if the universe and space was created at the moment of the big bang where did the big bang happen At the instan before the event there was nowhere a?
Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
- Status
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
For those not familiar with Universe and universe, please see:
Universe and universe
for the explanation.
Cat
Universe and universe
for the explanation.
Cat
Yes, I agree that we should include everything that is discovered or implied from evidence as being in the Universe, but we can "slice" out parts of it to better address those slices (universes). The "quantum world" could be also called the "quantum universe" as it is very much a part of the whole - the Universe. Another case for your push for capitalizing "Universe".
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Helio, you have used 'universes' exactly as I would wish it to be used. Best when addressing a group of "entities" having properties in common. My simplest example would be separate flatlander sphere surfaces.
I am not sure how to slice "quantum universe". I am inclined to think more of "the nature of things" rather than a slice - perhaps more of a "horizontal slice" if you get my meaning? A different sort of slice from a "2D" slice.
A not very good thought would be a horizontal slice across the bottom with other "smaller" slices partaking of its properties. Still fuzzy thinking on my part. Maybe more part of the fabric than a slice? Is that better?
Cat
I am not sure how to slice "quantum universe". I am inclined to think more of "the nature of things" rather than a slice - perhaps more of a "horizontal slice" if you get my meaning? A different sort of slice from a "2D" slice.
A not very good thought would be a horizontal slice across the bottom with other "smaller" slices partaking of its properties. Still fuzzy thinking on my part. Maybe more part of the fabric than a slice? Is that better?
Cat
Perhaps sub universe or something would be better than slice, which was a continuation of the term used before my post.
The quantum world is of the subatomic world, so a sub-level universe might help convey that there are realms deserving special focus. But with great focus on one area, less focus occurs on another, so it should be clear that only when we bring it all into focus are we addressing the whole (ie Universe).
The quantum world is of the subatomic world, so a sub-level universe might help convey that there are realms deserving special focus. But with great focus on one area, less focus occurs on another, so it should be clear that only when we bring it all into focus are we addressing the whole (ie Universe).
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Helio, The more I think about it, the more I lean to fabric of the Universe, an integral part of that which is "sliced" (sorry, I don't like the word much either).
"Perhaps sub universe or something would be better than slice"
Integral constituent? componoverse? compoverse? versicle?
We'll get there.
Cat
"Perhaps sub universe or something would be better than slice"
Integral constituent? componoverse? compoverse? versicle?
We'll get there.
Cat
Perhaps no extra taxonomy is necessary. The term "sports" is an encompassing term, but we don't think in terms of sub-sports, but put our focus on the sport being addressed. Football is football and needs no taxonomy to help our understanding of it. [Probably not the best example given the pond-crossing differences. ]
Taxonomy is useful only when it helps things make more sense, so perhaps your recommendation for Universe vs. universe, when needed, will suffice.
]Taxonomy is useful only when it helps things make more sense, so perhaps your recommendation for Universe vs. universe, when needed, will suffice.
David, there are two (other) ways of looking at negative entropy. I would start by saying that if entropy is an increase in disorder, then, in a contracting Universe (granted this is supposition) the particles get closer and closer together and are forced into some sort of increasing order. Am I wrong in suggesting this would be negative entropy (not localised decrease in entropy, but overall increase in order?
The clincher for me is, in this model (supposition) there is a cyclic process so order must return to maximum (closest proximity) and entropy to minimum. After all, with the BBM do we start with minimum entropy followed by increasing entropy, and do we not return to this state (or a close approximation)?
This either supports or destroys the cyclic model(s).
Cat
Yes you are wrong here, but everything else you've said seems to be correct. In a contracting universe the overall order is increasing as you say but at the same time the overall entropy is decreasing.
all seems correct. Note that where you say entropy is returning to a minimum, minimum means 0 entropy not negative entropy. Zero is the lowest entropy you can go to. It is the most highly ordered state you can get. More ordered than the most ordered state would be meaningless.
The big bang would have started with 0 entropy not with negative entropy.
