I support the proven part of the bigbang theory, but why did time begin to exist only with the beginning of the expansion?

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

The question is: considering that energy is not spent or lost, but exchanged and that everything that exists is within the expanding Universe at every instant! Since there is never anything outside the universe, that is, nothing that can exchange energy with it, wouldn't it be necessary to conserve its total energy? In other words, wouldn't the universe have to exist in constant mutation, exchanging its internal energies with its expansion and exist forever? How can existence end or come out of nowhere?
How does a cosmology explain this energy issue?

 

[Catastrophe]

There are various ideas about an open or closed Universe and ideas we know about includng a cyclic Universe.
Talking about energy, one suggestion is that all forms of energy ultimately degrade into heat, and one idea is that the heat (i.e., motion) just gets cold (stops).
That is the thing about cosmology - it is all wonderful speculation and no proof - or is it?

My take on the Big Bang is well known. I like a nexus, a continuum on either side, approached asymptotically with no singularity.

Cat

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

[QUOTE = "Catástrofe, postagem: 536789, membro: 1109827"]

OK! I was just asking to provoke an argument! The idea was this: if everything that exists is in the Universe, it will become the only naturally isolated system, even in expansion! That is, it cannot do work when expanding! Because energy is not spent, it is exchanged! If there is nothing at every instant outside the Universe, because when expanding, part of the exterior it becomes part of the Universe itself, it has no external existence to exchange energy with it! so the universe always has to conserve his energy! I'm in an international cosmology group, you needed to know in the fight that this discussion took place! Discussion of a simple argument! Most of the other group supported me, in a discussion I had to show someone else that the energy-momentum vector in certain cases could make the conservation of the Universe possible! There was another person who said that he had published an article and that he was known worldwide saying that temporal asymmetry, citing matter and anti-matter, prevented the conservation of total energy! I replied to he: that he didn't need to argue in such a complicated way to say that entropy in the Universe always increases! I said that he had to revise its content because the entropy did not depend only on the distribution of mass and energy, but also on the extension of the existing space! The other person was without an argument! You needed to see what a mess it was!

Gato
[/CITAR]

 

[IG2007]

I'm in an international cosmology group, you needed to know in the fight that this discussion took place

We all are in a space forum...

Now, jokes apart, according to BBT, yeah, it is true that time began to exist since big bang. I guess, it is just a postulate for the sake of the BBT. You see, the BBT makes a lot of surmises and assumptions, a majority of them matches reality, exempli gratia, the Cosmic Microwave Background or the CMB, but yes, it has also been tweaked a little bit here and there to adhere to reality. But the BBT theory is pretty same the present day as it was almost 70 years ago.

In my opinion, it simply does not matter if time existed or not before the Big Bang, because there was no matter before it and therefore no quark or even an energy wave before the Big Bang, so there is nothing relative to anything, and therefore t=0 and therefore it does not matter.

Another point, "Cat" is simply a short form of "Catostrophe"

 

[Sócrates Georges Petrakis]

We all are in a space forum...

Now, jokes apart, according to BBT, yeah, it is true that time began to exist since big bang. I guess, it is just a postulate for the sake of the BBT. You see, the BBT makes a lot of surmises and assumptions, a majority of them matches reality, exempli gratia, the Cosmic Microwave Background or the CMB, but yes, it has also been tweaked a little bit here and there to adhere to reality. But the BBT theory is pretty same the present day as it was almost 70 years ago.

In my opinion, it simply does not matter if time existed or not before the Big Bang, because there was no matter before it and therefore no quark or even an energy wave before the Big Bang, so there is nothing relative to anything, and therefore t=0 and therefore it does not matter.

Another point, "Cat" is simply a short form of "Catostrophe"

I agree with BigBang (the proven part) But at the instant of the expansion, the universe has to be static to start the expansion! Practically without spaces, without energy (propagation) The universe would have to have a massive constituent in order to exist a potential energy that represents its total energy, since it does not have kinetic energy or particles to use quantum physics or atomic energy! Energy is never created or lost (spent), but exchanged! (my opinion)!

 

[Catastrophe]

In the idea that I like, "at the instant of the expansion, the universe has to be static to start the expansion! " my suggestion is that there is an asymptotic or parabolic situation in the nexus, and a point of inflection suggests "static" with respect to something e.g., y axis.

Catastrophe

 

[Ancient One]

In the idea that I like, "at the instant of the expansion, the universe has to be static to start the expansion! " my suggestion is that there is an asymptotic or parabolic situation in the nexus, and a point of inflection suggests "static" with respect to something e.g., y axis.

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace" Are you saying all wars are bad or unnecessary?

 

[Catastrophe]

Ancient One,
"Quotes - There never was a good war, or a bad peace.
https://www.shmoop.com › quotes › never-good-war-o..."

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace." · Context. This line was written by Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Sir Joseph Banks (July 27, 1983). · Where you've ..."

It is a quotation. Best ask Benjamin Franklin.

