The Big Bang and Inflation

[Philip Booth]

What laws and physics came before your 'Creation' beginning and formation of.... everything out of nowhere (Gk. ou topos: no place / Utopia: Nowhereland). Oh! Maybe just Magic Land... magical laws and physics! A magic "Creation". Something from nothing, not even quantum field fluctuations since there were no laws, no physics, no blueprints, whatever: No anything as we know even minimally things to be now.. Getting something for nothing. A point or ball relative to what? AE said it takes three dimensions to describe a point. Only thing is there was no three dimensions, no such thing as dimensionality to begin with, to describe your pre-Creation point or ball. Oh, that's right, there was no such thing as pre-Creation!!! Only a single-sided 2-dimensional frame of time. "Nothing" had existed timelessly (forever) until suddenly... bam, out of nowhere, something (laws, physics, microverse, macroverse,all of it ready, set, go!).

Even most physicists duck and cringe if ask where it came from. No size, since size did not exist... no finite, no infinite, no finite nor infinite, thus no '0', much less '1'. No four forces... nothing. No forces! Could only be magic. Even magic needs a magician, though. Gandalf the Grey?

How about, "The beginning and end is 'now'"! Always 'now'.... Pffft!

Hi all. I know very little about theoretical physics. But watching various tv shows about the beginning of our universe I wonder that if there was both meter and anti matter with slightly more of 1 the matter /anti matter destroyed each other leaving just 5 % or so .
Then Einstein I believe stated that matter and energy are 2 sides of the same thing.
This in mind
Dark matter and dark energy occupying about 95% of our universe. I ask could dark matter and dark energy be what's left from the matter / anti matter interaction.
Phil Booth

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

As a small child (I'm now 67 years old) I recall listening to a group of young adults discussing the origins of our universe, there was a great divide of opinion between those of them who supported the singularity model and those that referred to the singular event. (Singular in this context, means strange, peculiar, unknown and possibly unknowable.) So. Was the singularity a weird physical object, or was it an equally weird event which occurring in an ongoing instance of space-time ? I was convinced by the argument for, and still support the second of those options.

I became a proponent of this type of big bounce cosmology, its a model where space-time goes through cycles of contraction and expansion. Time in this model is a measure of progression through space-time and that progression in a contracting instance of space-time would be "toward" the singular event. In a contracting universe. The only detectable difference between that contracting universe and an expanding universe would be that entropy would be reversed. In an expanding universe space -time is expanding away from the singular event, (As in our universe) so, entropy would take its familiar course.

I think I may have over simplified, this explanation,,, but I hope the gist of what I'm saying is understandable.

 

[Catastrophe]

Hurrah! No need to try to kill me, Curiosity. I am in total agreement with you over cyclic Universe, reversal of entropy on contraction - the lot (as far as I can see). Let's work together!

Cat

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Hurrah! No need to try to kill me, Curiosity. I am in total agreement with you over cyclic Universe, reversal of entropy on contraction - the lot (as far as I can see). Let's work together!

Cat

I certainly wouldn't want to kill you, The name I use on here relates to my insatiable curiosity I was told countless times as a child that I should stop asking questions all the time, because..... Curiosity killed the cat.

 

[David-J-Franks]

As a small child (I'm now 67 years old) I recall listening to a group of young adults discussing the origins of our universe, there was a great divide of opinion between those of them who supported the singularity model and those that referred to the singular event. (Singular in this context, means strange, peculiar, unknown and possibly unknowable.) So. Was the singularity a weird physical object, or was it an equally weird event which occurring in an ongoing instance of space-time ? I was convinced by the argument for, and still support the second of those options.

I became a proponent of this type of big bounce cosmology, its a model where space-time goes through cycles of contraction and expansion. Time in this model is a measure of progression through space-time and that progression in a contracting instance of space-time would be "toward" the singular event. In a contracting universe. The only detectable difference between that contracting universe and an expanding universe would be that entropy would be reversed. In an expanding universe space -time is expanding away from the singular event, (As in our universe) so, entropy would take its familiar course.

I think I may have over simplified, this explanation,,, but I hope the gist of what I'm saying is understandable.

Existence is eternal so that requires recycling of somekind, so agreed.

We are living proof that also entropy is reset to almost zero again with each compression, if not there would be no order left now. This goes well with quantum theory which states that information cannot be destroyed, so that too is eternally preserved, or recycled (albeit rearanged each time).

I find singularities absurd, so I would say things are only compressed to a finite size before expanding again.

My next deduction is that space is infinite, and given that Big Bangs are logically of a finite size, then you will need an infinite number of Big Bangs at various stages in thier cycle to fill all of space (if there's something here there's something everywhere).

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Existence is eternal so that requires recycling of somekind, so agreed.

We are living proof that also entropy is reset to almost zero again with each compression, if not there would be no order left now. This goes well with quantum theory which states that information cannot be destroyed, so that too is eternally preserved, or recycled (albeit rearanged each time).

I find singularities absurd, so I would say things are only compressed to a finite size before expanding again.

