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

[Helio]

Y'all might enjoy this from Dan Hooper's (CERN) book ...

"...I am talking about a machine [collider] that collides 700 million protons together every second, adding up to around 10 quadrillion (1E16) pairs of protons to date....But this is tiny when compared to the number of collisions that occurred among particles in the early universe."

A trillionth of a second after the BB, "it will be only about 1E-30 sec or so, on average, before [an] electron interacts with another particle, potentially causing it to transform into another kind of particle. The new particle will then go on to collide and possibly transform again, only 1E-30sec. or so after that. At this rate, about 1E18 interactions take place per particle all within ...1E-12 sec.... [which is far] more than all of the collisions that have ever taken at the LHC put together."

He was emphasizing how it is plausible that new particles may have emerged and disappeared under those conditions, which we aren't able to adequately test.

 

[Catastrophe]

"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."

I didn't originate that. I was quoting billslugg More on the Big Bang #5.

 

[Catastrophe]

If I divide 5 by 0 (i.e. nothing) I get 5, not infinity. If I give you £5 or $5 and ask you to share it - but with no one - it doesn't go infinite.

The binary system is simply This or That not nothing

Dividing by 0 gives infiniity.

The easiest way to see this has already been stated.

Divide by something small, and you get a large answer.

Divide by something smaller still, and you get a larger answer.

Continue the process.

However, you do have a point. Technically, 0 is not a number.

Nevertheless, it is totally accepted that division by 0 gives infinity.

Divide by something impossibly small, and you get something impossibly large.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Divide by something impossibly small, and you get something impossibly large.

Yes quite. I have more than "just a point" I think. Your statement above says (in other words): Divide by something infinitely small and you get something infinitely large. It says 'infinitely small" not nothing. It is obvious - divide 5 by 0 and the answer is 5, not infinity - or more accurately the 5 has not been divided by anything at all.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, no! You missed out the trend.

Divide by something small, and you get a large answer.

Divide by something smaller still, and you get a larger answer.

Continue the process.

There is nothing illogical in continuing the process.

Leave the "unscientific" for a moment. Divide by the smallest real number you can think of.
What is the result? The largest real number you can think of?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense, no! You missed out the trend.

Ok Cat if you cannot see the difference between 'infinitely small" and zero there is no point continuing the discussion because this a question of fact not a debate about trends - but nevertheless interesting

 

[Catastrophe]

Fine. I have no time for semantic quibbles.

You call them what you will. That is fine by me.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

One infinity is infinite (including infinitesimal (an infinite)). Now we get down to the relativity we were NOT dealing in! Two or more infinities bumping, relatively speaking, will translate, transform, to two or more finites (aka, canceling to 0, leaving a finite (1) relative result). Everythingness! Nothingness! Somethingness! The infinity is -- the infinities are --canceled to zero, but all that means is that the infinity is put up on the shelf in the background as unusable for wanted and/or needed results. It never disintegrates or gets lost by being put in -- by being -- the background.

 

[COLGeek]

One infinity is infinite (including infinitesimal (an infinite)). Now we get down to the relativity we were NOT dealing in! Two or more infinities bumping, relatively speaking, will translate, transform, to two or more finites (aka, canceling to 0, leaving a finite (1) relative result). Everythingness! Nothingness! Somethingness! The infinity is -- the infinities are --canceled to zero, but all that means is that the infinity is put up on the shelf in the background as unusable for wanted and/or needed results. It never disintegrates or gets lost by being put in -- by being -- the background.

So, infinite infinities? Isn't that a single infinity? More than a little circular reasoning here from my attempt to follow the gist of your definitions. Am I missing something?

 

[Atlan0001]

The "Mandelbrot Set" speaks to multiple dimensionalities in a base2-dimensionality: 0 (0-d point to Cantor Set of points), 1 (1-d string and/or 'Cantor Set of points'), 2 (2-d Flatland / Sierpinski Carpet / Mandelbrot Set).

Flatland possesses all three dimensionalities , particularly 0 and/or 1, for the 2 to exist. Flatland turns out to be infinite in dimensionality, as the Mandelbrot Set points out! No matter how hard or counterintuitive it is to believe, its infinities of paralleling depths means an infinity of accelerating breadth (accelerating expansion) overall. Asymptotically, 0-point, in depth and breadth (smaller and ever smaller (depth); thus larger and ever larger (breadth)), will be approached, yet never, ever, reached! In other words, 'Flatland' can never get flat enough!