So, yes you can have a cyclic model. The big bang starts at zero entropy and there is a positive entropy change until the universe gets to its maximum expansion and therefore maximum entropy. When the universe starts contracting there will be a negative entropy change but still keeping a positive value overall, and as it contracts it's positive value will decrease all the way back to zero. When it gets back to the point of maximum compression ie an initial hot dense patch it's entropy will have got back to zero and it's order will be at a maximum, then it can go bang again.
You may be right, but if contraction doesn't reassemble Humpty Dumpty, how will it ever truly get back to zero. Entropy is a big issue on cyclical models. Some processes are considered reversible, but the vast majority aren't. It's hard to see how all things, including waste heat, etc., return back to the exact same conditions as before, but it's hard, for me at least, to argue either way.
All the evidence points to an expanding Universe. There is no BBT without expansion.
You're entitled to this opinion especially since it isn't a question science can answer.
It is based upon what we see after things were created, so only from some point on or after the beginning (t=0) does this law, and ALL the others, take effect. The creation included the stuff needed to make it all work, essentially, in a near-perfect (ie finely-tuned) way.
"Empty space" outside of space demonstrates how confusing metaphysics can get.
Agreed. I think most are just referring to a likely scenario over, say, the next 20 billion years. The acceleration of spacetime argues this point. But we don't know what DE is, so how do we know it, or something related, won't do something funky in, say, 50 billion years?
Right, the BBT argues for an isotropic and homogenous universe (cosmological principle).
How do we test for symmetry where the ends can't be found to flip it for that test?
Agreed.
We have no testable premises to make one view more better than annuder.
The analogy is to emphasize that even when entropy decreases (in one spot) the overall entropy for the Universe increases. Stars are losing their available energy every second, thus entropy is increasing.
The lowest state of entropy was during the beginning. Hydrogen gives us the best known energy production so its creation required the lowest entropy state, thus at the beginning. Fusion ever since has increased entropy.
Entropy is defined as heat flow along an isotherm, so yes, it is a difference in two states. Some just use the "negative entropy" as a way to state a direction a process is going between two states.
We're talking about the first law of thermodynamics,
'matter energy cannot be created or destroyed'
Of course we invented this law after, but there's no logic say that we haven't stumbled across an eternally valid law which applies retrospectively.
This law does look rock solid and it does look as though it applies eternally and has applied eternally. The very nature of its statement means existence is eternal. If you try to change it to ;
'energy matter cannot be created or destroyed (this only applies after a certain time)'
makes a nonsense of the law, in effect it is saying you can have something from nothing and from then onwards the law applies.
If the statement has not applied at sometime it means that at that time you can create matter/energy.
Can we be absolutely clear that if this statement is true now it has always been true, the only time it could not have applied in the past is if it's not true now, it's a self-sufficient self supporting statement.
Therefore, if the statement is true, existence is eternal
Therefore if there has always been 'something' then there has always been some laws of physics to go with it, they didn't have a beginning either.
I assume by what you mean by t = 0 is the beginning of the Big Bang, Yes there were no particles then, but before t = 0 there would have been some particles.
If the Universe has always existed it can't be in state of evolution. this means it has always been on average of the same same structure and form with the same laws. Similar from place to place and similar from past to future.
Can you please explain what you mean "by after things were created" and "The creation" and also "the beginning". I'm not clear if you think it was created by a creator or whether you think there was nothing before the Big Bang ,thanks.
The Big Bang did not occur in one position.
It occurred through out the universe.
Not at the same time.
The process is ongoing.
The more you think about it the more complex it becomes.
Is the Big Bang process a cyclic process.
It occurred through out the universe.
Not at the same time.
The process is ongoing.
The more you think about it the more complex it becomes.
Is the Big Bang process a cyclic process.
The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations.
At t=0 all bets are off. Science can say very little objectively about it. Eternal and infinity viewpoints are only speculative.
Where would we put them if no space exists? What science argues particles before the energy that brought them into existence?