My next deduction is that space is infinite, and given that Big Bangs are logically of a finite size, then you will need an infinite number of Big Bangs at various stages in thier cycle to fill all of space (if there's something here there's something everywhere).

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

When you say that space is infinite, I presume you are referring to what Einstein called the nothing which is something , (into which our universe is expanding. Rather than the instance of space-time within which we exist AKA The universe. Each complete cycle of our universe is finite because it has a beginning and an end, but the nothing which is something, into which our universe expands is likely, (although not definitely) infinite, so plenty of room there for a multiverse.

Although Roger Penrose is confident that he has been able to detect the locations of remnants of black holes from a previous Universe, I'm finding the concept behind doing so, difficult to comprehend, so as much as I would like it to be true, I will have to give it more thought before reaching a decision.

I'm not entirely happy about the proposed super luminal inflation during the early evolution of our universe, If the emergence of our universe was caused by the contraction of a previous universe, it could have been significantly bigger than a proposed singularity at the moment it actually emerged.

 

[Atlan0001]

A triple feature exists, I suppose:

Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
(E = MC^2)
(M = E/C^2)
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum

And I'm not forgetting Big Mirror mirroring to infinity.

 

[David-J-Franks]

When you say that space is infinite, I presume you are referring to what Einstein called the nothing which is something , (into which our universe is expanding. Rather than the instance of space-time within which we exist AKA The universe. Each complete cycle of our universe is finite because it has a beginning and an end, but the nothing which is something, into which our universe expands is likely, (although not definitely) infinite, so plenty of room there for a multiverse.

Although Roger Penrose is confident that he has been able to detect the locations of remnants of black holes from a previous Universe, I'm finding the concept behind doing so, difficult to comprehend, so as much as I would like it to be true, I will have to give it more thought before reaching a decision.

I'm not entirely happy about the proposed super luminal inflation during the early evolution of our universe, If the emergence of our universe was caused by the contraction of a previous universe, it could have been significantly bigger than a proposed singularity at the moment it actually emerged.

When I say space is infinite I'm not referring to anybody. I'm using logic in the sense that any boundaries would always have another side. Also, what's to stop you from going in a straight line indefinitely. A finite space is illogical because there is always an outside to it.

I certainly don't think the contents of our big bang are sitting in an infinite void, I think it's full of more space like inside our part of the big bang ie consisting of quantum fields, foam, aether or whatever you think space consists of. Why would you only have 1 Big Bang and nothing anywhere else? so also an infinite number of other Big Bangs in this infinite space as well.

Yes, so the contents of our Big Bang, our universe are expanding into this greater infinite space. Incidentally, I believe it will stop expanding when it hits the rest of the stuff out there. So no indefinite expansion or heat death.

As for the black holes, if there was a collapse of matter for a new Big Bang then why not hit some black holes still coming in while we are expanding out again?

Yes significantly bigger I think singularities are nonsense, see the thread called Entropy.

 

[Helio]

How did I miss this thread?

When you say that space is infinite, I presume you are referring to what Einstein called the nothing which is something , (into which our universe is expanding. Rather than the instance of space-time within which we exist AKA The universe. Each complete cycle of our universe is finite because it has a beginning and an end, but the nothing which is something, into which our universe expands is likely, (although not definitely) infinite, so plenty of room there for a multiverse.

It's fun to contemplate but science can't go beyond our Universe (observable to the farthest region in principle) except in supposition.

Although Roger Penrose is confident that he has been able to detect the locations of remnants of black holes from a previous Universe, I'm finding the concept behind doing so, difficult to comprehend, so as much as I would like it to be true, I will have to give it more thought before reaching a decision.

Discovery of anything that objectively argues for something outside the Universe would likely get him a Noble prize. His suppositions, however, are extremely better than mine, so his viewpoints are likely important to understand.

I'm not entirely happy about the proposed super luminal inflation during the early evolution of our universe, If the emergence of our universe was caused by the contraction of a previous universe, it could have been significantly bigger than a proposed singularity at the moment it actually emerged.

Inflation theory, at least the most popular one, began after t=0, so it doesn't suggest another universe, or is there one that does and passes the science test -- a prediction we can test?

 

[Helio]

When you say that space is infinite, I presume you are referring to what Einstein called the nothing which is something , (into which our universe is expanding. Rather than the instance of space-time within which we exist AKA The universe. Each complete cycle of our universe is finite because it has a beginning and an end, but the nothing which is something, into which our universe expands is likely, (although not definitely) infinite, so plenty of room there for a multiverse.

Do you have any evidence to support this, popular or otherwise, viewpoint?

Although Roger Penrose is confident that he has been able to detect the locations of remnants of black holes from a previous Universe, I'm finding the concept behind doing so, difficult to comprehend, so as much as I would like it to be true, I will have to give it more thought before reaching a decision.

Agreed, and I would ask him the same questions of above. What testable objective evidence is offered to help us agree with him?