Just in case no one saw it, the 3-d "Menger Sponge" and 4-d "Tesseract" were in there, thanks to '0' (0-point singularity (0-point-portal's complexity and chaos (0-point disorder (division will have its portion if it has to rip it out of the gut "1/0" -- the G. U. T. -- of '1' ('unity' ))))!
(((+1) (-1)) = 1/0)

 

[Criz01]

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.


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:



Division by zero = infinity

Ask away if you have any questions on this.

Cat

A long time ago I read in a book that scientists believe time began when space began, but there’s something about this idea which confuses me. There must be something which causes the physical manifestation of our space dimension, and or makes it what it is. So one has to ask the question. Is the existence of time dependent upon the existence of space or is the existence of time dependent upon the existence of that which causes space?

 

[Catastrophe]

Our view of our "reality", including our view of "our" observable universe, depends totally on what our senses filter out from the miscellany of EM and other signals around us, and on what our brains make of this information.

If you look at my flatlander analogy, I am suggesting that superior understanding of dimensions (ability to process such input) - as evidenced by the D+ being - you will see that I suggest that such individual ability offers answers to some such questions.

To the Flatlander, it is "infinite" (having no boundary).
His "universe" is a spherical surface.

But to the D+ observer, the Flatlander's "universe" is easily perceived as bounded, and for D+ there could be any number of Flatlander "universes".

The Flatlander perceives expansion of his "universe" by noticing that distances on his sphere grow larger. He senses expansion, but does not know into "what?".
The D+ observer perceives expansion of Flatlander "universes" by noting the "radius" of the expanding Flatlander spherical surface "universe". This "radius" is incomprehensible to the Flatlander, but D+ can see any number of Flatlander "universes", whereas the Flatlander believes that he is alone.

This suggests that one's space and time depends on one's ability to sense dimensions, as well as the other factors listed above.

D+ observer represents a being able to perceive higher dimension(s) than a Flatlander, e.g., human beings.

Cat

Page 2 - Does the Future Already Exist?

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.

forums.space.com

Page 8 - Question - Cyclical Universe

Page 8 - 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

 

[Helio]

I keep thinking about what Newton faced. He admitted he had no idea of what constitutes gravity. But he did know its behavior, and presented powerful equations to model that behavior.

Einstein advanced views of gravity but we still lack a strong grip on time and its fusion, if any, to space.

Lemaitre, I’ve read, separated space from time in his theory, which gave us the BBT (1927).

He used homogeneity and a flat universe (Euclidean space) to do so. All evidence found since has justified this simpler approach.

Buf he wasn’t suggesting. to be clear, that space and time aren’t working together. Changing local gravity changes mass motions and also relative time.

 

[Atlan0001]

The book 'Flatland' (I read up on it on Wikipedia) makes bad mistakes. No Flatlander could observe 2-dimensionality since it takes 3-dimensionality, a 3-dimensional observer from a 3-dimensional universe, to observe 2-dimensionality.

The 2-dimensional being can only observe a 0-dimensional point and a potentially infinitely expansive/contractive 1-dimensional string. There is no possible direct observation of 2-d. If he or she or it is a real genius, they might logically project to the 2-dimensional universe -- circles as circles rather than 1-d strings, squares as squares, triangles as triangles, and so forth -- they live in and with. But, again, they can't possibly observe anything dimensional beyond string and 'Cantor set'-like 1-dimensionality.

Even a vibrating string, easily observable as such by a 3-dimensional creature, is no more than a Cantor set-like string constantly breaking apart and reattaching ends, renewing itself somehow for some unknown, possibly unknowable, reason that simply can't be observably, logically, accounted for by any Flatlander (themselves in fact 1-d observers in a 2-d universe).

 

[Gibsense]

The book 'Flatland' (I read up on it on Wikipedia) makes bad mistakes. No Flatlander could observe 2-dimensionality since it takes 3-dimensionality, a 3-dimensional observer from a 3-dimensional universe, to observe 2-dimensionality.

