universes would also change over time, as newer observing capability is added - expansion from unaided sight to invention of the telescope to similar instruments attached to cameras and capable of processing a wider range of electromagnetic radiation, and so on.

I hope that the above has summarised more concisely a few talking points previous spread over different threads.

Cat

 

[mdswartz]

MDS: Not sure how relevant this is to infinite/infinity, but I will return to that.
Meanwhile, re: "And if big bangs occur from primordial matter transitioning into regular atomic matter, and the only source of primordial matter is inside black holes, then big bangs must come from black holes."
Are you meaning regular atomic as baryonic? I am thinking in terms of the following Google.


Re: first "quote" above, are you suggesting a form of cyclic Universe? If so, would this be a higher dimensional version of Moebius Strip or Klein Bottle? I mean as opposed to a simple "BB>BH>BB>BH . . . ".
To explain a little . . . . . .
To a flatlander, the surface of a sphere (viable consideration of a two-dimensional surface existing in three space dimensions) is "all there is". To a higher dimensional being, the surface of a sphere expands (compare expansion of "a universe" - this equates to observed universe of a flatlander in time) as the radius of the sphere expands, This explains "expands into" question by invoking higher dimensional observer. One difference is that the "BB>BH>BB>BH . . . " model cycles in time, whereas the "strip/bottle . . . " models contain their time elements.

If you consider the "BB>BH>BB>BH . . . " model, presumably there would be a return to primordial matter. Of course, you may consider that the "strip/bottle . . . " alternative exists in a similar "time" dimension. I have yet to see translations of these ideas into a space-time framewrk.

I want to return to the original infinite/infinity BBT ramifications regarding FTL expansion of the Universe involving matter. (Vide matter/energy).

Cat

Cat, very sorry to barge in on your thread. The first time I read it I I thought I saw a part questioning if everything comes back to a universal black hole, but I'm not sure if I found that part when I looked again because I may have checked out the links and replies differently, but my my response was meant to say, no, not a universal black, just a regular black hole. My views aren't science based, my starting point is everything occurs naturally, so big bangs must be natural, and the only source of primordial matter is inside black holes, so big bangs must come from black holes. And since gravity, though dumb as brass since it only does what mass indicates, is so perfect at it's job, and our math says there's no escape from black holes, then matter must have power over gravity, but it only uses it in transitions between states of matter, letting gravity do it's perfect job the rest of the time. Aside from various hybrid stellar collapses, I felt there's 3 primary states of matter, 3 cosmic mass limits, and 3 transitions. At #1, roughly 1.4 solar masses, regular atomic matter transitions to neutron star, maybe even faster than free fall scale so the core and edge form first, followed soon by the shock wave and rebounding free falling residual matter. At #2, roughly 2.3 solar masses, neutron star transitions to primordial matter of bottled up quarks, gluons, nuclear and degeneracy forces and everything squeezed to the center of a black hole. At #3, roughly 1 big bang of mass, transition from primordial matter to regular matter in a pulverizing big bang explosion. So yes, kind of like a cyclical model, but they happen somewhere in the universe, wherever cosmic mass limit #3 is surpassed, cyclical in that the universe can seemingly go on forever "running itself". And yes, I'm thinking transition to baryonic matter, then atomic matter, and quickly. I felt electrons and neutrinos and photons didn't count at the initial big bang stage because neutrons come first and electrons and neutrinos and photons come from decaying free neutrons. So I felt the transition was designed to cause a pulverizing explosion that breaks the bounds of gravity, allowing escape from the black hole and leading to our ever expanding section of the universe. The explosion goes at a significant fraction of the speed of light but needs not exceed the speed of light because it's achieved by the repulsive forces of primordial matter pushing out from the inside, and by breaking the bounds of gravity it's a cosmic trade, whereby one center of gravity is instantaneously traded in for an ever outward expansion of matter permanently freed from the original center of gravity. The primordial matter is sent in all directions and in all places, so pulverizing to the point of matter eventually recombining similarly to what we see in particle colliders, baryons, hadrons first, then free neutrons, which then decay, bringing the first protons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos, and first electrical charges, followed by nucleosynthesis of nearly all hydrogen in a new expanding section of the universe composed of nearly all hydrogen. The transition does take time, but to me it starts immediately and takes days, weeks and years, not eons. If blast speed is 1/2 the speed of light you have a big bang bubble with diameter of roughly 8 billion miles after day 1 and 3 trillion miles after a year, plenty of space to allow for the cooling to allow regular matter formation during and after the first year. The big bang bubble goes mostly into empty spaces, but if anything is in the way it's pushed back or pulverised, except the largest black holes hold relative positions. What's pulverised adds to the formation of heavy elements available in the universe and gives an early start of the building blocks for planet formation alongside star formation and very early galaxy formation around any galactic remnants that survived the big bang. Thanks for asking Cat, again, not science based but based in a firm belief that everything occurs naturally in the universe so big bangs must be natural and must come from black holes, so everything else is just a guess as to how it could all have possibly happened and that's the guess I came up with, but I really don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. So my apologies again for barging into your scientific thread with unscientific ideas.

