More on the Big Bang - what was before t = 0?

[Catastrophe]

Moved from an inappropriate location, with apologies!

Be careful about the Big Bang. It is completely against established science, such as the Law of Conservation of Matter (matter/energy), although who is to say that this applied at t = 0. This t = 0 should be distinguished from BBT (Big Bang Theory) which ceases to be science about a trillionth of a second short of t = 0. This is because science (Einstein) has equations involving division by zero which mathematics requires to be infinity.

https://forums.space.com/threads/go...rity-and-infinite-density-descriptions.66352/

My personal view is that BBT is ridiculous. I favour a cyclic Universe, of which there are several variant theories. Instead of the singularity (which is the centre of the scientific problem - requiring infinite temperature and density) there is a NON-infinite nexus, leading to another phase of the Universe. Critics say that there is a "philosophical" problem, in that there must have been a start somewhen.

But see 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

anomalies and the math behind the universe

Division by zero = infinity

Ask away if you have any questions on this.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Eddington and others in the 30’s liked the cyclic view. [Lemaitre favored a giant atom beginning due largely to the discovery of cosmic rays.]

I don’t think BBT would conflict with your view, though DE would need to fade away to allow contraction.

Many scientists say the conservation laws may not apply for non-closed systems.

 

[Helio]

My personal view is that BBT is ridiculous. I favour a cyclic Universe, of which there are several variant theories.

BBT is solid science, but it doesn’t include the t= 0 event.

BBT should be seen more like Darwin’s Origin of the Species since his theory was never about the origin of life.

Measurable Cyclical evidence seems to be very near zero. The law of entropy has also influenced some to reject endless cycles.

The confluence of independent evidence for BBT, as listed in the “Big Bang Bullet” thread, lists most of these. These demonstrate why it is so highly respected. Its prediction of the CMBR is what convinced almost all cosmologists of its validity. Einstein was a bit slow to the table, but Eddington and de Sitter convinced him Lemaitre’s model wasn’t as “abominable” as he first thought.

 

[newtons_laws]

If my understanding about BBT is correct it says that time in our Universe started at t=0, so there wasn't anything before t=0, it's as far back as you can go? It's a bit like someone moving Northwards on the Earth, when they reach the North Pole that's as far North as they can get and can't go further North.

 

[billslugg]

It is fair to say there simply was no time before t=0. Prior to 10^-43 second, the energy of each particle is sufficient to make it into a separate black hole. Black holes cannot communicate with each other. We have no physics to describe it.
It is also theorized that the creation of mass at t=0 is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational potential, thus conservation issues are solved.

 

[Helio]

If my understanding about BBT is correct it says that time in our Universe started at t=0,

That’s a common view, but it comes with a caveat— all the physics’ equations eventually turn to goo when approaching t=0. Scientific theories that embrace metaphysics no longer are deemed scientific ones, IMO.

 

[Catastrophe]

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

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

It follows:

Page 21 - From a drop of water....

Page 21 - 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.

forums.space.com

(Post #521)

 

[Gibsense]

Moved from an inappropriate location, with apologies!

Be careful about the Big Bang. It is completely against established science, such as the Law of Conservation of Matter (matter/energy), although who is to say that this applied at t = 0. This t = 0 should be distinguished from BBT (Big Bang

Cat

If time is a process rather than a dimension then there can be alternative additional processes. That means cause and effect could include a transition to and past t=0

 

[Catastrophe]

This is just the sort of area where I have problems originating in "the map is not the territory". How exactly might one understand "process rather than a dimension" in this context.

Not specifically just here, but, in general, some might say "I know exactly what that means" omitting the words to me, whereas others might say "What on Earth does that mean", when neither group might have the same understanding as the other of the actual words.

The following begins from "a drop of water" thread (starting after the first paragraph which is a quotation from elsewhere.

My position starts from the fact that our entire thinking and communication is wholly dependant on the "information" of whatever quality or validity provided by our senses, and then filtered through our identification of language. The map is not the territory = the menu is not the meal = the verbal description is not the reality.

The map (understanding) in our heads is certainly not "the same" as the territory (reality). And . . . . . . we all have different heads.

Page 19 - From a drop of water....

Page 19 - 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.