As I have not read the book I cannot comment about its mistakes however I can comment on the intended concept of flatland and the balloon analogy which have been around since I gave up Nappies. No one owns the idea or for that matter, has invented it, except to say that the mathematics developed by the likes of Riemann, Schlaifi, and Hermann Grassmann describe them. Even the ancient Greeks understood lines, plains and 3D objects. But, I am looking forward to reading the fiction Sphereland soon.
I first attended these forums with the expectation that I could discuss ideas about extending the balloon analogy to hyperspheres as a description of our universe. I am thankful that I could do this even though, as it turns out, my originality was a bit 'old hat'.

That said, a flatlander living on the surface of a sphere would not be able to detect the curvature except through the extraordinary use of mathematics. Because the Flatlander could move (explore the surface) they could appreciate 2 dimensions - they are even made of 2 dimensions! However, if we introduce the word 'understand' the comment might be correct even though they might conceive "Linelander".

 

[Atlan0001]

As I have not read the book I cannot comment about its mistakes however I can comment on the intended concept of flatland and the balloon analogy which have been around since I gave up Nappies. No one owns the idea or for that matter, has invented it, except to say that the mathematics developed by the likes of Riemann, Schlaifi, and Hermann Grassmann describe them. Even the ancient Greeks understood lines, plains and 3D objects. But, I am looking forward to reading the fiction Sphereland soon.
I first attended these forums with the expectation that I could discuss ideas about extending the balloon analogy to hyperspheres as a description of our universe. I am thankful that I could do this even though, as it turns out, my originality was a bit 'old hat'.

That said, a flatlander living on the surface of a sphere would not be able to detect the curvature except through the extraordinary use of mathematics. Because the Flatlander could move (explore the surface) they could appreciate 2 dimensions - they are even made of 2 dimensions! However, if we introduce the word 'understand' the comment might be correct even though they might conceive "Linelander".

You're missing it . . . missing the point! We 4-dimensional beings and the 2-dimensional Flatlander use the same 0-dimensional (point) and 1-dimensional (line) Horizon of the Universe (U)! Which is why we 4-dimensional beings also call the horizons of the universe (u) (the horizon universes (u)) Flatland flat! Look at any good illustration of a blackhole, or pancake norm of galaxy, or just about any illustration of solar system and equatorial bulge of planet, you see what I mean.

Which is all beside the point . . . the 0-dimensional point of a photon in the model microcosm; The hyper-spherical photon of "observable universe" in the macrocosm! One and the same photon!

 

[Gibsense]

We 4-dimensional beings and the 2-dimensional Flatlande

You want it both ways! to move anywhere a Flatlander would need time ie 2D +Time. We are 3D + Time.
You say we are 4D so in that case you are including Time as a Dimension. Therefore for the Flatlander we must include Time as a dimension and that would make them 3D. Agreed?

 

[Atlan0001]

You want it both ways! to move anywhere a Flatlander would need time ie 2D +Time. We are 3D + Time.
You say we are 4D so in that case you are including Time as a Dimension. Therefore for the Flatlander we must include Time as a dimension and that would make them 3D. Agreed?

No, I don't agree. Space has many more dimensions than three and time more dimensions, more complex and chaotic (including time reversal (SPACETIME's future histories (t=-1), the other equal but opposite of SPACETIME's past histories (t=+1)), than one!

I would be willing to bet that despite more than dozens of posts including external references on the subject, you probably haven't any idea of what I'm talking about simply because it is so simply multi-dimensional yet counterintuitive!

I'll lead in with one example of the complex and chaotic . . . and for the moment leave it!

The Andromeda galaxy at this instant in SPACETIME time has emitted a lot of light on its way to the Milky Way galaxy and Earth from over 2-billion x 6-trillion miles away ...! A past history (t=+1)! A future history (t=-1)! Try to work out that complexity, that chaos, that curvature and line straight geometry, of SPACETIME. I've described it several times in different ways (including use of the universe "traveler") hoping to be understood!

 

[Gibsense]

No, I don't agree. Space has more dimensions than three and time more dimensions, more complex and chaotic (including time reversal), than one!

ok you tell me how many

 

[Atlan0001]

ok you tell me how many

As many times as I have over the years, I don't intend to again at this time, thank you much! Also, I edited and added to #93!

 

[Atlan0001]

Above, I said "#94". I actually meant #93.