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

[Catastrophe]

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.

Helio, I am not altogether happy about the way in which one "rewinds the clock". This includes unknowns (mathematics based on assumptions).
I have also asked for, but not received, explanations of the assumed incredibly high temperatures and densities near t = 0, some even including the completely unscientific word "infinite".

Would you include this in BBT?

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, I am not altogether happy about the way in which one "rewinds the clock". This includes unknowns (mathematics based on assumptions).
I have also asked for, but not received, explanations of the assumed incredibly high temperatures and densities near t = 0, some even including the completely unscientific word "infinite".

Would you include this in BBT?

Cat

I feel sound science must be objective-based. CERN is limited to the temperatures expected at around t=1E-12 sec. What they have found greatly supports the Hot Big Bang model, which Gamow originally argued ~ 80 years ago. Lemaitre saw the earliest moment differently, but both were hypotheses. [Radioactive decay was a new discovery and Lemaitre thought a “Primeval atom”(nucleous) might decay to produce our Universe.]

Hypotheses make predictions. Gamow and Alpher,as noted earlier, discovered (physics modeling) that only H & He nuclei could form, which is what astronomers had already discovered but could not explain.

They knew they were onto something, but their peers were engrossed in the Manhattan project, so they were mostly ignored.

Alpher and Hermann continued and realized that the expansion would produce a cooled temp. of ~3,000K when atoms would clear the skies. Using the improved expansion rate (Sandage), they estimated the 3,000K would be today roughly 5K. But by 1953, they gave up due to lack of support. [Microwave tech. was still too limited.]

Notice how BBT begins its grand path to mainstream, and without the need for a t=0 equation, nor infinity. Both are superfluous, just as abiogenesis is for evolution theory.

 

[Atlan0001]

(+1, -1) to an indeterminate infinity of horizons (of horizon universes) is never superfluous. Neither is the singularly superposition set of 'Horizon'. Chaos's eternal "fractal zooms" tandem in timelessly permanent set harness of "smooth" and "coarse grain chunky."

 

[Helio]

When wild suppositions addressing metaphysics move into the scientific realm of objectivity and they make predictions, then they will no longer be superfluous.

All ideas are likely born in the subjective realm so you have a point, but it’s surprising to see so much attention on that which is not testable nor objective. BBT is being contorted unfairly; being shoved into the unknown just to make it look silly, perhaps.

 

[Atlan0001]

A "once upon a time" Big Crunch/Big Bang is story book "magic" and "fable." Prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt! Presenting certain physics of the cosmos at large as proof positive beyond all shadow doubt is pure arrogance and stupidity. It is being presented in writing and spoken speech as if it is scientifically proven fact that goes without saying and better not be disputed (all opposition disputing it to be automatically dismissed as the garbage ramblings of morons)!

I, for one, don't and won't throw away the Big Crunch/Big Bang . . . in permanent 'superposition' Horizon. I throw away the "once upon a time" Creation event and/or the 1-dimensional ever-following line-string of them.

 

[Helio]

There’s no good reason to toss ideas that are at least somewhat reasonable. “Absence of (objective) evidence is not evidence of absence.”

This is especially true when the t=0 events stir the imagination.

My point is to separate the science of today (BBT) from metaphysics and pseudoscience, or much worse. Of course, tomorrow is not today.

 

[Atlan0001]

Helio, I am not altogether happy about the way in which one "rewinds the clock". This includes unknowns (mathematics based on assumptions).
I have also asked for, but not received, explanations of the assumed incredibly high temperatures and densities near t = 0, some even including the completely unscientific word "infinite".

Would you include this in BBT?

Cat

Cat, the word and idea of "infinite" is only "completely unscientific" to you and to just a few others! The more books and articles I read on cosmology and physics, the more I find it. Of course it doesn't apply to heat because of heat's, as well as cold's, breakdown of systems. But the ultimate of heat, and cold, are ultimately 'asymptotic' (never to be really reached), as is speed when it comes to approaches to the speed of light (only at a distance; only relatively speaking, including inside the Large Hadron Collider) will speed ever approach the speed of light closer than '0' rest . . . closer than 300,000kps from it).

An "asymptote" is an "infinite finite."

 

[Catastrophe]

What I meant by this (infinity) is that it is only a mathematical concept.

If you divide any number by zero, you get infinity, which is meaningless in science.

I read that any result in physics which gives infinity as a solution comes from an unreal equation (one which does not relate to reality).
In other words, it is asking an incorrect question.

I will try to find the source.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

This is interesting, but not the one I am looking for.

Explanimator: Does infinity exist in the real world?

Our latest big ideas animation delves into the concept of infinity and whether it can be applied to physical reality

www.newscientist.com

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

What I meant by this (infinity) is that it is only a mathematical concept.

If you divide any number by zero, you get infinity, which is meaningless in science.

I read that any result in physics which gives infinity as a solution comes from an unreal equation (one which does not relate to reality).
In other words, it is asking an incorrect question.