"Creation" can be used to describe something coming into existence. Certain creations may or may not have a Creator. The view that a Creator is responsible is a popular one, but this is outside the purview of science. Philosophy and religion step into the creation event to try and add reason to what science can offer but cannot address.
The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations.
At t=0 all bets are off. Science can say very little objectively about it. Eternal and infinity viewpoints are only speculative.
Where would we put them if no space exists? What science argues particles before the energy that brought them into existence?
"Creation" can be used to describe something coming into existence. Certain creations may or may not have a Creator. The view that a Creator is responsible is a popular one, but this is outside the purview of science. Philosophy and religion step-into the creation event to try and add reason to what science can offer but cannot address.
Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then? In other words it is possible that something from nothing could have occurred before that time.
When we get to the time before quark formation you're now saying it's very difficult to say that the first law is valid or not. Are you saying there's now an even greater possibility that something can come from nothing before quark formation?
What is t = 0 what does it mean, what is your definition of it, is it a personal definition or is it something scientific?
Science might not be able to say much about eternal, but logic can. For everything that exists something pre existed it so for the quarks there was something before them and something before that and something before that. That argument can be extended back indefinitely, it can only be broken if at some stage you decide that something came from nothing. That's logic we don't need science to tell us. In other words logic can say that existence is eternal without science.
The big bang started From a hot dense patch, that either came from nothing or something went into forming it. It could be particles from the gravitational collapse of matter from a previous big bang. Maybe particles change to energy when they get crushed below a certain point. What is certain is that something went into forming it. Nature is a continuous process, it doesn't pause so you can put something called t = 0 on it there isn't a stop start to it. Again that's logic not necessarily science.
In conclusion do you believe it is possible or that it has been possible in the past that something can come from nothing, and do you believe the big bang came from nothing.
Thanks
IMO way to complex for such a simple math problem of E=?Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then? In other words it is possible that something from nothing could have occurred before that time.
When we get to the time before quark formation you're now saying it's very difficult to say that the first law is valid or not. Are you saying there's now an even greater possibility that something can come from nothing before quark formation? What is t = 0 what does it mean, what is your definition of it, is it a personal definition or is it something scientific?
Science might not be able to say much about eternal, but logic can. For everything that exists something pre existed it so for the quarks there was something before them and something before that and something before that. That argument can be extended back indefinitely, it can only be broken if at some stage you decide that something came from nothing. That's logic we don't need science to tell us. In other words logic can say that existence is eternal without science. The big bang started From a hot dense patch, that either came from nothing or something went into forming it. It could be particles from the gravitational collapse of matter from a previous big bang. Maybe particles change to energy when they get crushed below a certain point. What is certain is that something went into forming it. Nature is a continuous process, it doesn't pause so you can put something called t = 0 on it there isn't a stop start to it. Again that's logic not necessarily science.
In conclusion do you believe it is possible or that it has been possible in the past that something can come from nothing, and do you believe the big bang came from nothing.
Thanks
After all the universe can be whatever it is and conservation of E looks very solid.
That could simply be a product of fluctuation E balance though.
The real question is to forget what the universe might be and think only of the E and how it happened.
E= product of nothings instability.
E=property of nothing potential energy.
E= anti energy conversion.
etc
Answer how the E arrived and it will answer the universe/s
Forever cyclic or any other model that appears from nowhere/nothing IMO is hedging the real E question.
Interpretations:
Time = 0-point = Now! = one of an infinity of four dimensional (thus enclosed) boxes or bubbles = As something Kurt Godel said, "an infinity of infinities".
Nothingness = Nowhereland (as in "from out of the middle of nowhere" (macro-versely, relative to any one of an infinity of finite universes / micro-versely, infinities of "virtual particles")) = up welling from, and/or down welling to, the 'Deep of the Great Abyss' = the "infinite Universe" (('1') ('-1')) = 'Vulcan hammered' infinitely flat (infinite in extent), uniformly "smooth as silk" (as the saying goes), energyless, timeless, dimensionless point of Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) (Big Mirror Mirroring (('1') ('-1'))) = the irresistible force (the infinite force of flattening, stretching, or cellular-like dividing, non-local gravity (the dimension of entropy (all the way to the infinity of string-like membranous-filament chasms in the breakdown of relativity regarding the finite foreground local)) of the immovable object (the infinite Universe (U) (('1') ('-1'))). A mighty somethingness of "nothingness".