 

[COLGeek]

Cat, very sorry to barge in on your thread. The first time I read it I I thought I saw a part questioning if everything comes back to a universal black hole, but I'm not sure if I found that part when I looked again because I may have checked out the links and replies differently, but my my response was meant to say, no, not a universal black, just a regular black hole. My views aren't science based, my starting point is everything occurs naturally, so big bangs must be natural, and the only source of primordial matter is inside black holes, so big bangs must come from black holes. And since gravity, though dumb as brass since it only does what mass indicates, is so perfect at it's job, and our math says there's no escape from black holes, then matter must have power over gravity, but it only uses it in transitions between states of matter, letting gravity do it's perfect job the rest of the time. Aside from various hybrid stellar collapses, I felt there's 3 primary states of matter, 3 cosmic mass limits, and 3 transitions. At #1, roughly 1.4 solar masses, regular atomic matter transitions to neutron star, maybe even faster than free fall scale so the core and edge form first, followed soon by the shock wave and rebounding free falling residual matter. At #2, roughly 2.3 solar masses, neutron star transitions to primordial matter of bottled up quarks, gluons, nuclear and degeneracy forces and everything squeezed to the center of a black hole. At #3, roughly 1 big bang of mass, transition from primordial matter to regular matter in a pulverizing big bang explosion. So yes, kind of like a cyclical model, but they happen somewhere in the universe, wherever cosmic mass limit #3 is surpassed, cyclical in that the universe can seemingly go on forever "running itself". And yes, I'm thinking transition to baryonic matter, then atomic matter, and quickly. I felt electrons and neutrinos and photons didn't count at the initial big bang stage because neutrons come first and electrons and neutrinos and photons come from decaying free neutrons. So I felt the transition was designed to cause a pulverizing explosion that breaks the bounds of gravity, allowing escape from the black hole and leading to our ever expanding section of the universe. The explosion goes at a significant fraction of the speed of light but needs not exceed the speed of light because it's achieved by the repulsive forces of primordial matter pushing out from the inside, and by breaking the bounds of gravity it's a cosmic trade, whereby one center of gravity is instantaneously traded in for an ever outward expansion of matter permanently freed from the original center of gravity. The primordial matter is sent in all directions and in all places, so pulverizing to the point of matter eventually recombining similarly to what we see in particle colliders, baryons, hadrons first, then free neutrons, which then decay, bringing the first protons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos, and first electrical charges, followed by nucleosynthesis of nearly all hydrogen in a new expanding section of the universe composed of nearly all hydrogen. The transition does take time, but to me it starts immediately and takes days, weeks and years, not eons. If blast speed is 1/2 the speed of light you have a big bang bubble with diameter of roughly 8 billion miles after day 1 and 3 trillion miles after a year, plenty of space to allow for the cooling to allow regular matter formation during and after the first year. The big bang bubble goes mostly into empty spaces, but if anything is in the way it's pushed back or pulverised, except the largest black holes hold relative positions. What's pulverised adds to the formation of heavy elements available in the universe and gives an early start of the building blocks for planet formation alongside star formation and very early galaxy formation around any galactic remnants that survived the big bang. Thanks for asking Cat, again, not science based but based in a firm belief that everything occurs naturally in the universe so big bangs must be natural and must come from black holes, so everything else is just a guess as to how it could all have possibly happened and that's the guess I came up with, but I really don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. So my apologies again for barging into your scientific thread with unscientific ideas.

Please edit in some paragraph breaks. Walls of text like this are very difficult to read.

 

[Catastrophe]

Hi mdswartz, don't apologise - it is there to be replied to. Thank you for providing an interesting reply.

Next point(s). Do you have a short handle, like mds or, in directly replying, perhaps just M?
Anything for understandable brevity. I like Cat at the bottom, but it is not essential.