I will try to find the source.

Cat

When you divide any number by zero you've mirrored (+n | -n) that number for a result in a mirror zero (+1 |0| -1), not infinitized it. I'm not really playing around in division by decimal math '0', I'm playing around in division by physics' '0'. I'm an "intuitive visual mathematician," I've been told and tested a few times in my life, not your standard "mathematician" as such much above the average, if at all. Computers was my career specialty and I was very good working with them, along with being very good at problem solving in general throughout two careers before burning out and retiring . . . Burning out from tangling in the politics (the higher I rose the more political I had to be and political just wasn't me).

 

[Catastrophe]

Ditto.

Is infinity in the real world?

Is anything infinite in the physical world? Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result. Even in maths, the idea that something could have no limit is paradoxical.

 

[Catastrophe]

In the equations that describe the shock wave formation some quantities may become infinite. But when this happens you usually assume that it's just a failure of your model.

Does infinity exist?

John Barrow gives us an overview, from Aristotle's ideas to Cantor's never-ending tower of mathematical infinities, and from shock waves to black holes.

plus.maths.org

Physical infinities​

So infinities in modern physics have become separate from the study of infinities in mathematics. One area in physics where infinities are sometimes predicted to arise is aerodynamics or fluid mechanics. For example, you might have a wave becoming very, very steep and non-linear and then forming a shock. In the equations that describe the shock wave formation some quantities may become infinite. But when this happens you usually assume that it's just a failure of your model. You might have neglected to take account of friction or viscosity and once you include that into your equations the velocity gradient becomes finite — it might still be very steep, but the viscosity smoothes over the infinity in reality. In most areas of science, if you see an infinity, you assume that it's down to an inaccuracy or incompleteness of your model.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

No more, Cat. I think you know infinity will never be local-relative. You replace infinity with a "potential for infinity" in some finite. Infinities begin at the frontier; at the outside most, therefore inside most, too, borders of finite quantity and quality.

Nice try and nice work, though.

 

[Atlan0001]

Cat pinned the trojan of fundamental binary base2 ('0' (null unity (+1 |0| -1)) and/or '*1*' (unity)) at, being, "infinity."

‘Entropy Bagels’ and Other Complex Structures Emerge From Simple Rules | Quanta Magazine

Simple rules in simple settings continue to puzzle mathematicians, even as they devise intricate tools to analyze them.

www.quantamagazine.org

Specifically!

And:

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

More generally (post #511-#513)...!

 

[Atlan0001]

Ditto.

Is infinity in the real world?

Is anything infinite in the physical world? Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result. Even in maths, the idea that something could have no limit is paradoxical.

Taking to the next in order 'Final Frontier of SPACE', from scratch, is always the performance of the "experiment that yields an infinite result."

 

[Harry Costas]

You must know
When I'm right you're wrong
When I'm wrong you are right.

That is scientifically proven wrong.

 

[Atlan0001]

Nothing came, nothing comes, before spontaneous entangling concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) (eternal) instant!
Therefore, everything came, everything comes, before future's leading edge instant eternal of t=0.

"Frontier" always speaks to the existence of the edge of infinity, speaking, also, to the potential infinity of mind of a edge frontier species. It is silent to the shrunken and shrinking declinest mind that is [utopian deathly] blind to it, always dismissing the edge frontier of infinity, thus expansionist frontiers, period, as nonexistent.

 

[Harry Costas]

Atlan you are assuming that the BBT is correct.

When you have Billions of galaxies.

The BB fails to explain the formation in 13.8 billion years.

T=0 assumes the BB did occur

 

[Atlan0001]

Atlan you are assuming that the BBT is correct.

When you have Billions of galaxies.

The BB fails to explain the formation in 13.8 billion years.

T=0 assumes the BB did occur

You still don't get it, Harry. The infinities of galaxies, verses, universes, atoms, lifeforms, spaces, times, what-have-you, close up in the book of collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BC) (BB) 'Mirror Event Horizon' . . . closing up in (tree trunk-of-(roots/paths) branching-tree (Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe)) superposition thus keeping all the intrinsically constituent infinities in place. They disappear (cancel out), it disappears (cancels out). The seed is in the tree. The tree is in the seed. Both come, and neither comes, first.

The super-positioned in Horizon Planck (BC) (BB) is correct to my satisfaction. The linear [once-upon-a-magical-time] BBT is NOT correct in my realization of how microcosmic / macrocosmic superpositioning works!

t=0 (NOT "T=0") "assumes the BB" is always occurring! Eternally occurring!

