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?

[rod]

Interesting comments by IG2007 in post #174 and Cat on physical law in post #175. In inflation epoch, Alan Guth uses replusive gravity, something that GR allows, gravity as attractive or replusive. Do we see replusive gravity operating in the universe today? Example, Jupiter's Galilean moons, the Moon receding from Earth, binary star systems like Sirius A and B? Do we see inflation operating in the universe today? Inflation now features the physics used to describe the origin of the universe during the post-inflation period too (likely near 10^-20 second after BB event), even sub-Planckian physics and perhaps faster than the Planck time. All of this *natural* evolutionary process takes place long before the CMBR is said to form in an expanding universe, expanding at speeds >> c before the CMBR forms. Any object in the universe today with a redshift or z >= 1.4 is moving away faster than c velocity in expanding space - at its present location or comoving radial distance (something that cannot be observed). It seems in BB cosmology, some physical laws used like inflation epoch and post-inflation universe may not be operating in our solar system today, or other star systems observable in astronomy or in the observable universe. How many different laws are used like this I do not know.

 

[IG2007]

IG, my friend, I think you are being a little dogmatic there. Physical "laws" are all well and good, useful for as long as they remain un-disproven. I, too, am aware or the uses of generalisations which can be used to provide useful information.
However, remember Newton's laws and the arrival of Einstein.
For the moment, there are laws which have not yet been falsified, and we will continue to use them until the contrary obtains.

That does not mean that they may not, at some point, be falsified - in particular in the more distant reaches of the Universe.

Cat

Cat, when did I say that laws are not falsifiable? I just said how your logic doesn't really work in #157, and you didn't really reply to that. For the sake of the flow of the thread, I am quoting #157:

Cat, energy is merely a dance of higgs boson (I have a question, why not use poetry in Physics? ), and so is heat, and to zero down energy we need an infinite (impossible) amount of time.

I hope you agree with me that there is one fixed set of laws in the Universe which every particle in the Universe follows. Yes, we didn't yet get it, but that's what what I meant by "Physical Laws" in #174.

 

[IG2007]

In inflation epoch, Alan Guth uses replusive gravity, something that GR allows, gravity as attractive or replusive. Do we see replusive gravity operating in the universe today? Example, Jupiter's Galilean moons, the Moon receding from Earth, binary star systems like Sirius A and B? Do we see inflation operating in the universe today?

That's an interesting comment, rod. I knew that GR allows repulsion by gravity only due to the effects of negative mass/energy. (edit: Indeed, that is theoretical, but I thought that was the only way) And yes, I also knew all of those things that you stated, but I thought they are all results of Centripetal Force, are they really caused by General Relativity?

 

[rod]

IG2007, this report suggest we do see inflation operating in the universe or replusive gravity. A repulsive force in the Einstein theory, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/461/3/2929/2608669, 07-July-2016.
"Abstract The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detection of gravitational waves that take away 5 per cent of the total mass of two merging black holes points out on the importance of considering varying gravitational mass of a system in the framework of the Einstein general theory of relativity. We calculate the acceleration of a particle in the non-stationary field of a quasi-spherical system composed of a large number of objects emitting gravitational waves. It is shown that reduction of the gravitational mass of the system due to emitting gravitational waves leads to a repulsive gravitational force that diminishes with time but never disappears. This repulsive force may be related to the observed expansion of the Universe."