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

BBT is solid science, but it doesn’t include the t= 0 event.

BBT should be seen more like Darwin’s Origin of the Species since his theory was never about the origin of life.

Measurable Cyclical evidence seems to be very near zero. The law of entropy has also influenced some to reject endless cycles.

The confluence of independent evidence for BBT, as listed in the “Big Bang Bullet” thread, lists most of these. These demonstrate why it is so highly respected. Its prediction of the CMBR is what convinced almost all cosmologists of its validity. Einstein was a bit slow to the table, but Eddington and de Sitter convinced him Lemaitre’s model wasn’t as “abominable” as he first thought.

Helio,
"BBT is solid science, but it doesn’t include the t= 0 event."
You are correct about the t = 0 event.

However, I draw your attention to post #7:

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

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio,
"BBT is solid science, but it doesn’t include the t= 0 event."
You are correct about the t = 0 event.

However, I draw your attention to post #7:



Cat

Yes. Just as abiogenesis was a complete unknown to Darwin, not too dissimilar to today, so too is science in addressing physics, say, t<1E-12sec. Darwin’s model is one of processes starting from a given (initial condition) species to changes that produces new varieties until, eventually, a new species emerges. This evolution took many millions of years, of course.

We see “evolution” in the universe if our “initial condition” is today and we rewind the clock and note the many changes in accord with modern physics.

But if we start at t=0, then, like abiogenesis (even worse), we are dead in the water. BBT is a viable model that avoids this “dead” zone.

 

[Atlan0001]

Hmmm!

James Webb Space Telescope suggests supermassive black holes grew from heavy cosmic 'seeds

The mystery of how early universe supermassive black holes grew so quickly may be solved, with the James Webb Space Telescope finding the first evidence of "heavy seeds." James Webb Space Telescope suggests supermassive black holes grew from heavy cosmic 'seeds : Read more

forums.space.com

(post #25)

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, since no one was there around t = 0 and shortly after, these (very) high temperatures can only be the result of mathematical calculations, based on assumptions.

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

naive - showing a lack of experience, judgment.
There was no experience near t = 0, nor anyone there to judge.
Surely nothing but assumption, assumption, assumption.

To what extent is BBT based on these assumed high temperatures?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Please forgive repetition, in the interests of convenience.

Of course, the Drake Equation covers this, the relevant conditions being:
1 fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence
2 fraction of intelligent civilizations that develop communication
3 mean length of time that civilizations can communicate

The distance of any such civilisations determines how long before their signals reach us, and 3 then determines over what period the signals persist.
This assumes the signals are broadcast 100% of the length of their civilisations. It is also assumed that their signals would be intelligible to us.
Expansion of the Universe might mean that the signals do not have time to reach us.

All in all, also bearing in mind the short time we have had radio etc., it is not at all surprising that we have not recognised any such signals. That is even if such hypothetical civilisations broadcast them in our direction - or were even able to, if such collisions did not destroy them.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Helio, since no one was there around t = 0 and shortly after, these (very) high temperatures can only be the result of mathematical calculations, based on assumptions.



naive - showing a lack of experience, judgment.
There was no experience near t = 0, nor anyone there to judge.
Surely nothing but assumption, assumption, assumption.

To what extent is BBT based on these assumed high temperatures?

Cat

You couldn't be more wrong on the presumption of "t=0", Cat. It is the quantum entangling universally concurrent timeless REALTIME, spontaneous and instantaneous NOW! Both Einstein and Hawking alluded to it, as I have many times, many places. I wrote elsewhere, "Analogous to Tolkien's, "One ring to rule them all!" --:

James Webb Space Telescope suggests supermassive black holes grew from heavy cosmic 'seeds

The mystery of how early universe supermassive black holes grew so quickly may be solved, with the James Webb Space Telescope finding the first evidence of "heavy seeds." James Webb Space Telescope suggests supermassive black holes grew from heavy cosmic 'seeds : Read more

forums.space.com

** ("Verse" (Latin: "versus") means "turn" : to turn : in turn : re-turn : Endless, timeless, constant of turning, changing, as the clock endlessly turns (the eternal constant of change that is motion, ergo 'entropy', ergo "time," is in fact a final 'superposition' result in no change, no entropy, no time, at all . . . timelessly constant)!) I will translate it in paraphrase to deepen that Tolkien analogue with my own, "One containing ring to ROUND them all!" **

"The eternal constant of change that is motion, ergo 'entropy' , ergo "time," is in fact a final 'superposition' result in no change, no entropy, no time, at all . . . timelessly constant!"

 

[billslugg]

We can "play back" the tape of the expansion of the universe, apply the formulas as it gets denser and denser and calculate a density and temperature. Unfortunately at 10^-43 second, the temperature is so great that each tiny particle is its own black hole and, as we know, black holes cannot exchange information. We are stuck there. Any suggestions are appreciated.

 

[Atlan0001]

We can "play back" the tape of the expansion of the universe, apply the formulas as it gets denser and denser and calculate a density and temperature. Unfortunately at 10^-43 second, the temperature is so great that each tiny particle is its own black hole and, as we know, black holes cannot exchange information. We are stuck there. Any suggestions are appreciated.

That density, that void, that 'Abyss', goes on to an indeterminate infinity of density, of void, of 'Abyss', but relatively speaking, that becomes a treadmill running to "nothingness," to "nowhere", to "no-place" (Gk,: u-topos ; Englais : utopia: Latin: nusquama). A 'Relativity' collapsing, to a collapsed, cosmological constant of Planck / Big Bang 'Mirror Horizon' ....

Big Bang = the constant out there.
Planck = the constant inside us (inside our own quantum makeup).
Two faces of one and the same CONSTANT!

 

[Atlan0001]

As Stephen Hawking wrote in his book 'A Brief History of Time'; to concerned physicists, what's to worry?! It has always been there ('0'). To mean, has always been there ('0'), is there ('0'), will always be there ('0'). The time on THE "Clock" hanging over his "Grand Central Station" of Universe (U) through and under which all pass (including all times pass).

 

[Helio]

We can "play back" the tape of the expansion of the universe, apply the formulas as it gets denser and denser and calculate a density and temperature.

Yes, BBT must predict what happens.

The first find was from Gamow and Alpher who demonstrated that only H and He nuclei had time and temp. to form. Although their work was scrutinized then accepted, it was no big prediction since astronomers already had found this.

Unfortunately at 10^-43 second, the temperature is so great that each tiny particle is its own black hole and, as we know, black holes cannot exchange information. We are stuck there. Any suggestions are appreciated.

I think some would argue that homogeneity and expansion, especially Inflation, would prevent BH concentrations, but this is far beyond my knowledge.

 

[billslugg]

I have three possible reasons for the universe not immediately becoming a Black Hole:
- The universe was too uniform. No nuclei. BH would not know where to form.
- Too much heat energy to allow gravity to overcome it.
- Inflation outran any Black Holes

 

[Atlan0001]

I have three possible reasons for the universe not immediately becoming a Black Hole:
- The universe was too uniform. No nuclei. BH would not know where to form.
- Too much heat energy to allow gravity to overcome it.
- Inflation outran any Black Holes

I deleted my post, just in case it you had read it first. Deleted it because I missed or mistook your last line. Acceleration, speeding up, fractal zoom, direction and magnitude, zeroes gravity (Newton's apple faced observable inflation of the system, accelerating expansion in opening of the system) on the way to a ground quantum barrier . . . gravity's waving zeroes gravity, yet is equally but oppositely -- in the 'wake' of gravity's waves -- integral to a strong force.

Asymptote:

Definition of ASYMPTOTE

a straight line associated with a curve such that as a point moves along an infinite branch of the curve the distance from the point to the line approaches zero and the slope of the curve at the point approaches the slope of the line… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[billslugg]

My bots read your post but held off on commenting, suspecting a fly in the ointment. It's a good thing. I will reward them with an extra plate of fried electrons for dinner.

 

[Atlan0001]

My bots read your post but held off on commenting, suspecting a fly in the ointment. It's a good thing. I will reward them with an extra plate of fried electrons for dinner.

Did you read what I wrote after deleting? And after my edits? What I still forgot to add is the accelerating shrinking of space between point A and point B in the zeroing.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, I read your edits. Your point about acelleration cancelling gravity is right on.