 

[promytius]

I'd like to understand a little better about this t=0; who gets to decide when time "starts"? I'd like to hear perspectives on how time could not exist, and then start? "Time" is a measurement, so I don't follow this unclear use of time. Should we be using Space-time instead? To say time had a start, is like saying there's nothing shorter than the left edge of the ruler. Each is a measurement, inch, second. In that regard, time only has a start and an end for a local measurement. Time will not end, and so it also never started. It's not a thing; like an inch is not a thing. Time is a human concept, we know everything in the universe seems to validate, because everything vibrates, everything can be measured in vibrational frequency, therefore: time.
So I'm baffled by the notion of t=0. Thanks.
( I also don't accept the BB as a primordial event, it's a local cycle only, in an infinite space-time.)

 

[Atlan0001]

t=0 is spontaneous REALTIME NOW, universally! Impossible to observe at a distance (past-future histories SPACETIME), any distance (past-future histories SPACETIME), thanks to the constant of the speed of light, 'c' and measuring c=1 (unity)! You didn't know that time always begins now (t=0), universally, instantaneously spontaneously now (t=0), did you? You didn't know you are on the leading edge starting line, head to head, neck and neck, constant with the speed of light constant, 'c', regardless of your velocity or lack of one . . . regardless of your position or lack of one?

 

[Catastrophe]

promytius

As you will have gathered, there are several different understandings of "t = 0".
For that reason, I write "t = 0". I can only comment on my understanding.

There is an idea that one can retrace time back to the BB.
I am not sure that this is valid, if followed too pedantically.

Anyway, it is the case that as we begin (going back in time) to approach the BB, then the Laws of Physics begin to break down. This is because equations involved begin to require division by a smaller and smaller number. Of course, division by zero gives "infinity", which is not meaningful in the real world. There is no such thing as infinite density or infinite temperature.

As an example, infinite density would require infinite mass in zero volume.
Some might say that this describes the BB.

So, to avoid this problem "t = 0" is used to avoid taking going retrograde in time to the limit where physics breaks down. We separate this from the BB itself by a very tiny fraction of a second.

So "t = 0" actually refers to the bit we don't understand. It is only the point we reach if we keep on turning back the clock. Some may say that the whole idea is suspect.
"t = 0" has a slight disconnect with reality (since it results from division by zero) so it should not be assumed to be the beginning of time. For example, some consider that the "universe" might be cyclic, so "t = 0" then represents a nexus - a condition of change from one phase to another.

"t = 0" is not adequately supported by science, which it why it is open to different interpretations. At present, I support the above scenario, because it seems to me to be the most likely. You can just make up your own mind. I am happy to try to answer any questions.

Cat

Note: BBT, standing for Big Bang Theory, can be used to describe what happened after that tiny fraction of a second. In this case it may be assumed to be, at least, free from the difficulties arising from division by zero.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory is our best guess about how the universe began.

www.space.com

 

[Atlan0001]

promyteus,
REALTIME NOW t=0 is NOT backward in time. It is two to an infinity of points existing invisibly, un-observably, laterally concurrent in SPACE. It doesn't exist, time-wise, in light's hologram-holographical coordinate points past-future histories SPACETIME (p(t=+1) f(t=-1)). It is the universally timeless spontaneous emission point of past-future histories. The trunk point of the tree, the center point of universe (u), the branches and, redundantly, the roots are always extending and growing from (to the superposition "collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BC) (BB) 'Mirror Event Horizon'") . . . always exchanging information and high and low energies with.

 

[promytius]

Atlan, I cannot make any sense or logic out of your words, sorry. You say "It doesn't exist, time-wise, in light's hologram-holographical coordinate points past-future histories SPACETIME (p(t=+1) f(t=-1))."
"It" is "REALTIME NOW t=0". You can't use a word in defining it, specifically, "time". Simplified, you say "Time does not exist, time-wise."
I cannot make sense of that.
Cat, that was very helpful. There's so much to think about here still. I'm just going to mull for now.
Thanks for your comments.
(and a small correction, my Screen name is Promytius, not Prometeus, thanks. Prometheus was the fire thief; never heard of Prometeus, but it's an OK name)

 

[Atlan0001]

promyteus, you don't understand that timelessness (REALTIME NOW (t=0)) doesn't exist time-wise?! That Creation's instantaneous spontaneity births time . . . time as in "light's coordinate points past-future histories SPACETIME ((p(t=+1) (f(t=-1))."

Also, that a non-magical Creation super-positional "collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BC) (BB) 'Mirror Event Horizon'" is outside time . . . time as in "light's coordinate points past-future histories SPACETIME ((p(t=+1) (f(t=-1))!"

Add to the above:

Page 32 - From a drop of water....

Page 32 - 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

promytheus, you've, apparently, ignored, or not understood, all my many references to Hawking's illustrative "Grand Central Station of the Universe (U)" with its very special clock overhanging the dead center of the Station (under which every object of the universe will pass), having just one hand and just one time it eternally points to, midnight/morn (t=0)! Exactly the same time (t=0) Einstein found when he made his famous "mind's eye" trip to the speed of light (c=1 | t=0)!

And with some possible slight modification, my interpretation in my picturing . . . my modeling!