I do not if this is what Alan Guth is doing with replusive gravity expanding space >> c. The cosmological constant shows up in these calculations too. However the report I cite does say this. "5 CONCLUSIONS
We showed that a cosmic repulsive force can be explained in the classic general theory of relativity without additional hypotheses. The repulsive force originates from a metric with the varying gravitational mass of a system. The repulsive force occurs at some distances from the quasi-spherical system which depend on time lapsed from the beginning of the change of the mass. The repulsive force quickly decreases with radius but does not disappear. We hope that our theoretical prediction about decreasing acceleration of the Universe can be verified by observations. It is logical to suppose that the found mechanism of the repulsive force may be applied to a model of the expanding universe. This may imply that big bang and accelerated expansion of the Universe is not related to current processes in the Universe but to a relic repulsive gravitational force or to a configuration of space–time that originates in the previous cycle of the Universe when at the last stage of a collapse the intensive generation of gravitational waves resulted in sharp decrease of the gravitational mass of the Universe (and may be in avoiding a singularity). This process generated a powerful repulsive force that transformed big crunch into big bang. At the early stage of big bang the repulsive acceleration was extremely high (see the dropping branches of the curves 1 and 2 in Fig. 2). Because the repulsive acceleration decreases with time, the current Universe expands with lower acceleration (see the gently sloping parts of curve 3 in Fig. 2). In a more realistic model, the parameter α may also depend on time. The proposed metric with the varying gravitational mass of a system may be used for the development of a cosmological model that explains the current expansion of the Universe without assumptions of new fields and particles. Such a cosmological model may allow an explanation of the anisotropy of movement of galaxies discovered by Kashlinsky et al. (2008). The authors thank Alexander Kashlinsky, Sergei Kopeikin, Michail Ivanov, Igor Tkachev and a reviewer for helpful discussions and comments."

I note this statement. "This may imply that big bang and accelerated expansion of the Universe is not related to current processes in the Universe but to a relic repulsive gravitational force or to a configuration of space–time that originates in the previous cycle of the Universe when at the last stage of a collapse the intensive generation of gravitational waves resulted in sharp decrease of the gravitational mass of the Universe (and may be in avoiding a singularity)."

So, do we observe the BB physical law used today still operating in the universe? Some reports suggest *not related to current processes in the Universe*

How many different physical laws used in BB cosmology fall into this problem? I do not know. I may add here, https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...ergy-what-about-repulsive-gravity-in-the-infl

"Now, during the inflation phase, space expanded at a constant energy density, therefore energy appears to be magically created, potentially violating energy conservation..."

I see comments like this from time to time too suggesting the 1st Law is tossed out in cosmology.

 

[Catastrophe]

No, IG, sorry.
"I hope you agree with me that there is one fixed set of laws in the Universe which every particle in the Universe follows. Yes, we didn't yet get it, but that's what what I meant by "Physical Laws" in #174." My emphasis.

Are you saying there is this wonderful set of laws which every particle in the Universe follows, but that we haven't discovered them yet.

No, I would not subscribe to that, if, indeed, that is what you are suggesting.

I would consider it the utmost bravado if a newly arrived species of apes on some obscure planet claimed to have made the incredible discovery of laws governing the entire Universe - even if it took their ancestors lived for a million years.

My proposed ultimate refutation of that is that, imho, the human race will not survive long enough to get 1% of the way to such a wonderful (imaginary) discovery.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

Are you saying there is this wonderful set of laws which every particle in the Universe follows, but that we haven't discovered them yet.

No, I would not subscribe to that, if, indeed, that is what you are suggesting.

I would consider it the utmost bravado if a newly arrived species of apes on some obscure planet claimed to have made the incredible discovery of laws governing the entire Universe - even if it took their ancestors lived for a million years.

My proposed ultimate refutation of that is that, imho, the human race will not survive long enough to get 1% of the way to such a wonderful (imaginary) discovery.

Cat

Well, Cat, it is indeed what I meant to say. Even Stephen Hawking agrees with me, as he said in his Brief History of Time. There is ONE single set of laws, Cat, that every particle in the Universe follows obediently. The unbreakable set of laws.

And, you know, Cat, I have an optimistic nature. I do believe we will someday get to that discovery, maybe not in my lifetime, maybe not even in the next century, but, someday will come when our great search for the absolute set of laws of Physics will end.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, it is "chacun à son goût": you have your opinion and I have mine. Sadly, I do not share your optimism, as far as humanity is concerned. All I can say is that I hope you are right. All my best wishes for your optimism.

Cat

P.S. Tell Stephen Hawking that no one can know that, and he is at fault to suggest otherwise.

