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

[Atlan0001]

Ad #100:

And all share and will share "the closed up superposition collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BC) (BB) 'Mirror Event Horizon' of an infinity of horizon universes (the Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U))"!

 

[Fest3er]

I think a Big Bounce makes a lot of sense except for the universe is now accelerating its expansion. So how does a contraction occur?

Perhaps an accelerating expansion is an illusion caused because the measurement reference points for the faster expansion are in the far distant past. What we see in the furthest reaches, that appear to expand faster, are also further back in time.

 

[Fest3er]

"The perfect ending is endless beginning." -- Atlan0001.

And, at this very moment of time, this very instant, somewhere in this universe, even probably somewhere in this galaxy, there is a time, an Age, of Dinosaurs, and somewhere else a birth occurring of a star similar to Sol, and later a world to orbit it similar to the Earth. Time is always beginning. The universe(s) constantly in recreation . . . infinitely many offsetting recreations.

if you mark T = 0 as the Big Bang, you may (or may not) just be picking another arbitrary reference point on a much longer timeline. A Big Bang may be what follows a Big Crunch, in a repeating cycle.

 

[Gibsense]

T= -1 is marking an event that happens before another event. It’s on a timeline where zero is arbitrarily placed. Analogous to counting years from the birth of Christ. It is not a true T = 0, where time begins.

The universe seems to exist as 'now'. There is a before and after but not in the 'now' universe. I think Atlan has been known for making this argument ( which I agree with). So T=0 is the reality of this universe. I think the point has more meaning than just words. Maybe wine would be better.

The mystery is what it is that causes an instant to move on to cause another (linked) instant in a series that we call time and cause and effect so that we can label another instant t=1.

Maybe it is the Big Bang. To go to past instances we need a Big Suck - a black hole? I must stop drinking and posting - apologies to all

 

[Greenlight]

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

can there be less than a planck second?

does T= 0 exist?

 

[Catastrophe]

There is even more to it than that.

Is Division by Zero Possible in Physics?

In mathematics, this operation is undefined. But what about in physics? Are there any special rules associated with division by zero?

www.physicsforums.com

"In physics, it can indicate mistakes in algebra, incorrect assumptions, or flawed theories."

Maybe better is:

"In physics, it indicates mistakes in algebra, incorrect assumptions, or flawed theories, or other errors."

I.E., Division by zero indicates that suggestions requiring such are erroneous.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

There is even more to it than that.



"In physics, it can indicate mistakes in algebra, incorrect assumptions, or flawed theories."

Maybe better is:

"In physics, it indicates mistakes in algebra, incorrect assumptions, or flawed theories, or other errors."

I.E., Division by zero indicates that suggestions requiring such are erroneous.

Cat

Depends upon the system of numbers and what physicality you are using '1' and/or '0' representatively for! I, for one, don't think 1-dimensionally decimal, or even 2-dimensionally if I can help it. But there are those who can't do otherwise.

I don't think matter | antimatter is a mistake.
I don't think time | time reversal is a mistake.
I don't think the principle of equal but opposite is a mistake.
I don't think infinity is a meta-physical fallacy and a mistake.
....
I don't think thinking counterintuitively is ever a mistake.

Someone's impossibilities is ever someone else's possibilities!
----------------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Fest3er]

can there be less than a planck second?

does T= 0 exist?

looking backwards in time, as you approach T = 0, the probability that something (anything) can happen approaches infinity. In other words, the Big Bang (or something) almost certainly would happen. A state of complete nothingness is inherently unstable without time.

 

[Fest3er]

can there be less than a planck second?

does T= 0 exist?

In thinking about this further … if T = 0 is the beginning of time (rather than an arbitrary point on a longer timeline), then nothing exists. You can’t have division by 0, since there is nothing to divide. Mathematics would have no meaning. There are no laws of physics. But since time did in fact start, something came from nothing.

 

[Atlan0001]

Time begins NOW (t=0)! There is no substance, no matter, no energy, to a split-second ago. That door closes.

There might be, though, to a split second from REALTIME NOW (t=0)! That door opens.

Time reversal is to constancy of physics, the constancy of the cosmopolis . . . to keeping constancy of physics always, set and reset. Hawking termed them the several differing "zones," zones eternally sustained and maintained. One he named, the "life zone." Constant "planes" all of them for being all of them present and accounted for, constant!

 

[Catastrophe]

Posting entirely personally, I do not see a lot of physics around here at present - but plenty of personal opinions and guesswork.

I suppose everyone just filters these through their own personal opinions.

Bearing in mind that baryonic matter is less than 5% of what there might be, I don't see much justification for much guesswork.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Division by zero is not a valid operation.

Standard mathematics does not equate division by zero as equivalent to infinity.

X/0 = absolutely nothing at all; not infinity. Invalid!



Wikipedia: "The usual definition of the Quotient in elementary arithmetic is the number which yields the dividend when multiplied by the divisor. That is, c=ab is equivalent to c⋅b=a. By this definition, the quotient q=a0 is nonsensical, as the product q⋅0 is always 0 rather than some other number a. Following the ordinary rules of algebra while allowing division by zero can create a mathematical fallacy, a subtle mistake leading to absurd results. To prevent this, the arithmetic of real numbers and more general numerical structures called fields leaves division by zero undefined, and situations where division by zero might occur must be treated with care."

Also " Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 00 is also undefined"




Nevertheless division of a number by increasingly smaller numbers illustrates a tendency to larger and larger results that is as a tendency to infinity. This suggests that if you take smaller and smaller bites of an apple you can eat it forever. This is of course possible except that you come up against a plank number quicker than you might expect! It just means that something is iffy - check it!



Similarly, if you have nothing and divide it by something do not expect a valid result. However, 2-2=0, 2=2, 2/0 supposedly =infinity therefore infinity = 2 NOT valid!


So anyway I understand why Cat says what he does but how does this apply to his argument


So anyway I understand why Cat says what he does but how does this apply to his argument stated?

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense,

So anyway I understand why Cat says what he does but how does this apply to his argument stated?

Sorry. I don't understand that.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Cat says:
"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."

So, per my comments above, the introduction of infinity as an argument is invalid. But nevertheless, there is a tendency. To reconcile this without the ridiculousness referred to by Cat we need to establish cause and effect.

Cat implies that to achieve cause and effect there needs to be a continuity of time ( Our Time).
The BB process began at T=0 therefore we cannot use our time process in a cause-effect equation. The cause then cannot exist in our universe.

We seem to have established that the cause must be outside our universe. This requires a redefinition of the word 'universe'. We must now imagine something beyond but encompassing our universe - a new concept of 'Universe' that expands the definition.

String theory in various versions suggests solutions e.g. Branes colliding but these are so esoteric as to be barely understandable never mind provable. A simpler concept is a progression Black Hole > White Hole.

Cat seems to be saying that the difficulty in Cause and Effect invalidates BB and therefore a Cyclic universe is more logical. Maybe they are not exclusive. We can have both (?).

 

[Gibsense]

Sorry. I don't understand that.

How does your infinity apply to the argument you make (I think it is just an aside comment to amplify the 'ridiculous' aspect).

 

[Catastrophe]

This requires a redefinition of the word 'universe'.

The universe is everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself NASA

I have pointed out elsewhere,, that 'universe' is relative.

..The flatlander's universe (observable universe) is only a very small part of a 3D's universe (observable universe). I consider it not irrelevant to suggest that a 4D's (4D person's) universe (observable universe) would view ours correspondingly. Cat

"All there is" means different things to different entities. We are just hopelessly submerged in "all here is" to us. For example, A (D+1) can observe and identify any number of flatlander 'universes'.

By the way, t is for time (sec), T is for temperature (degrees) in established symbols.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

It's strange how some can see the entire universe, the entire cosmopolis, in all its physics of verse and dimensionality while the rest of us of have to just guess, surmise, and have opinions. I wish I had their kind of super superior vision and sense of the entirety of universe and cosmology so I could talk down to the rest of us lowly inferior cosmically senseless creatures, too.

 

[Catastrophe]

We seem to have established that the cause must be outside our universe. This requires a redefinition of the word 'universe'. We must now imagine something beyond but encompassing our universe - a new concept of 'Universe' that expands the definition.



Cat seems to be saying that the difficulty in Cause and Effect invalidates BB and therefore a Cyclic universe is more logical. Maybe they are not exclusive. We can have both (?).

I think that I have established that 'universe' is relative, and that there are zillions of 'universes'.
Every (D+1) sees zillions of (D) 'universes' which are what each D (e.g., flatlander) sees as "all there is". We see that a flatlander's 'universe' is limited to the surface of 'his' spherical surface.

We do have both, in the sense that even a cyclic universe must have a start - or must it?
Is this idea of start just caused by our limited perspective? It is another case (like universe) which depends on your point of view.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Ahem!

Page 36 - From a drop of water....

Page 36 - 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 think that I have established that 'universe' is relative, and that there are zillions of 'universes'.
Every (D+1) sees zillions of (D) 'universes' which are what each D (e.g., flatlander) sees as "all there is". We see that a flatlander's 'universe' is limited to the surface of 'his' spherical surface.

Respectfully, isn't his wishful thinking? There is no evidence of even a 2nd universe. Worse, there is no evidence that suggests finding more than one even in principle. Math has some elegant solutions but they aren't transferable to physics.

 

[Catastrophe]

Respectfully, isn't his wishful thinking? There is no evidence of even a 2nd universe. Worse, there is no evidence that suggests finding more than one even in principle. Math has some elegant solutions but they aren't transferable to physics.

Helio, my friend, are you not being a wee bit parochial?

A 'universe' is all there is to any population which can think. Wherever.

Are you suggesting that there are no other intelligent species anywhere?
Ask dolphins what they believe to be "all there is" - before you even start on alien worlds.
How would you describe the dolphins' Universe?

Of course, you are completely correct if you believe that there is no intelligent life anywhere (in the 'Universe' or beyond) which might think that they know "all there is" and has a word meaning the same as universe to describe their world (in the widest sense).

Cat