Time = 0-point = Now! = one of an infinity of four dimensional (thus enclosed) boxes or bubbles = As something Kurt Godel said, "an infinity of infinities".
Nothingness = Nowhereland (as in "from out of the middle of nowhere" (macro-versely, relative to any one of an infinity of finite universes / micro-versely, infinities of "virtual particles")) = up welling from, and/or down welling to, the 'Deep of the Great Abyss' = the "infinite Universe" (('1') ('-1')) = 'Vulcan hammered' infinitely flat (infinite in extent), uniformly "smooth as silk" (as the saying goes), energyless, timeless, dimensionless point of Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) (Big Mirror Mirroring (('1') ('-1'))) = the irresistible force (the infinite force of flattening, stretching, or cellular-like dividing, non-local gravity (the dimension of entropy (all the way to the infinity of string-like membranous-filament chasms in the breakdown of relativity regarding the finite foreground local)) of the immovable object (the infinite Universe (U) (('1') ('-1'))). A mighty somethingness of "nothingness".
Last edited:
Yep could be that simple that nothing has properties.
Meaning of life =42
hitch hikers guide
Very solid yes, and that means you can't get something from nothing ever!!!
I know I've asked you before but I can't remember the answers how can nothing be unstable and how can nothing have a property?
Energy didn't arrive, it's always been here due to the conservation law you mentioned above.
Forever cyclic didn't appear from nowhere/nothing, the forever word means it always been here.
Well forever cyclic also breaks the law of conservation in the origin of E, even in a never ending loop the creation of E had to happen and be set and balanced by something.Very solid yes, and that means you can't get something from nothing ever!!!
I know I've asked you before but I can't remember the answers how can nothing be unstable and how can nothing have a property?
Energy didn't arrive, it's always been here due to the conservation law you mentioned above.
Forever cyclic didn't appear from nowhere/nothing, the forever word means it always been here.
It's very easy for nothing to be unstable in it's occupation of an area.
Occupying an area has properties (unknown) and all it takes to convert nothing into everything is instability in E.
The tiniest imbalance in potential E in forever nothing would fill nothing with fluctuation that creates everything that sets E.
Nothing occupies most of the universe in the quantum universe with set energy levels holding nothing up.
Quantum leaps a great example of that.
That also shows that nothing isn't just an imaginary idea, it shows nothing is a part of reality and has set properties.
No way round the need for a mechanism for everything.
Cyclic, bubbles, never ending fluctuation all need an E mechanism that sets E.
JMO
Last edited:
No. It helps to understand that where few, or no, direct observations are available to science, the risk of error is greater. There are no direct observations past the CMBR, though there is some hope neutrino mapping might someday be found to take us back much closer to t=0.
Sure, if one wishes to think that way, but this is in the world of imaginations, though not all imagination prove false. At t=0, we have no testable hypothesis to account for the initial burst of energy, which soon produced mass. There may be mathematical models, perhaps, that some may deem valid, but can even one pass objective-based testing?
At some point near t-0 we reach a region where our best particle physics fails. The laws may behave differently there or maybe they won't.
IMO, this doesn't happen. Something produced, or created, the energy.
Physics can say remarkable things to the end of the first Planck unit of time, but not before that moment, apparently. Subtract this given amount of time from itself and t=0, when the first "clock" began ticking.
If something created the burst of energy and space, then the nothing idea is greatly diminished. But this isn't science, but philosophy and religion.
One can argue for events at moments in time prior to t=0. Putting a negative sign on a unit of time isn't something math doesn't do quite often. But in this case, if things are bizarre at t=0, they are more bizarre before that moment. It's hard to make convincing subjective arguments with simple logic.