Next, please take notice of COLGeek. Even in this short post, see how much easier it is to read than the following. I like "quotes" and italics or underlinings where they help understanding, and sometimes colour (maybe in brackets) to break up longer sentences - but not essential.

Hi mdswartz, don't apologise - it is there to be replied to. Thank you for providing an interesting reply.
Next point(s). Do you have a short handle, like mds or, in directly replying, perhaps just M? Anything for understandable brevity. I like Cat at the bottom, but it is not essential. Next, please take notice of COLGeek. Even in this short post, see how much easier it is to read than the following. I like "quotes" and italics or underlinings where they help understanding, and sometimes colour (maybe in brackets) to break up longer sentences - but not essential.

By the way, go to end of line at the top (starting B - go to end of that line and select the 3 vertical dots, and select quote marks '' (99) and type in, or paste, your text.

Like this.

OK - I will go back and read your post now.

Cat

 

[mdswartz]

mdswartz. Just noticed that was only your second post. Welcome to the forum. That was quite a heavyweight second post, and I can see that you will be livening up the proceedings here.
Well done, and please hang around. You are very welcome in keeping the forum on its toes.

However, another question, please, to quickly appreciate where you are coming from.

You raise another interesting question, which I have alluded to above, but which probably merits further consideration:

This has, imho, considerable importance in discussing such matters as "Where did the Universe expand into?". Although analogies have their shortcomings, this one has helped me enormously, and I therefore feel justified in passing it on. It concerns a flatlander confined to the surface of a sphere. I have checked that it is admissible to consider this mathematically, although I crave a little indulgence in allowing a higher dimensional being the ability to observe the radius as the sphere expands.
From a drop of water.... | Page 18 | Space.com Forums

So our flatlander, existing on his surface, considers time as something separate, as so many of us do, for practical purposes. Please accept this as part of the setting up of the analogy.
So, having much in common with humanity in our observed universe, he works out that his universe is expanding, although the sizes of material objects do not increase in size in relation to the perceived expansion of his observed universe. He wonders what his perceived universe is expanding into, since all there is should not have an outside.

However, unbeknownst to our flatlander, there is a superior being who appreciates that the flatlander's observed universe is simply the surface of a sphere which is really quite an insignificant part of "superbeing"s perceived universe. This superbeing sees that the flatlander's observed universe is simply his little playground, and does not merit the term "Universe". The flatlander's two dimensional surface still has no boundary to its surface area, which, nevertheless is increasing in area as the radius increases, and still (in the flatlander's mind) has nowhere to expand into. Problem solved. We just have to see such problems from the standpoint of beings with the ability to perceive higher dimensions.

Incidentally, this analogy also has something to offer on the question of semantics, viz What do we mean by Universe? Either we keep "Universe" as "all there is", or we use a global observable universe to cover all that might be appreciated by all sentient beings everywhere (and perhaps including all observable by them and by their instruments), which we might term "Superverse". The term "Universe" would then no longer exist, and the various "sub-domain Universes" would then be observable universe sub-groups defined in terms of their observers. Apart from being differentiated by location, their observable universes would also change over time, as newer observing capability is added - expansion from unaided sight to invention of the telescope to similar instruments attached to cameras and capable of processing a wider range of electromagnetic radiation, and so on.

I hope that the above has summarised more concisely a few talking points previous spread over different threads.

Cat

Thanks again Cat. The universe I envision is everywhere so expansion of our section consist of matter moving ever outward into the rest of the universe, in just a tiny section of everywhere maybe 40 to 50 billion light years wide or so. And since the big bang I envision breaks the bounds of gravity, the force of the blast pushes back or pulverised everything that might be in the way, except that gravitational forces close to galactic cores are stronger than the force of the blast, so only stars out from the galactic center are pushed back, but not the galactic cores. This creates a big bang "bubble of safety" that makes it look like we're unique and alone and that allows evolution of our section of the universe to carry on mostly undisturbed by the rest of the universe, which is still too far away to see, yet. For 10 billion years or so, the force of the explosion powers expansion of our section of the universe, but as the ever expanding size of the big bang bubble grows, the force of the blast wanes, and gravity from the rest of the universe eventually becomes primary and acts to help pull our section apart at an increased rate, making it look to us like our expansion is accelerating. This and my other posts are non-scientific guesses to how big bangs can be natural occurrences which are designed to answer questions like why is expansion accelerating, why are there such big galaxies and black holes shortly after the big bang, where did all the heavy elements come from, why does expansion continue in the first place, and where did the primordial matter in our big bang come from. And starting from a standpoint that everything must be naturally occuring within the universe, I came up with these guesses. I hope even a small part might be right because I believe in nature, not one time mystical occurrences. Sorry again for barging in Cat.