Perhaps your question comes into the "bad peace" part?

Cat

 

[IG2007]

In the idea that I like, "at the instant of the expansion, the universe has to be static to start the expansion! " my suggestion is that there is an asymptotic or parabolic situation in the nexus, and a point of inflection suggests "static" with respect to something e.g., y axis.

Catastrophe

That's exactly what I meant to say! Cat, thanks for making it so precise!

 

[Ancient One]

Ancient One,
"Quotes - There never was a good war, or a bad peace.
https://www.shmoop.com › quotes › never-good-war-o..."

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace." · Context. This line was written by Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Sir Joseph Banks (July 27, 1983). · Where you've ..."

It is a quotation. Best ask Benjamin Franklin.

Perhaps your question comes into the "bad peace" part?

Cat

Ben should have phrased it in terms of necessary wars/peace' & unnecessary wars & peace'. Who would ever want war, when it is unnecessary? I suppose it depends on your vantage point(s)/perspective/side. They say the winners write the history books. I'm just glad my side wrote most of the books (including history) I read. I thank the powers that be for NASA, & the US military, among other things. These are a few of my favorite things. My dad was USAF, 1950-54.

Old soldiers never die,

...

 

[Catastrophe]

Ben should have phrased it in terms of necessary wars/peace' & unnecessary wars & peace'. Who would ever want war, when it is unnecessary? I suppose it depends on your vantage point[s)/perspective/side. They say the winners write the history books. I'm just glad my side wrote most of the books (including history) I read. I thank the powers that be for NASA, & the US military, among other things. These are a few of my favorite things. My dad was USAF, 1950-54.

Old soldiers never die,

...

Did #8 help?

 

[Ancient One]

Did #8 help?

#8?

 

[Catastrophe]

Ancient One:

Post #8 above.

Quote
It is a quotation. Best ask Benjamin Franklin.
Perhaps your question comes into the "bad peace" part?
Quote

Cat

 

[rod]

"I support the proven part of the bigbang theory..." What is the *proven part*? For example, starting point at Planck time, Planck length? Inflation epoch? Post-inflation universe? BBN? CMBR origin? Cosmic dark age, Primordial gas clouds, Population III stars, etc.? Age of the universe (Hubble time), is this a *proven part*? I could also add here the primordial abundances of H, He, and Li.

 

[Ancient One]

Ancient One:

Post #8 above.

Quote
It is a quotation. Best ask Benjamin Franklin.
Perhaps your question comes into the "bad peace" part?
Quote

Cat

I've always had the greatest respect & admiration for Ben Franklin. In many ways, he was ahead of his time.

 

[greenrivet]

We all are in a space forum...

Now, jokes apart, according to BBT, yeah, it is true that time began to exist since big bang. I guess, it is just a postulate for the sake of the BBT. You see, the BBT makes a lot of surmises and assumptions, a majority of them matches reality, exempli gratia, the Cosmic Microwave Background or the CMB, but yes, it has also been tweaked a little bit here and there to adhere to reality. But the BBT theory is pretty same the present day as it was almost 70 years ago.

In my opinion, it simply does not matter if time existed or not before the Big Bang, because there was no matter before it and therefore no quark or even an energy wave before the Big Bang, so there is nothing relative to anything, and therefore t=0 and therefore it does not matter.

Another point, "Cat" is simply a short form of "Catostrophe"

Hi, sorry to poke my non scientic head over the parapet again, but I'm a bit confused by some of above :- how is it known that there was no matter before BB ? As infinity indicates time never started (space has been there forever) then its logical to think there has been an infinite amount of BB's and that matter has always been here, maybe not in this part of space that I guess we call 'our' universe, but our BB that resulted in all we can see does not deter from other BB's in other areas of space. Its not philosophy to think beyond the result of this BB ; and just because scientists cannot prove it, infinity dictates that it should at least be thought about. matter and space has always existed before our bb popped into existance................ maybe !!

kind regards

 

[Catastrophe]

greenrivet, do not worry. Whilst there is some consensus it does not mean that it is fact.

"But the BBT theory is pretty same the present day as it was almost 70 years ago."
Ask how long the flat earth theory was around. 70 times 70 years? Does that make it right?

The truth, as far as we know, is that there is a fatal gap between t = 0 and t = ?, where ? is a very small number. Simply, nobody knows what happened when the maths divides by zero. There are ideas and models and suppositions - but no truthful. unequivocal answer. Just speculation and imagination.

My personal view, for what it is worth, is that the singularity myth should be discarded. It is the result of division by zero, which we all know has no place in reality. The fatal error in current cosmology imho is the idea that, because the Universe is thought to be expanding, then it can be extrapolated backwards to t - 0. Why is this a fatal error? Because the expansion is not regular - it is not a straight line which can be extrapolated straight backwards to zero. The expansion, and you can scarcely open a book on the subject without seeing the diagram, goes through 'inflation', and then changes again. There are even differing models as to how that expansion will continue - open? closed? - and then how is it extrapolated backwards? In a straight line?