 

[rod]

Going back to my post #179, Here is a bit more on physical law in cosmology and is the law(s) and processes still operating in the universe today and observable.

Quantum Fluctuations in Cosmology and How They Lead to a Multiverse, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1312.7340G/abstract, December 2013 by Alan Guth.

The arXiv paper is very interesting reading. Here is something I note in the paper. "Thus, I think it is time to take the multiverse idea seriously, as a real possibility. The inhomogeneities that lead to eternal inflation are nothing more than the long-wavelength tail of the density perturbations that we see directly in the CMB."

Also there is in the paper, "2. Can sub-Planckian physics influence the calculation of inflationary density perturbations? A typical GUT-scale inflationary model would include about 60 e-folds of inflation, expanding by a factor of e^60 ≈ 10^26. From the end of inflation to today the universe would expand by another factor of ∼ 10^15 GeV/3K ≈ 10^27. This means that a distance scale of 1 m today corresponds to a length of only about 10^−53 m at the start of inflation, 18 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length (∼ 10^−35 m). With a little more than the minimal amount of inflation — which would be a certainty in the eternal inflation picture to be discussed below — even the largest scales of the visible universe would have been sub-Planckian at the start of inflation."

Inflation in BB cosmology uses physics going smaller than the Planck length or the physics is moving in that direction so *sub-Planckian* and I see many reports on this at the NASA ADS Abstract service. BB cosmology today solved by inflation also opens the multiverse. Alan Guth said in the paper near the end:

"VII. FLUCTUATIONS ON LARGER SCALES: ETERNAL INFLATION?...There is certainly no proof that we live in a multiverse, but I will argue that there are three winds — that is, three independent scientific developments, arising from three different branches of science — which seem to be leading to the multiverse picture. 1. Theoretical Cosmology: Eternal Inflation. As I just described, almost all inflationary models are eternal into the future. 2. String Theory: The Landscape. String theory predicts that there is not just one kind of vacuum, but instead there are a colossal number of them: 10^500 or maybe more [58, 59]. The underlying laws of physics would be the same everywhere, but nonetheless each type of vacuum would create an environment in which the low-energy laws of physics would be different. Thus, if there is a multiverse, it would be a varied multiverse, in which the different pocket universes would each appear to have their own laws of physics. 3. Observational Astronomy: the Cosmological Constant. The third “wind” has its roots in the fine-tuning that our universe appears to exhibit...The simplest explanation is that the acceleration is caused by a nonzero energy density of the vacuum, also known as a cosmological constant. But that would mean that the vacuum energy density is nonzero, yet a full 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck scale (M4P l, where MPl = 1/√G), the scale that most theoretical physicists would consider natural. Physicists have struggled to find a physical explanation for this small vacuum energy density, but no generally accepted solution has been found. But if the multiverse is real, the problem could go away."

My observation. Plenty to ponder about BB cosmology and how the Universe appeared as well as how we are here today

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod,
"...There is certainly no proof that we live in a multiverse, but I will argue that there are three winds — that is, three independent scientific developments, arising from three different branches of science — which seem to be leading to the multiverse picture."

Is any scientist going to say that these three winds prove anything?

No, I thought not. OK correct me if I am wrong

Cat

 

[rod]

Alan Guth in the paper I cited did say " From the end of inflation to today the universe would expand by another factor of ∼ 10^15 GeV/3K ≈ 10^27. This means that a distance scale of 1 m today corresponds to a length of only about 10^−53 m at the start of inflation, 18 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length (∼ 10^−35 m)."

That is something to ponder 10^-53 m and now the universe expanded to some 93 billion light years in diameter, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html, Five myths about the Big Bang 22-Mar-2021, "That which we call the observable universe is a bubble surrounding us that is 93 billion light-years in diameter."

Okay, everyone knows how small the universe was at the start and how big the universe is today So applying the scale where 1 meter today = 10^-53 m at the start, we have the universe begin ~ 8.8 x 10^-27 m size and expand to ~ 8.8 x 10^26 m size today in 13.8 billion years, ~ 4.352 x 10^17 seconds. Space expands >> c and continues on according to inflation, perhaps eternal inflation now with no end in sight .