This is a general statement of my view -- hmm, why not color it :
One of my favorite lines from reading about Galileo's mess is when Cardinal Bellarmine (the highest in theological knowledge) sat down with Galileo who was spouting off that Copernicus was right, and he told Galileo he needed to first be able to offer "necessary demonstration" before pushing a theory that was, at the time, in conflict with dogma.

It's very common to see the lack of "necessary demonstration" be treated as unnecessary. One forum forces ATM (Against The Mainstream) claims into a forum section of that title. But they then require evidence to support the ATM view. They also require the poster to defend the questions posed to them. The benefit is that false ideas (perhaps 1 in a 100 prove valid someday) don't get propagated and there is hope some ATM views help guide us to new insights that later become mainstream.

 

[Catastrophe]

Perhaps the phrase "without limitation" is a good way of avoiding the "infinity" dilemma.

In mathematics, we can have Cartesian coordinates

"A Cartesian coordinate system in a plane is a coordinate system that specifies each point uniquely by a pair of numerical coordinates, which are the signed distances to the point from two fixed perpendicular oriented lines, measured in the same unit of length. Wikipedia" Let's go colourful!

whereby we can stipulate any values along the x, y and z axes. We can bring this into the real world by saying not that x, y and z can stretch to infinity (as in mathematics) but that their values are without limitation.
Of course, this is only useful over the area that this concept of space is useful, for example in maps of territories.

Whilst on this subject (inflation, etc) the points mentioned earlier are also mathematical concepts for the same reason that a singularity is.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Maybe time to bring supposed "fiction" back to the fore:

"From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it...." -- Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Scarlet, by A. Canon Doyle.

"The physicist may be satisfied when he has the mathematical scheme and knows how to use it for the interpretation of the experiments. But he has to speak about his results also to non-physicists who will not be satisfied unless some explanation is given in plain language. Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be the criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached." -- Werner Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy.

"The rules of quantum mechanics are quite definite. People know how to calculate results and how to compare the results of their calculations with experiment. Everyone is agreed on the formalism. It works so well that nobody can afford to disagree with it. But still the picture that we are to set up behind this formalism is a subject of controversy." -- Paul Dirac.

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn.

I read that Albert Einstein once said that if he could not explain a theory adequately to his wife, there was probably something wrong with it somewhere.

From a drop of water......
---------------------------

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." -- Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

[Helio]

Perhaps the phrase "without limitation" is a good way of avoiding the "infinity" dilemma.

In mathematics, we can have Cartesian coordinates

Yes, and is this, in case I'm wrong, where we apply Euclidian math?

Let's go colourful!

Yes! Do you wish to offer some sort of guideline, at least for now in case moderators think it might be helpful for all?

 

[Atlan0001]

The unobserved and unobservable non-local, non-relative, background and/or outland Universe (U); the infinite; the infinitesimal (including "infinitesimal calculus" (the "calculus of infinitesimals")); infinity; infinity and infinities of finites / infinitesimals (thus points broad! and planes deep!); infinities of infinities; is never going to go away, no matter how hard people try to force them to go away, or how hard they try to make them go away by the Orwellian method of changing words and definitions, and so on, to blur things and wipe minds clean of what they, the would be tyrants of thought and language, don't want inside those minds.
----------------------------

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it.... but that it is too low and we reach it!" -- pjs.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

How did I miss this thread?

It's fun to contemplate but science can't go beyond our Universe (observable to the farthest region in principle) except in supposition.

Discovery of anything that objectively argues for something outside the Universe would likely get him a Noble prize. His suppositions, however, are extremely better than mine, so his viewpoints are likely important to understand.

Inflation theory, at least the most popular one, began after t=0, so it doesn't suggest another universe, or is there one that does and passes the science test -- a prediction we can test?

t=0 is a peculiar concept which doesn't really apply to bounce cosmology, It suggests that this instance of space-time within which we exist, is the first ever such instance of expanding space time to have occurred, so it makes no sense to those of us who believe in bounce cosmology, I can only offer an opinion on what may have occurred at the instant of the singular event, (Big bang.) which in bounce cosmology is the moment the polarity of space-time flips from negative, (Toward the singular event.) to positive, (Away from the singular event.)

Supporters of singularity theory seem to be suggesting that an infinitely small, infinitely dense particle, emerged into a space-less / time-less location and actually created space-time by spontaneous entering a phase of superluminal inflation ???
I must say that I am left thoroughly unconvinced by this bizarre explanation for the existence of this universe,

Einstein said... ["To understand the universe, you must realize that it is just matter expanding into the nothing, which is something!"] This suggests that primordial space is more than nothing and in my opinion there are two precursors of our reality which could exist there. These precursors of our reality are concepts which have no physical existence yet when combined could become integral components of our reality.

As much as I hate doing this, I must stop typing now because I have an early start tomorrow, I will have to finish this post at a later date and if I don't post what I've written so far, it might accidentally get deleted (I'm using a borrowed laptop.)

 

[Catastrophe]

"t=0 is a peculiar concept which doesn't really apply to bounce cosmology"

Yes. t = 0 becomes a spread out asymptotic 'area' where the 'phase' of the Universe goes through a nexus.
(in 'my' model)/

Cat