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

[Classical Motion]

Everyone knows and understands how a cue ball and an eight ball behaves. That’s neutral inertial exchange of acceleration.

The behavior depends on the relative size of the balls. Velocity and angle.

When accelerating a charge, this behavior depends on the density of the accelerating field, and the interaction area of the charge that is being accelerated.

Imagine an eight ball being accelerated, and instead of that force being applied to direction, a portion of it was applied to making the eight ball spin, and not go to linear acceleration. And then imagine that as the eight ball spins, it shrinks, and now it has reduced it’s target area for the acceleration.

So some acceleration energy was converted to shrinkage spin. Requiring more acceleration for the same amount of velocity increase. The rate of spin and temperature gain, depends on the rate of acceleration. If you stop the acceleration before a quantum step is reached, the particle will swell back to previous size. If you lock it into another quantum size and then stop acceleration, the particle will keep small and hot. It’s like a ratchet spring.

A constant acceleration will keep shrinking and spinning the particle faster. At a certain smallest limit, ALL of the acceleration will be turn into spin, AND that spin will be emitted to keep that smallest size.

It can no longer gain mass or inertia. And cast off all the energy imparted to it.

I believe the proper rate of duty cycle acceleration can take charge to c easily.Without mass gain. But no faster.

Matter can only be shrunk and can never superposition. CERN proves this with every switch.

CERN can only fragment matter. And then it dissolves.

Only EM and G “fields”, (whatever they are) can superposition. Quirks are just dissolving fragments. Not charge components. There are no charge components. Charge is discreet. Quantum, of itself, innate and singular. The only physicality there is.

The cosmos and the periodic table only has two ingredients.

It’s just a supposition.

 

[Gibsense]

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.

I agreed with the sentiment expressed. Also, once you say the 'universe contains "all of space" rather than "all of the spaces" then the word 'universe' is limited to our BB rather than "all of the spaces" which would include BBs anywhere (and anytime process).

So your use of "universes" is not an argument for more than one, only an argument of the variety found in the minds of beings.

Science makes a strong case for only one observable universe. The objective evidence eliminates the vast majority of the imagined views, which is the power behind science even if the full story can never be found.

Should I assume an unintended definition? The number of observable universes is by definition almost infinite. All of our observable universes are unique and nearly countless. Each is defined by a distance radius (spherical) from an observer's origin.

 

[Gibsense]

It’s just a supposition.

Engineers amaze me.

 

[Gibsense]

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]

So your use of "universes" is not an argument for more than one, only an argument of the variety found in the minds of beings.

Science makes a strong case for only one observable universe. The objective evidence eliminates the vast majority of the imagined views, which is the power behind science even if the full story can never be found.

Helio, chacun à son goût.

I am of the firm opinion that all universes are subjective:
universe is a word defined by beings out of ignorance. The map is not the territory.
Universe is all there is as perceived by any groups of beings "Universe wide".
"universe" is a word, an imagination, not a reality.
Do not get hung up on a mere word.

There are only observable universes. Because there is more than one observer.

A single universe would require an overall observer.

That is then metaphysics, not science. That is my briefest rendition so far.

Cat


chacun à son goût.

 

[Atlan0001]

Helio, chacun à son goût.

I am of the firm opinion that all universes are subjective:
universe is a word defined by beings out of ignorance. The map is not the territory.
Universe is all there is as perceived by any groups of beings "Universe wide".
"universe" is a word, an imagination, not a reality.
Do not get hung up on a mere word.

There are only observable universes. Because there is more than one observer.

A single universe would require an overall observer.

That is then metaphysics, not science. That is my briefest rendition so far.

Cat


chacun à son goût.

The only thing I saw wrong is philosophy is a science and so is, as Stephen Hawking lamented the catastrophic split in, the philosophy of science, particularly the philosophy of physics, aka "metaphysics" outside the iron bound box of physics, and the "cosmology" outside the iron bound box of local-relative astrophysics.

 

[Gibsense]

Regarding: time zero should be t=0 and not T=0.
Thanks for the correction Cat
Noted

 

[Helio]

Helio, chacun à son goût.

I am of the firm opinion that all universes are subjective:
universe is a word defined by beings out of ignorance. The map is not the territory.

Right, so we need a tool that will build maps that best represent what is the universe even if it can never be drawn perfectly.

That tool is called science and the cartographer is mandated to use the most accurate measuring devices available. Without measurements then it's unlikely we will ever have a reliable map as everyone will have very different maps. But, the cartographers, using objective measurements will come the closest.

Of course, there are regions where the cartographer can't use it's measuring devices, which allows others to make maps (metaphysics) that may prove helpful to the cartographer (physicist) as more things become measurable.

It's important we understand Gould's NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria), though there are some areas of overlap, which is between science, religion and philosophy.

The reason BBT was once ignored is because it had limited evidence and mainstream ideology only accepted a static universe. But brilliant minds, especially Edington, recognized that Lemaitre had the answer to their dilemma that could not explain "the measurements". A dynamic model solved the problem of both Einstein's flawed model and de Sitter's different flawed model.

There are only observable universes. Because there is more than one observer.

Ok, but science expects us to use one map until we discover, as we do, areas that need to be redrawn to better represent Mother Nature's real world.

Religion and philosophy, of course, don't demand any map, but there's no reason they have to be anti-science. The best relationship comes when all three help inform one another in the small area of "overlap".

Some years ago I tried to get discussion on how this relationship could be defined to help others understand it better. I called the list of rules the "Green Rules". [I felt a little color wouldn't hurt. ]

Essentially it was meant to weigh the objective evidence found from science before altering a religious or philosophical claim.

If the evidence was overwhelming then religious reinterpretation would be needed. If it failed to do so, religion could fall into the zone that St. Augustine warned about. He said such views would become deemed as --- laughable. I call such claims as bound for Sillyville. They don't die there, they just remain out of sight except for those who enjoy Sillyville.

We don't want them to die, btw, since we may need to bring a few of them back.

If, however, the evidence is less weightier, then alternative views must be more tolerated. The greater the weight, the less the tolerance.

Also is the rule that no scientific hypothesis or theory can ever be proved. But that doesn't change the above, only the recognition that science is always a work in progress.

With his new telescope, when Galileo found both crescent and gibbous phases for Venus. The Church scientists (ie Jesuits) verified it -- objective evidence must always be verifiable. They knew that the Ptolemy/Aristotle/Thomist model was false and quicky pushed to get it dumped even though the Council of Trent had carved this model in stone because they felt it fit their simple interpretations. Had the Church not responded to the important demonstration of evidence, the Church and it's faith would become, eventually, well, laughable. No religion will ever grow when being laughed at, of course.

chacun à son goût.

Yes, great for religion and philosophy.

But when possible....Quod erat demonstrandum

 

[Helio]

The only thing I saw wrong is philosophy is a science...

Yes, but the key difference is where we define its limits. If we restrict it to objectivity then we have something everyone can use and respect.

Metaphysics, nevertheless, helps point us in new directions. The more lines of evidence that justifies the pointing, the more reason to take it serious.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I have great respect for your integrity, so please do not misunderstand me.

QED
used to convey that a fact or situation demonstrates the truth of one's theory or claim, especially to mark the conclusion of a formal proof.

I see a great plurality of words conveying very little real meaning, and, certainly, in my honest opinion, no proof of anything. That is just my opinion, and I accept that you see things differently.

Indeed, parts of what you have posted actually seem to support my posts.

Mankind is limited by our abilities, and lack thereof, to (maybe ever, maybe not) communicate the nature of the universe(s). Words are mere verbal abstractions of "reality", which, itself, simply describes our current perceptions of less than 5% of what? Even mankind's idea of "all there is" has changed enormously over history. Flat world? Galaxy means "all there is". Oh, billions of galaxies. If there ever were one universe, and that one universe is discovered by what science (meaning our best guesses at any given time) “teaches” at that time, then we are teaching ourselves our best guesses, and mistaking it for “truth”.

My reply to the whole of this post is

I am of the firm opinion that all universes are subjective:
universe is a word defined by beings out of ignorance. The map is not the territory.
Universe is all there is as perceived by many groups of beings "Universe wide".
"universe" is a word, an imagination, not a reality.
Do not get hung up on a mere word. It is not the reality.

There are only observable universes. Because there is more than one observer.

A single universe would require an overall observer.

That is then metaphysics, not science. That is my briefest rendition so far.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

My apologies. I had a lot of problems where there seemed to be two copies of the forum running simultaneously. I would edit one and return to find the former unedited version. As if I had not edited at all. Fortunately, it seems better now. Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

What was before is now again and will become later.

A cyclic event throughout the parts of the universe.

 

[Classical Motion]

I think that recycling only happens here. Dead matter is one way.

 

[Harry Costas]

There is no dead matter.

 

[Helio]

Helio, I have great respect for your integrity, so please do not misunderstand me.

QED
used to convey that a fact or situation demonstrates the truth of one's theory or claim, especially to mark the conclusion of a formal proof.

Thanks. As you know many words will bend to have similar meanings. I've been a little unclear if there has been enough variation in its use to work with physics as it has with math. You say it hasn't and I must agree since I'm the only one, apparently, trying to bend it. Nevertheless, it at least leans heavily in the direction I wanted my point to go. Is there a more appropriate phrase that would make "necessary demonstration" sound cool?

It's important to me to have useful words that distinguish the subjective with the objective. I really think society struggles with the importance of this since I too had to think more about it once I got into science forums.

Mankind is limited by our abilities, and lack thereof, to (maybe ever, maybe not) communicate the nature of the universe(s). Words are mere verbal abstractions of "reality", which, itself, simply describes our current perceptions of less than 5% of what?

Words are usually the best way to connect us to reality. Telling someone that an object is very hot should be helpful, though if they touch it then they have objective knowledge instead "the hard way". It's also likely the hot experience causes their mind to very quickly jump to the word "hot" in an indelible way for future use, perhaps.

The 5% is the only useful stuff. Cotton candy is mostly air but that's not what is enjoyed.

Even mankind's idea of "all there is" has changed enormously over history. Flat world? Galaxy means "all there is". Oh, billions of galaxies. If there ever were one universe, and that one universe is discovered by what science (meaning our best guesses at any given time) “teaches” at that time, then we are teaching ourselves our best guesses, and mistaking it for “truth”.

That's true, and from this experience, we should recognize that science is not a means to finding truth but a direction towards it. Or, I've seen some say, science is a "conversation with Nature". Religion likely attempts better connections to Truth, IMO.

This is important today, perhaps, because of the idea scientism brings where it's used as a substitute for the subjective realms of religion and philosophy.

I am of the firm opinion that all universes are subjective:
universe is a word defined by beings out of ignorance. The map is not the territory.
Universe is all there is as perceived by many groups of beings "Universe wide".
"universe" is a word, an imagination, not a reality.
Do not get hung up on a mere word. It is not the reality.

Yes, that's important to keep in mind, but we still want to connect to the universe as best we can, especially given the utility of doing so. We can't forsake technology and return to being hunter-gatherers .

There are only observable universes. Because there is more than one observer.

But don't these observers agree that their combined observations, if objective, will better the understanding of our single observable universe? BBT is one that is tested over and over. The list of separate lines of evidence (e.g. Big Bang Bullets thread) reveals the collaboration of the observations by astronomers to better build (never complete) our view of the universe; improving our conversation with Nature, right?

 

[Classical Motion]

Living matter recycles dead matter. Dead matter does not recycle dead matter.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I agree with virtually every word of your post. Words are, of course, vastly important to us, and form the best form of communication, at least in scientific, factual matters.

The important thing is to realise that, and not to confer pseudo reality upon them.

Take the word "Universe". As I pointed out, it originated from beings needing/wanting a term for "all there is" - simple as that. In my "statistical" examples above, I suggested that this has probably repeated itself Universe-wide, on the statistical assumption that, sooner or later they would wonder about "all there is".

In my view, it has no more philosophical significance than a simple expression like "the lot".

My objection, which I believe represents the "General Semantic" viewpoint (informed comment welcomed) is that words can be elevated to a significance way above utilitarian level.
Words spoken in hushed tones. Without treading in forbidden pathways, for some, these might involve "the party leader", or possibly some some pop stars.

Yield unto the Dictionary, that which is the Dictionary's
Yield unto reality, that which belongs to reality . . . . . . . . .

Words are of vast importance to us, but they are easily misused.
There are scientific words with precise meanings, and there are emotive words, and there are literary descriptive words, and maybe more. Note especially, those deliberately used to deceive, or perhaps just for exaggerative descriptive purposes. Scientific words are not my prime targets.
I am not suggesting pruning the vocabulary - just using the best words in context. I am not gunning for Shakespeare (I used to live in Stratford-upon-Avon).

I do believe that our viewpoints are very similar in many respects.

Cat

Korzybski, a renowned philosopher and semanticist, delves into the intricacies of human thought and perception, laying the foundation for General Semantics—a discipline that challenges conventional notions of language and cognition. 'Science and Sanity' has become a cornerstone reference in the world of null-a, with its profound insights resonating across various intellectual realms.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

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

I believe the big bag theory is partially correct, but that it began at a supposed
t = 0, is absolute nonsense, and an infinitely hot infinitely dense atom coming from nowhere, and materialising at no time while creating a somewhere can hardly be classed as solid scientific theory .

Space-time is, partially a misnomer, a space-time continuum doesn't actually exist... It is distance and time, which are bound in a continuum. distance and time are simple separations which can be represented by drawing a single horizontal line of any feasable length and deviding either the upper or lower side into 186,000 increments, each increment then represent a thousand miles By dividing the opposite side into maybe 1,000 increments, you will have a time scale which reads in thousandths of a second if you then bisect that line at any point, it will show the equivalent value of space to time or vice versa at that particular point in thousands of miles per one thousandth of a second. The values of distance and time really are equivalent.

Distance and time are intangibles which are not made of anything, at least anything we currently understand, but they do have properties. Distance can metrically expand as is seen in cosmic redshift Or it can contract, [Curve], Unless of course, Einstein's theory of gravitation is incorrect . However as intangibles it is possible they already existed in whatever void our universe emerged into.
Time is an ongoing progression tied to distance in a continuum. so when time progresses, so too does distance. Motion is a simultaneous progression through both distance and time . The big question is... If the progression of time leads to the expansion of space... Is time dark energy ?

 

[Thermoman]

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

As

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

Star gazers try and add formations to space , with no regard for the shape of space which is n-dimensional . The position of matter in space IS NOT the shape of space .

A cyclic formation of matter isn't correct !

A spherical like formation of space-time , the BB model is more accurate in regards to a cosmological formation .

 

[Catastrophe]

A cyclic formation of matter isn't correct !

Did I say it was?

I did say this:

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.

Cat

Addendum: A cyclic scenario does not require destruction and re-creation of matter. A nexus does not necessarily equate to a singularity.

 

[Harry Costas]

Most matter goes through a cyclic event.
96 % of all matter is in the form of a condensate.

96 % of our Solar System lives in the core of our Sun.

 

[Atlan0001]

There is relative materialism so fine as to be utterly transparent in universe grids but still have energy to its magnitudinous omni-directional Flatland mass. Relative materialism filling universes to an infinite holographical density of photonic photo frames, and filling universes with energy throughout. The materialism we can't observationally discern for what it is except in and as the local-relative "observable universes," the equivalent energy (energies) of it being an entirely different matter.