 

[Catastrophe]

Alan Guth in the paper I cited did say " From the end of inflation to today the universe would expand by another factor of ∼ 10^15 GeV/3K ≈ 10^27. This means that a distance scale of 1 m today corresponds to a length of only about 10^−53 m at the start of inflation, 18 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length (∼ 10^−35 m)."

That is something to ponder 10^-53 m and now the universe expanded to some 93 billion light years in diameter, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html, Five myths about the Big Bang 22-Mar-2021, "That which we call the observable universe is a bubble surrounding us that is 93 billion light-years in diameter."

Okay, everyone knows how small the universe was at the start and how big the universe is today So applying the scale where 1 meter today = 10^-53 m at the start, we have the universe begin ~ 8.8 x 10^-27 m size and expand to ~ 8.8 x 10^26 m size today in 13.8 billion years, ~ 4.352 x 10^17 seconds. Space expands >> c and continues on according to inflation, perhaps eternal inflation now with no end in sight .

Errrr . . . . . . . . . was that a "no"?


Cat

 

[rod]

Cat, in your post #186, the answer must be yes to the multiverse and eternal inflation if you accept all these new physics (including the vacuum energy density changes) and 3D space size changes in the expanding universe as well as space expanding many multiples of c velocity. At least it seems that way to me. In terms of the three winds mentioned in your post #184, it remains to be seen where all this will lead in science. As for me, I do not think the case is *proven* for the multiverse and eternal inflation but others will disagree. I also struggle with such a starting point and ending at 93 billion light years across today and how the starting point and size today for the universe can be directly verified.

Cat, these are my musings about the verities of the cosmos

 

[Helio]

I’m stuck using only an iPhone and 1 bar if internet connection. But your earlier value of 110c average from start to CMBR makes sense as it gives us a radius half that of today. So would the avg. rate from the CMBR till now be ~ 2c?

 

[Helio]

AFAIK, there is no objective evidence for any other universe. Math is great but physics has greater requirements.

 

[rod]

I’m stuck using only an iPhone and 1 bar if internet connection. But your earlier value of 110c average from start to CMBR makes sense as it gives us a radius half that of today. So would the avg. rate from the CMBR till now be ~ 2c?

Helio, I did a quick average. Distance/time = velocity. The CMBR forms according to MS BING Search

"How big was the universe in 400000 years?
The 400000 years age is when the universe had expanded and cooled enough to become transparent - that is when the CMB photons started traveling towards us 13.7 billion years ago. At that time the universe was about 42 million light years in diameter. – FrankH Oct 22 '12 at 15:37"

Space expanded at least 42 million light years in 380,000 to 400,000 years after the BB event. I use the cosmology calculators and get similar values when z=1100 and H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc plugged in (angular size distance or diameter). So in BB model, the universe must expand very quickly to reach the size of some 42 million light years across in 380,000 years or so and then the CMBR is released to populate as space continues to expand. Wrong expansion rate(s) here and you can blow the explanation for the CMBR and where it came from Likewise the universe starting out some 8.8 x 10^-27 m in size and expanding to 8.8 x 10^26 meter size or 93 billion light years diameter today, that space is zipping right along ref my post #185.

 

[TimLong]

Simple Answer: There was no big bang required. A simple understanding of entropy is required, to apply to a 2-particle dipole photon known as the gauge boson. When energy decreases due to an almost immeasurably small re-radiation, the charge attraction is lessened enough to increase the rotational radius, and thus a corresponding decrease in frequency. Could this be the real cause of the background red shift, with the CMBR 'merely' relating to the local total interference average frequency?

