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

Page 2 - 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.

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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, 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.
 
Last edited:
(+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."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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 :)
 
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).
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Ditto.

Is infinity in the real world?


Explanimator: Does infinity exist in the real world? | New ...


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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and Atlan0001

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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.


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

Specifically!

And:

More generally (post #511-#513)...!
 
Last edited:
Ditto.

Is infinity in the real world?


Explanimator: Does infinity exist in the real world? | New ...


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."