Imho, there was a nexus between the last 'phase' of the Universe and the current 'phase'. The Universe is cyclic and beyond our ken (knowledge). So don't worry if you don't understand it all. Nobody does.

As far as Cat being short for Catastrophe - that was my choice. I am not going to write Catastrophe in full with every post. That is how I am known. My choice of that name was linked to my interest in asteroid and comet impacts. There will be many more; one, perhaps totally fatal. Maybe nothing serious for hundreds or thousands of years. Anyone who makes light of this may find themselves on the wrong end of such a catastrophe, and the inhabitants of this planet should take this more seriously.

Cat

 

[Stellarwest]

I support the proven part of the bigbang theory, but why did time begin to exist only with the beginning of the expansion?

Time is an abstraction of the space time continuum related to light and gravity within our dimension. A void contains information therefore infinity exists and I see this place where we reside was founded from intelligent design. Infinity cannot be measured, therefore no timing for it exists yet within the confines of matter man attempts to maintain appointments & measurements to some degree of accuracy; moreover, time can only be understood to make sense within a domain where entropy is installed when intelligent life exists. One day man might measure the expansion rate of the universe by utilizing gravitational waves proving that time will lead to a cold death or collapse of the universe snuffing out life and time too, but not infinity. I believe time began when a consciousness in the universe was able to detect it.

 

[greenrivet]

I believe time began when a consciousness in the universe was able to detect it.

I am sorry to say that I do understand the above quoted comment. I do not know what you mean that time began......how can time begin when its always been there , conscious of it or not. Are you saying that time did not exist before it was observed ? Infinity indicates that there was no start to time, it has been there forever, so how could there be a start....? Please explain in basic terms for me to get my head round it.
Kind regards
A non scientist

 

[IG2007]

I believe time began when a consciousness in the universe was able to detect it.

Anthropic Principle again? Phew.

A void contains information therefore infinity exists and I see this place where we reside was founded from intelligent design.

May I request this to be explained? Please.

I am sorry to say that I do understand the above quoted comment. I do not know what you mean that time began......how can time begin when its always been there , conscious of it or not. Are you saying that time did not exist before it was observed ? Infinity indicates that there was no start to time, it has been there forever, so how could there be a start....? Please explain in basic terms for me to get my head round it.
Kind regards
A non scientist

Infinity, again, infinity again.

Well, greenrivet, as a teenager, I can say that the claim by Stellarwest, that time didn't exist before consciousness did, has no scientific base.

And secondly, well, explain me how time can be infinite. There is no end to infinity. I can add one second and another second and and another... and so on. If we consider this moment (for the sake of a hypothesis) to be the end of time, and consider all the previous seconds before this point as time since the big bang, does that make time infinite? We have started it from one point (from big bang) and we have stopped it here, that means there is a finiteness to time and therefore time is not infinite. I would love a reply.

 

[greenrivet]

Anthropic Principle again? Phew.


May I request this to be explained? Please.


Infinity, again, infinity again.

Well, greenrivet, as a teenager, I can say that the claim by Stellarwest, that time didn't exist before consciousness did, has no scientific base.

And secondly, well, explain me how time can be infinite. There is no end to infinity. I can add one second and another second and and another... and so on. If we consider this moment (for the sake of a hypothesis) to be the end of time, and consider all the previous seconds before this point as time since the big bang, does that make time infinite? We have started it from one point (from big bang) and we have stopped it here, that means there is a finiteness to time and therefore time is not infinite. I would love a reply.

Hi, " infinite " is unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time. In my opion there was time and space before the bb, and in the future time and space will continue to exist even though this universe may have contracted down to zero. and I not a scientist, so its just IMHO.
kind regards

best rgds

 

[Catastrophe]

greenrivet, " there was time and space before the bb, and in the future time and space will continue to exist even though this universe may have contracted down to zero."

I agree with you. Just substitute nexus for singularity, past and future.

"may have contracted down to zero." Well . . . . . . nearly - just another nexus.

Cat

 

[greenrivet]

thankyou

 

[Catastrophe]

Any time. You are very welcome!

Cyclic model - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cyclic_model
A cyclic model (or oscillating model) is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, or indefinite, self-sustaining cycles.
‎Overview · ‎The Steinhardt–Turok model · ‎The Baum–Frampton model

Scholarly articles for conformal cyclic cosmology

The basic ideas of conformal cyclic cosmology - ‎Penrose - Cited by 34 … of quantum mechanics 2: Conformal cyclic cosmology - ‎Penrose - Cited by 24 The equations of conformal cyclic cosmology - ‎Tod - Cited by 12

Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Conformal_cyclic_cos...

The conformal cyclic cosmology hypothesis requires that all massive particles eventually vanish from existence, including those which become too widely ...
‎Cycles of Time · ‎Penrose diagram · ‎Information panspermia



Cat

 

[IG2007]

I am in a pretty big dilemma.right now.

Is space-time independent of the particle, or does its existence depend on the particle?