 

[Atlan0001]

Helio, I did a quick average. Distance/time = velocity. The CMBR forms according to MS BING Search

"How big was the universe in 400000 years?
The 400000 years age is when the universe had expanded and cooled enough to become transparent - that is when the CMB photons started traveling towards us 13.7 billion years ago. At that time the universe was about 42 million light years in diameter. – FrankH Oct 22 '12 at 15:37"

Space expanded at least 42 million light years in 380,000 to 400,000 years after the BB event. I use the cosmology calculators and get similar values when z=1100 and H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc plugged in (angular size distance or diameter). So in BB model, the universe must expand very quickly to reach the size of some 42 million light years across in 380,000 years or so and then the CMBR is released to populate as space continues to expand. Wrong expansion rate(s) here and you can blow the explanation for the CMBR and where it came from Likewise the universe starting out some 8.8 x 10^-27 m in size and expanding to 8.8 x 10^26 meter size or 93 billion light years diameter today, that space is zipping right along ref my post #185.

Rod, is space uniformly flat smooth? Some astrophysicists say it is. If you think so to (you may not, I forget), then would an accelerating expansion be one into uniform flat smoothness? From uniform flat smoothness (or as some might see it, "nothing")? To uniform flat smoothness (or as some might see it, "nothing")?

Now I'm not talking about time. Time is finite, if it exists at all outside of Einstein's fourth dimension of space. I'm talking space as it is being observed to be, uniformly flat and smooth, thus in all probability infinite.

We can put things on that flat surface, we can build on it, construct on it, or in it almost to infinity. The universe already has, and we've already started. So I ask you: In your view as the astronomer you appear to be, and somewhat the astrophysicist, do you agree with the picture seen by some of your astronomer-physicist peers that [space] is uniformly flat smooth (and therefore is most likely infinitely flat and infinite in extent)?

Now I claim that anything that would be infinitely flat would be infinitely deep in planes within that infinite flatness, something like the Planck level horizon, or the Planck level horizon's other incarnation the Big Bang horizon that would be single-sided 2-dimensionality without any other side (according to so many of your peers). It would only be uniformly flat smooth "not relatively speaking" (the almost gyroscope-like line-point-plane reached where relativity would just spin its wheels and keep on spinning its wheels (that four-dimensionality of Einstein's took some re-'verse' engineering by Einstein to accomplish (read Kurt Godel on the geometry, especially the inherent geometric geometry, of Einsteinian Relativity)),

One more question, Rod? As you might see it existing, if you do, describe to me the probable breadth and depth of a "dimensionless point"? What size? Again, as you might see it existing, if existing, if you would? A "dimensionless point"?

 

[rod]

Atlant0101 in your post #192. "Rod, is space uniformly flat smooth? Some astrophysicists say it is. If you think so to (you may not, I forget), then would an accelerating expansion be one into uniform flat smoothness? From uniform flat smoothness (or as some might see it, "nothing")? To uniform flat smoothness (or as some might see it, "nothing")?"

My understanding according to Einstein GR, space is smooth and there is the flat universe model for expansion and the open universe model, see https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html If you use H0 and z values with defaults, flat vs. open provides some very different answers to expanding space including the age of the universe, the Hubble time. From what I understand about quantum mechanics and string theory, according to quantum gravity, space is a foam, not smooth.

"One more question, Rod? As you might see it existing, if you do, describe to me the probable breadth and depth of a "dimensionless point"? What size? Again, as you might see it existing, if existing, if you would? A "dimensionless point"?"

My answer is no, I cannot describe this . My enjoyment in astronomy is using my telescopes for observing like events at Jupiter involving the Galilean moons. When it comes to measurements in astronomy discussing expanding space, I look at observations documenting the recession rate of the Moon moving away from Earth today some 1.2 x 10^-7 cm/s or some 3.8 cm/yr and compare to space expansion metrics. The lunar rate of change is verified by total solar eclipse measurements (some going back 3,000 years), radar measurements, lunar laser ranging measurements. When I read about space expansion in the BB model and inflation featuring a universe starting at 8.8 x 10^-27 m and expanding to 8.8 x 10^26 m today, this causes me to raise my eyebrows a bit

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IG, if someone says the first law may not apply in some circumstances, I think you should read it, you can't get much more important than that

I'm puzzled by your fixation with Higgs bosons, both here and above I'm under the impression with my limited knowledge that quarks are the most fundamental particle also these were the first to be formed in the big bang. I think if you want to get more fundamental than that then you'll have to go to quantum fields or quantum fluctuations etc. I might be wrong but the Higgs boson just plays a minor role in providing mass to all the particles, it does not provide all the mass, there are other mechanisms which provide mass to particles, but I don't know anything about the details

Lepton universe. https://www.britannica.com/science/lepton

 

[Atlan0001]

Atlant0101 in your post #192. "Rod, is space uniformly flat smooth? Some astrophysicists say it is. If you think so to (you may not, I forget), then would an accelerating expansion be one into uniform flat smoothness? From uniform flat smoothness (or as some might see it, "nothing")? To uniform flat smoothness (or as some might see it, "nothing")?"

My understanding according to Einstein GR, space is smooth and there is the flat universe model for expansion and the open universe model, see https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html If you use H0 and z values with defaults, flat vs. open provides some very different answers to expanding space including the age of the universe, the Hubble time. From what I understand about quantum mechanics and string theory, according to quantum gravity, space is a foam, not smooth.

"One more question, Rod? As you might see it existing, if you do, describe to me the probable breadth and depth of a "dimensionless point"? What size? Again, as you might see it existing, if existing, if you would? A "dimensionless point"?"

My answer is no, I cannot describe this . My enjoyment in astronomy is using my telescopes for observing like events at Jupiter involving the Galilean moons. When it comes to measurements in astronomy discussing expanding space, I look at observations documenting the recession rate of the Moon moving away from Earth today some 1.2 x 10^-7 cm/s or some 3.8 cm/yr and compare to space expansion metrics. The lunar rate of change is verified by total solar eclipse measurements (some going back 3,000 years), radar measurements, lunar laser ranging measurements. When I read about space expansion in the BB model and inflation featuring a universe starting at 8.8 x 10^-27 m and expanding to 8.8 x 10^26 m today, this causes me to raise my eyebrows a bit

Well you at least tried to unravel -- 1-dimensional string strand by 1-dimensional string strand -- a Gordian Knot, though to me you in no way succeeded. Thanks much for answering and at least partly trying. I'm an Alexander type, cut, demolish and collapse it with a sword. To heck with trying to unravel its mess of ever increasingly complex underbrush that develops an ever increasing number of loose ends: loading "straw on a camel's back until the last least little straw breaks it" (its manmade dimensional mess of infinite complexity that will disappear into dimensionless point(s) anyway).

 

[Catastrophe]

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?

Remember the question? Well, I would suggest that these are non-questions.
The big bang (IF you believe BBT*) was itself the where and when. Easy.

Cat

*P.S. I differ in that I do not believe in a singularity and substitute a nexus leading back into a BH. A cyclic Universe.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

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?

Remember the question? Well, I would suggest that these are non-questions.
The big bang (IF you believe BBT*) was itself the where and when. Easy.

Cat

*P.S. I differ in that I do not believe in a singularity and substitute a nexus leading back into a BH. A cyclic Universe.

Yep we might not like the idea but just was or just is could be the answer.
Or it does have some straightforward mechanism for a BB.

Nature has no interest in having to be logical or bending to what we would like just because we like it.

Fun to try and always keep an open mind is my thought because we are all probably wrong.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, I have a quote for you, un mot juste:

"Enmity be between you! Too soon it is for alliance. Search along separate paths, for that is how truth comes to light."
Friedrich von Schiller.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I have another thought about (some of) the Galilean moons, Titan and Triton . . . maybe others.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but when we are talking sub-surface oceans warming up, are we not then dealing with "ocean worlds" with no land? Thus there would be no natural protection from radiation (after solar expansion)?

I know that 5 billion years is longer even than a 'month of Sundays', but this does seem to be a major difficulty with the outer moons. I fall back on my certain belief that H.s. will not last that long (by at least 4.999 billion years).

What are the chances of an H. superior? I mean intelligence-wise.
Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with G.R.A.P.E.S.

Cat

 

[SOURAV]

Steady State Theory