 

[Catastrophe]

mds


So my apologies again for barging into your scientific thread with unscientific ideas.

STOP THIS

Black holes. Yes, you are quite correct. You can have small ones all over the place, but I also use a short of shorthand to denote your linear cyclic mechanism = BB>BH>BB>BH>BB>BH, suggesting just one large, overwhelming one of each in repetitive succession.

My preferred approach is the Moebius Strip / Klein Bottle idea.
Just take a strip of paper and, instead of joining end to end, first make half a twist before you join. (Just Google it. and Klein Bottle for diagrams).

With the Moebius Strip, if you run your finger along the surface, for (better still) draw a pen along the surface, you will come back to where you start. Although you can see two sides of the strip, there is actually only one, continuous side.

A Klein Bottle is similar one dimension higher up. Care, as you cannot actually construct one in three dimensions. Diagrams show the return through the side.

My point is that this type of structure, and higher dimension(s) cannot actually be made. Hence they show a bottle, with a tube coming back through the side and opening out to become the inside surface.

My point is that the Universe may be analogous. Imagine a wide Moebius Strip. Start writing along the surface. You will get back to where you start. You do not repeat, you keep writing more lines below the older ones. You could end up with a whole book written thus.

Of course, this is only an analogy, but it is suggestive of what might be vaguely similar in higher dimensions. The BB>BH>BB>BH>BB>BH, or other "join" has no direct meaning but could be looked on as a repetitive "location" (meaning nothing) - the junctions in the paper corresponding to the BB>BH nexi (alternative plural of nexus as nexuses). No meaning as far as we can guess - but nobody knows anyway.

The other question I dealt with already with the flatlander.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Brought this over in whole from "From a drop of water...." because I don't want to rewrite the most of it here:

"Woke up thinking about black hole "electroweak stars" and galaxies, and galaxy centers! Couldn't get back to sleep because of what I was seeing in my own "mind's eye":

"Turn a 'black hole electroweak star' destroyer inside out and you have the reverse, a 'white hole star' factory' (of a piece with the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (Big Bang) 'Mirror Horizon')!

" ** (Always remembering the fundamental binary base2 character (smooth to chunky coarse grain and back.... repeating to infinities) duality of Chaos Theory's self-similar fractal 'zooms' universe structure ("emergent gravity" ("emergent (hyperspace) SPACE")), including its constant reduction of its infinities to a further fundamental binary base2 constant of "setting" and reset ("gravity's infinities" combine with the "strong (nuclear) binding force" finite)!) ** "
=============

"'White hole star' factory" should probably expand to read and describe 'Transparent 'white hole star' stuff factory."

A black hole purple people eater 'electroweak star' destroyer doesn't blow up for its end or just go dead (impossible to what it is). It is said to eventually simply blow away, dissipate, fade away. to nothingness. As I claim above in another Schrodinger-like functionality, that fade away to nothingness isn't necessarily so from how it is created, how it is caused, in the first place. It goes from caterpillar (black hole micro / macro particle point-singularity) to (transparent white hole new star stuff) butterfly or moth over its life. Its very strength (its very point-singularity) is its inherent, intrinsic, weakness. It is its own inevitable 'mirror' equal but opposite "(of a piece with the collapsed cosmological constant Planck (Big Bang) 'Mirror Horizon')!"

 

[Catastrophe]

M, yrpost #16.

I think I covered this. No problem, but you do take a lot of words

My part of the flatlander analogy decribes a higher dimensional being thinking the flatlander''s Universe as a toy. I think it not too inaccurate to say "Your observed universe is what you make of it" as your view depends on what instruments you use (or accept others' use of).

By higher dimensional being I do not intend any religious significance. More like human versus rabbit.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Atlan, thank you for explaining. Of course, as you will know, you can effect the same with this:

Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

As many of you are aware, I have serious problems in the application of infinity. and related infinite descriptions, to non-mathematical (reality) situations. Here is a post from 2022: https://forums.space.com/threads/big-bang-evidence.55635/#post-568525 Why do you bring infinity into it...

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[mdswartz]

mds


So my apologies again for barging into your scientific thread with unscientific ideas.

STOP THIS

Black holes. Yes, you are quite correct. You can have small ones all over the place, but I also use a short of shorthand to denote your linear cyclic mechanism = BB>BH>BB>BH>BB>BH, suggesting just one large, overwhelming one of each in repetitive succession.

My preferred approach is the Moebius Strip / Klein Bottle idea.
Just take a strip of paper and, instead of joining end to end, first make half a twist before you join. (Just Google it. and Klein Bottle for diagrams).

With the Moebius Strip, if you run your finger along the surface, for (better still) draw a pen along the surface, you will come back to where you start. Although you can see two sides of the strip, there is actually only one, continuous side.

A Klein Bottle is similar one dimension higher up. Care, as you cannot actually construct one in three dimensions. Diagrams show the return through the side.

My point is that this type of structure, and higher dimension(s) cannot actually be made. Hence they show a bottle, with a tube coming back through the side and opening out to become the inside surface.

My point is that the Universe may be analogous. Imagine a wide Moebius Strip. Start writing along the surface. You will get back to where you start. You do not repeat, you keep writing more lines below the older ones. You could end up with a whole book written thus.

Of course, this is only an analogy, but it is suggestive of what might be vaguely similar in higher dimensions. The BB>BH>BB>BH>BB>BH, or other "join" has no direct meaning but could be looked on as a repetitive "location" (meaning nothing) - the junctions in the paper corresponding to the BB>BH nexi (alternative plural of nexus as nexuses). No meaning as far as we can guess - but nobody knows anyway.

The other question I dealt with already with the flatlander.

Cat

Thanks again Cat. I view the universe as everywhere in all directions, and we're in a small section, safely evolving in our big bang bubble. And not really BB, BH, BB, BH. Any black hole anywhere might surpass cosmic mass limit #3, most will never pass it, you never know where or when one might get that big. It just happens somewhere, and not often. Can't really see it as a Mobius strip or any other shape, but mostly I envision it as a giant cube in all directions, but the edge of the universe becomes nonsensical to me so I don't ever think about it beyond that.

 

[Catastrophe]

Thanks again Cat. I view the universe as everywhere in all directions, and we're in a small section, safely evolving in our big bang bubble. And not really BB, BH, BB, BH. Any black hole anywhere might surpass cosmic mass limit #3, most will never pass it, you never know where or when one might get that big. It just happens somewhere, and not often. Can't really see it as a Mobius strip or any other shape, but mostly I envision it as a giant cube in all directions, but the edge of the universe becomes nonsensical to me so I don't ever think about it beyond that.

The Moebius Strip is only meant to suggest a mechanism for a cyclic Universe. It is but a poor analogy, but I find it useful.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Atlan, thank you for explaining. Of course, as you will know, you can effect the same with this:

Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

As many of you are aware, I have serious problems in the application of infinity. and related infinite descriptions, to non-mathematical (reality) situations. Here is a post from 2022: https://forums.space.com/threads/big-bang-evidence.55635/#post-568525 Why do you bring infinity into it...

forums.space.com

Cat

Simply doesn't matter, Cat! I'm enjoying, very much, your own "mind's eye" tracking here and simply wanted to get in to augment it with my own track! As the saying goes, "Go, Cat, go!"

 

[Catastrophe]

Atlan, thank you for your kind words. I really do not know, or cannot remember, how our "overcompetitive streak" came about. I wish it would end.

I never intend any adverse criticism. As I say at the bottom of my posts:
"There never was a good war nor a bad peace."

Benjamin Franklin was not one of my countrymen and iirc had a little to do with the separation of the USA and UK. Nevertheless, I am happy to quote him.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Thanks again Cat. I view the universe as everywhere in all directions, and we're in a small section, safely evolving in our big bang bubble. And not really BB, BH, BB, BH. Any black hole anywhere might surpass cosmic mass limit #3, most will never pass it, you never know where or when one might get that big. It just happens somewhere, and not often. Can't really see it as a Mobius strip or any other shape, but mostly I envision it as a giant cube in all directions, but the edge of the universe becomes nonsensical to me so I don't ever think about it beyond that.

M, don't make too much of the BBT thing. I think that there is an infinite (OOOps) difference between BBT and t = 0. That interceding difference - reported as getting closer and closer to trillionths (or smaller) of a second is, in my opinion, due to the approaching infinitely (OOOps) large difference caused by division by zero.

My guess is that these tiny time spans are entirely due to the vast temperatures (reported elsewhere). Inordinately high temperatures 10^32 K obviously require exceedingly rapid cooling.

Cat