Though there is no science to support it and more questions quickly arise, so I won't advance this view, my personal faith is in a Creator, which is likely extra challenging for those who do happen to favor a "nothing" beginning. It may be the greatest of all dichotomies.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Of course there is some anthropocentric thinking here, linking to something way beyond human experience.
Who says that there must be a beginning or an end? These may be just anthropocentric constructs based on our very limited sensory input.
One very simple alternative is that the Universe is cyclic. There is a succession of big bangs and black holes.
This is only one possible argument, but no one can prove or disprove it.
Hence no one can prove that there was no beginning, and hence nothing before that non-existent beginning.
Cat
Who says that there must be a beginning or an end? These may be just anthropocentric constructs based on our very limited sensory input.
One very simple alternative is that the Universe is cyclic. There is a succession of big bangs and black holes.
This is only one possible argument, but no one can prove or disprove it.
Hence no one can prove that there was no beginning, and hence nothing before that non-existent beginning.
Cat
I totally agree that in one form or another the universe is cyclic.Of course there is some anthropocentric thinking here, linking to something way beyond human experience.
Who says that there must be a beginning or an end? These may be just anthropocentric constructs based on our very limited sensory input.
One very simple alternative is that the Universe is cyclic. There is a succession of big bangs and black holes.
This is only one possible argument, but no one can prove or disprove it.
Hence no one can prove that there was no beginning, and hence nothing before that non-existent beginning.
Cat
Could be a very cannibal cyclic that our universe is no more than a source of E for another to start.
I might not be a nice we like it cyclic but cyclic for sure in some format.
Our universe could be fodder or breeding grounds for others or running into others starts our collapse to wait for a neighbor to run into ours to start again.
Like you say that simply could have been happening forever.
The E for it to happen is a best guess and maybe that's all it will ever be.
Fun to try and take a guess though
I totally agree at best it's guesswork and hunches.
Something for sure created the E and set it and i have a feeling it's a simple math problem and lack of understanding right now.
That's no reason not to take an educated guess though
Maybe we will never be able to prove anything in our BB bubble and a very limited perspective on forever.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
If you really want to have fun, try "supercyclic". By this I mean a "tree" where you not only have branches and branches off branches (black holes leading to big bangs) but the branches can lead back into the tree (black holes leading to big bangs). Thus you have a very complex (entirely imaginary with no evidence whatsoever) tree, there the tips of the top branches can lead back into the roots. Millions of ( t = 0 )'s all over the place.
Good eh?
Cat
Good eh?
Cat
Re me - "Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then?"
In post 87 you told me - "The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations."
Can you clarify please, it looks to me like one post says the first law may not be valid before the recombination and and also quark formation, on the other post you are saying "No" that you are not saying the law is invalid. Instead you are saying the risk of error is greater The first law is either correct or not, any error means it is invalid completely. If you do mean the first law may be invalid before a certain time, all I was trying to do was ask you to acknowledge that that means you may be able to get something from nothing as a consequence of this not, as a personal opinion of whether you can or not.
I do not think this way it was you who suggested the first law might be invalid before the recombination period, it was your imagination.
Re me post 94- "What is certain is that something went into forming it. Nature is a continuous process, it doesn't pause so you can put something called t = 0 on it there isn't a stop start to it. Again that's logic not necessarily science." Your response -
I can't understand and why it is hard to make an argument, there are two simple choices;
1. there was some matter/energy and events before t = 0
2. there was nothing before t = 0
Since you can't have something from nothing, proves there was some matter energy and events before t = 0.
I acknowledge you've raised a good and interesting point about the thermal laws becoming a bit dodgy,, especially before before quark formation since heat relies on particles. However, I was mostly focusing on the first law. It seems a bit more resilient, as the energy part of the statement doesn't rely on particles it could be just the energy of force fields, and that the matter/energy can't be created or destroyed statement will still apply.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
How the 'Great Filter' could explain why we haven't found intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 28
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram