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

Page 9 - 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.
The speed of light doesn't vary. Relativity breaks down. An entity can appear to be getting closer and ever closer to the speed of light while never getting to it. The actual entity, the material versus the SPACETIME holographic immaterial, is long. long, gone in position (Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty (principle of indeterminacy)) from where it is observed to asymptotically be slowing. and slowing, and slowing.... eventually to relatively disappear into a point of SPACETIME . . . never having been observed to reach the speed of light but reaching somewhere else in position in space.


 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
946
148
1,060
Let's take a look at the point I am making. There are claims that the universe is expanding at a speed greater than light. I suggested that one could visualize a balloon that had a series of dots on the balloon that could represent the universe expanding at the speed of light, as was the claim. I showed that as the balloon expanded the solar system moved apart. The intent was to demonstrate that if there was infinite energy to expand the universe at the speed of light there would be enough energy to tear apart the solar system. And yes my theory is as bad as the theory that would require the universe is expanding at speeds as great as 2.99 x 10^10 meters per second. Both ideas are unlikely, that was the point. I am sorry I was not clear.
There are a number of misunderstandings. Some are my fault.

  1. The Hubble Constant describes the Space of the universe expansion (and this is not the speed of light unless you mean the radius )
  2. A uniform radial increase of a spherical universe at the speed of light is a mirror of a black hole (The same object but with time running in reverse)
  3. Bear in mind such a model representation would be a hypersphere ( I consider that is what we are on/in)
  4. We can only observe the space of the universe for as far away that the recessional velocity does not exceed the speed of light hence 'Observable Universe'
  5. I only 'spell things out' to be sure we are talking about the same things
  6. However, you now appear to me to be saying that the energy involved in producing the expansion of the universe (Dark Energy) is enough to separate galaxies (dots on your balloon) - maybe you mean Dark Energy (?)
  7. Further, the expansion applies to the solar system. Well yes, it does BUT gravity counteracts this. I tried to show how by the Gravity Well sketch I posted earlier. This happens with all things existing in a broader gravity well e.g. a galactic cluster.
  8. NB i.m.o. the curvature of the universe determines the limit at which objects can be considered as part of a common gravity well
  9. Again i.m.o. the curvature of the universe causes Dark Energy (in association with a time process)
Apologies for 8 and 9 they are a different debate I could not resist.

I am aware of the amount of energy required to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. In fact that is the point I am making. I am sorry I confused you.
You claim that dark matter exists but have no proof.
I am not mixing two different things, you are confused.
I suggest you read my paper on the origin of the big bang on figshare.
Re mass at speed, apology accepted.
I made no claim I just stated the standard position for which there is some evidence (proof ?)
RE confusion, ok, are you talking about Dark Energy (the label)?
I will have a look at Figshare (new to me)
 
Jan 2, 2024
946
148
1,060
I suggest you read my paper on the origin of the big bang on figshare.
I have read your paper on 'figshare'. Written so I could appreciate where you are coming from!

Philosophy and Cosmology mix. I agree with its broad scope - not everything - but most in principle. You discuss the Primind model as an idea that tries to explain the universe's life cycle in a big-picture way. It combines the Big Bang and inflation theories and takes a further step by suggesting the universe comes from "recursive nothingness"—a kind of potential that can turn into everything we see.

You have a zero sum approach (your paper I read the intro). This triggered an idea in support (mentioned later). The idea that the universe balances out the 'potential over time'. I took this to mean that taking a positive from nothing is balanced (over time) by a negative. Hence it is possible to gain a universe from 'nothing at all'.

I think that TIME is the key
We think of 'before and after'
whereas the universe may consider time (all of it) as just a description as you scan through relationships. In other words, the universe regards its beginning and end as the same thing (instantaneous)
In this way, the positive and the negative are the same sum. 1-1=0 and thereby validate to have 'something for a while' which is basically your recursive universe.

This is hinted at by Virtual Particles that spontaneously appear and disappear in the vacuum of space. Now this is the thing - time is taken between their appearance and their disappearance. If this were not the case there would have been "nothing". It is as if the ability to have something depends on time. Time validates the zero sum.

A whole new perspective! Must read some more of your papers to see what might emerge
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
946
148
1,060
Russell Crawford's 'Broad brush' approach leads to new perspectives on understanding the universe. His comments have forced me to review my ideas regarding 'Time' and to attempt to connect more dots.:) Philosophy has a part to play it seems.

Thanks to Cat for starting this thread (but we still disagree about a division by zero) Lol!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Looking back, the question might be rephrased "What (if anything) was before t = 0? as an event".

Division by 0, whether valid or not mathematically, seems totally irrelevant, since t = 0 is a philosophical (metaphysical) statement, not a mathematical equation. According to some, t = 0 equates to a (non-existent) "singularity". To others, it might represent a (non-zero) inflection in a cyclic system.

Even mathematically, it might be regarded as a co-ordinate of the origin in a graph.
In this case, there is no compulsion to ascribe real meaning to negative values.

IMHO, there is no case where it can be legitimately regarded as a divisor. In any case, as OP, I, in no way, intended such.

If, as suggested, t = 0 is defined as an event (or state) then the question comes to mean "Did the Universe exist before the onset of expansion?" which might mean "Is the Universe cyclic?".

As an aside:


Apparently my last sentence is incorrect. I suggest that the alternative is worse English. It would be different to omit the ?, as "Is the Universe cyclic" is a question and deserves to be treated as such.
Full stop and question mark in the same sentence is apparently wrong. Any comments please?

Cat :)
 
Oct 25, 2024
43
4
35
Looking back, the question might be rephrased "What (if anything) was before t = 0? as an event".

Division by 0, whether valid or not mathematically, seems totally irrelevant, since t = 0 is a philosophical (metaphysical) statement, not a mathematical equation. According to some, t = 0 equates to a (non-existent) "singularity". To others, it might represent a (non-zero) inflection in a cyclic system.

Even mathematically, it might be regarded as a co-ordinate of the origin in a graph.
In this case, there is no compulsion to ascribe real meaning to negative values.

IMHO, there is no case where it can be legitimately regarded as a divisor. In any case, as OP, I, in no way, intended such.

If, as suggested, t = 0 is defined as an event (or state) then the question comes to mean "Did the Universe exist before the onset of expansion?" which might mean "Is the Universe cyclic?".

As an aside:

Apparently my last sentence is incorrect. I suggest that the alternative is worse English. It would be different to omit the ?, as "Is the Universe cyclic" is a question and deserves to be treated as such.
Full stop and question mark in the same sentence is apparently wrong. Any comments please?

Cat :)
Something to consider. T=0 can be a point in time, used as a reference. Negative numbers are just points in time before the reference. But that makes for an uninteresting discussion. It’s far more entertaining to consider T=0 as the moment of creation.
 
Apr 19, 2022
15
0
1,510
What if, a blackhole collects enough matter and reaches to a potential singularity similar to t=0 and explodes again and this is the pattern of the cycle? I believe we can observe this.
 
Jan 2, 2024
946
148
1,060
Even mathematically, it might be regarded as a co-ordinate of the origin in a graph.
In this case, there is no compulsion to ascribe real meaning to negative values.

IMHO, there is no case where it can be legitimately regarded as a divisor. In any case, as OP, I, in no way, intended such.

If, as suggested, t = 0 is defined as an event (or state) then the question comes to mean "Did the Universe exist before the onset of expansion?" which might mean "Is the Universe cyclic?".

As an aside:

Apparently my last sentence is incorrect. I suggest that the alternative is worse English. It would be different to omit the ?, as "Is the Universe cyclic" is a question and deserves to be treated as such.
Full stop and question mark in the same sentence is apparently wrong. Any comments please?
I tend to agree with your remark regarding negative values but with a caveat. Some computations using negative values give real-world results, however, we need to be careful about what the context of 'negative' is. For example, we often talk about negative time but that is 'negative to us'; a negative person might see it differently and negative time does not mean a reassembly of a broken egg.
Not sure these are good examples but just to say, in a broader context, negatives may make good common sense when viewed in multiple dimensions (the book Flatlander/Spherelander springs to mind)

Maybe the universe is cyclic, t=0 does not rule it out if used as you suggest - a marker, a prompt.
Re your 'aside' I think your punctuation is perfect. The inverted commas can act like brackets and make a separate statement from the main body of the sentence (which is a question and should be indicated as such with a question mark). the use of a full stop shows the sentence, as a whole, is concluded. Perfect logic I think.

If the quotation marks were not present then yes it would be an error. The criticism is likely an AI generated one; I have noticed that they/it sometimes does not understand subtlety or has over simple rules for particular rare circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2024
43
4
35
What if, a blackhole collects enough matter and reaches to a potential singularity similar to t=0 and explodes again and this is the pattern of the cycle? I believe we can observe this.
Was there a beginning to the cycle? Or like God and matter and energy, it always was and always will be?
 
t=0
The term is theoretical
A singularity cannot form
Terms that are used out of context to support narratives and the BBT.

What was before t=0?
Think about it for a second.

You are assuming the BBT is correct.
 
Apr 19, 2022
15
0
1,510
We are searching for answers to understand the "creation". When we prove an "unknown" scientifically, metaphysics losses it's domain for that "known". But if belief dies, we will stop and won't go further. And if it does not, we will feel to go beyond what we had known.

Everything could have its t=0, m=0, g=0 etc... These are our concepts to shape the context(s).
 
Apr 15, 2024
31
2
35
What if, a blackhole collects enough matter and reaches to a potential singularity similar to t=0 and explodes again and this is the pattern of the cycle? I believe we can observe this.
lyingbuddha has a point here. If we believe that everything happens naturally, and one-time only unnatural occurrences that can't be explained are unlikely to happen, and that everything we've ever observed in the universe has a natural cause, then wondering if a big bang comes from a black hole makes sense, because it would come from a natural source. But how could it possibly happen, if our math says it's impossible? To identify possible answers you would need to discern the dynamics of a black hole interior.

Just because a black hole interior is untestable and forever hidden from view doesn't mean it's structure and dynamics are unknowable. You need to start with the facts and see what you can conclude. Here's some of the relevant facts. We know from our study of supernovas and accretion discs that matter is broken down into fundamental particles before reaching the nucleus of a black hole. We know from our particle accelerator experiments that fundamental particles are unbreakable. We know that there is no space inside a black hole nucleus, which some call a singularity. We know that where there is no space, there can be no motion. We know that fundamental particles' quantum spin is intrinsic, and remains forever. We know that black holes hold enormous, though finite, heat content from the billions of stars they take in.

From these facts we can be certain that fundamental particles are stored individually in a black hole, maintaining their identity and quantum information. In addition, we know that their motion has been halted, which means that the individual particles are stored right next to each other, with no space in between. This results in great instability and outward pressure from the particle degeneracy pressure from the angular momentum of the halted, yet still there, intrinsic quantum spin. Additionally, the enormous heat content is held entirely by the nucleus of individual particles, resulting in astronomically high, though not infinitely high, individual particle temperatures. The thermodynamics of the trillion degree individual particles alone is enough to make you wonder how gravity can possibly hold it in. Yet, gravity does dominate, though barely. We also know from beta decay that the weak force is always trying to push partially outside of matter to work as electromagnetic fields and charged particles, but it's trapped entirely inside the black hole, which has a neutral charge. And we know that the unconfined strong force has been freed from binding duties, since gravity binds the black hole nucleus, freeing the strong force to work towards recapturing the space needed for hadron formation.

These pressures and instabilities grow and grow as mass is added, right up until the day that critical mass is achieved. On that day, just like the day of collapse to neutron star and the day of collapse to black hole, inward forces exactly equal outward forces. Add one gram of matter on that day, and the internal pressures become too great for gravity to hold, leading to uncontained expansion of the nucleus in a big bang explosion into the open spaces of the universe. The natural triggering mechanism is the combination of halted intrinsic quantum spin, thermodynamics of trillion degree individual particles stored right next to each other, the weak force pushing out and unleashing electromagnetism out into the open, the unconfined strong force pushing out to recapture space for hadron formation, essentially, all of the other forces of the universe all working together to overcome gravity, once critical mass at cosmic mass limit #3 is surpassed, on equilibrium day #3.

So is it that hard to believe that a big bang could come from a black hole? Think about it. If you had the desire and ability to launch a big bang of your own, and you went searching the universe for supplies to begin your preparations, the only place you could possibly find your essential starting materials, namely, trillions of solar masses worth of individual trillion degree fundamental particles, is inside a black hole. Further, if you decided to prepare today and launch your big bang tomorrow, the only place you could possibly store your particles overnight would be inside a black hole. For that matter, the only possible way to pull trillions of solar masses worth of fundamental particles all together to a single location is via the mechanics of a black hole. This would seem to indicate that there is no other place that a big bang could possibly originate from other than a black hole.

So do you still think that gravity is so great that it can never be overcome? Even under the present day theories of expansion of space itself, we hypothesize that the space between the early universe fundamental particles expanded, even though we would have expected them all to be captured inside a black hole, because they were so full of heat content and kinetic energy that no attractive force could possibly bind them, not even gravity. So when a black hole reaches the mass of our own big bang, and the individual particles inside are equally as full of heat content and kinetic energy as our own early universe particles, why shouldn't we expect gravity to fail again, just like it already failed at least once before in our own early section of universe?

It should be noted that if c is the universal speed limit, then nothing can exceed c, including an escape velocity. Just like free fall speeds and terminal velocity can never exceed c, escape velocities can never exceed c either, irrespective of what our math might show. When uncontained expansion (explosion) of a black hole nucleus occurs just beyond critical mass, it goes off at precisely the speed of light, meaning that the shock wave goes off at the speed of light, and the particles somewhat slower. Particle interactions and the quick formation of quark-gluon plasma slows the particles down even more, but the shock wave propagates outward in all directions at the speed of light. This is no coincidence; in fact, the big bang shock wave establishes the maximum velocity possible. Nothing can exceed the velocity of the big bang shock wave, and the fastest things, like light, can only match that speed. But since the particles move slower, this assures that no particle or light emanating from any particle can possibly escape beyond the shock wave, because the particles move slower. This means that no outside observer can possibly see the big bang coming until after the shock wave has passed, making us invisible to outsiders. We've had lots of fun over the years saying that nothing can escape a black hole, but the real answer is that nothing can escape a big bang shock wave.

For fans of spacetime curvature theory who might be concerned because the curved spacetime of a black hole means all paths lead toward the singularity, you need to understand that a big bang from a black hole is a cosmic trade, whereby the center of gravity is traded in for an ever-outwardly expanding universe section of matter, permanently freed from the original center of gravity, which instantaneously ceases to exist. This instantaneously flips all the spacetime curvature pathways outward, because spacetime curvature correlates with what the matter is doing.

For fans of the cosmic microwave background (cmb), big bangs from black holes are very similar to the theorized big bang under expansion of space, in that the quick formation of quark-gluon plasma is very near the beginning. So to the extent that our big bang resulted in a cmb, big bangs from black holes result in the same cmb, but with a big difference. The cmb is not spread evenly throughout the entirety of the universe, but instead, is spread evenly throughout the localized area inside of the big bang shock wave only, but it looks to us like it's distributed evenly throughout the universe because we can't see beyond the visible universe.
 
Last edited:

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts