Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

No wonder "Quantum Gravity" isn´t tested satisfactorally. Quantum Mechanics is in general based on the three fundamental E&M forces whereas the hypothesis of Quantum Gravity demands elements and "objects" of gravitational ideas incorporated in the Quantum Mechanic model, such as, quote:

No, that is NOT the reason it hasn't been tested. The reason it hasn't been tested is that the energies required to test are *way* beyond what we can produce in our accelerators.

At this point, our accelerators can reach energies that correspond to roughly the time of 'inflation', when the universe was expanding exponentially. This corresponds, roughly, to the time where the E&M and the weak force are comparable in size (electroweak force).

The time where the strong, weak, and E&M forces are unified corresponds to a MUCH higher energy than this.

And the time for quantum gravity corresponds to an energy much higher than even that.

So, at this point, we can test *aspects* of the Standard model where the strong, weak, and E&M forces are unified, but we cannot test the whole thing. Even basic calculations like the mass of a proton are quite involved if done from first principles.

Unifying gravity into this is *way* beyond our abilities to test currently. But those are the energies required for the very earliest times for the Big Bang and, if there is something 'before', any model for that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

ben d, for the members of the forum there is no one who can better explain than Polymath. Always a pleasure to read his posts on the subject.
BTW, there is a wiki article on shape of the universe: Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d, I suppose you have at least read the wiki article on shape: Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

No I had not read that Aupmanyav, thank you for the heads up.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
The idea of a Big Bang is really pure speculative nonsense.

It´s assumed beginning takes place somewhere in the Universe and expands in the Universe - which doesn´t say anything other that there is an Universe.

No, it does not. Have you actually studied the equations?

Equations? Does human made equations have anything to do with the factual creation in the Universe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into?

Nothing.

That might not sound sensible to you, but consider this....

SPACE is the thing that is expanding. This expansion is, in fact, what is creating "space" itself.
So there is no "space" that "space" is expanding into.... That makes no sense.

Secondly, there either is "something" or there is "nothing".
And the universe (space and time) IS the "something.

The "something" is what is expanding.
Into what? Well... nothing... because the something isn't expanding into something - because it itself is the "something".


Sure, that doesn't sound very sensical. I get that. We can't possibly begin to wrap our puny human minds around that.

Then again, our puny human minds evolved to avoid being eaten by tigers on the african plains, not to understand quantum mechanics. Our minds evolved to deal with medium sized object traveling at medium speeds in an environment governed by medium gravity.

Our minds aren't in touch with the weirdness that goes on in the sub-atomic or in the presence of extreme gravity or lightspeed. We are even less in touch with what it means to exist "outside" of space-time - if such a thing even is possible or sensical in the first place.


So, when it comes to such advanced physics, it is important to let go of your human biases and what you would otherwise call "common sense" - because it honestly simply doesn't apply to that world. Pretty much everything in "extreme physics" (as I like to call it), is going to be counter intuitive.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
No wonder "Quantum Gravity" isn´t tested satisfactorally. Quantum Mechanics is in general based on the three fundamental E&M forces whereas the hypothesis of Quantum Gravity demands elements and "objects" of gravitational ideas incorporated in the Quantum Mechanic model, such as, quote:

No, that is NOT the reason it hasn't been tested. The reason it hasn't been tested is that the energies required to test are *way* beyond what we can produce in our accelerators.

Well, maybe the scientists in CERN then should add some amounts of the strong "dark matter" which, in their opinion, rules the galaxies and adding some of the immense strong "dark energy" which in their opinion, rules the expanding Universe?

Isn´t it funny that the experiments in CERN couldn´t funtion without the E&M forces?

(I otherwise got the impression that your excellent math alone would be sufficient enough to test an E&M based "Quantum Gravity")

 

[Native]

SPACE is the thing that is expanding. This expansion is, in fact, what is creating "space" itself.
So there is no "space" that "space" is expanding into.... That makes no sense.

Neither does your "explanation" here. A circular agument is no argument at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neither does your "explanation" here. A circular agument is no argument at all.

What circular argument?

Please point it out it and explain how it's circular.

 

[Nimos]

It seems to me possible that the universe as whole never had a beginning, it is eternal. Hard to image there was never a time when nothing existed, but that is my understanding. So all created things in the universe obviously must have had a beginning, but as existence itself, perhaps not so.

Well I share that view, also why at least to me, existence itself, whatever it might be, seems the most simple explanation. Because it can't be created, it is a condition or state... either existence is or it isn't. However things can come into existences and they can stop to exist/die etc. But not existences itself, if it didn't exist then nothing would.

Obviously the explanation is no better than that of God or a multiverse, except that it is fully compatible with the idea of multiverses.

 

[Native]

What circular argument?

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
SPACE is the thing that is expanding. This expansion is, in fact, what is creating "space" itself.

"The expanding space is what is creating the (expanding) space itself".

This is the kind of "arguments" which derives from a non sense theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
SPACE is the thing that is expanding. This expansion is, in fact, what is creating "space" itself.

"The expanding space is what is creating the (expanding) space itself".

This is the kind of "arguments" which derives from a non sense theory.

How is it circular?

The expansion of space-time is what creates space. By expanding it.
Where is the circularity?

See, when we say that stuff in the universe is "moving away from us", that isn't really a physically accurate description.
It's not that some galaxy is travelling in the opposite direction. It's more like that due to the expansion of space-time, the space between us and the galaxy is growing bigger.


A good analogy of this, is a balloon. Draw 2 dots on it, 2 inches away from eachother.
Now inflate the balloon. The 2 dots are still in the exact same place, but now they are much further away from eachother then just 2 inches.
Neither dot "travelled" to another location. Instead, the space between them grew bigger.


THAT is what the "expansion of space" really is.

I fail to see what is so circular about that.
Care to explain?

 

[Nakosis]

I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.

I suspect at some point in the future the universe will become a singularity again.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
The idea of a Big Bang is really pure speculative nonsense.

It´s assumed beginning takes place somewhere in the Universe and expands in the Universe - which doesn´t say anything other that there is an Universe.

Equations? Does human made equations have anything to do with the factual creation in the Universe?

You made a claim about what the Big Bang models says. The actual model is a mathematical model and is written in equations. Those equations do not say what you claimed they say.

 

[Milton Platt]

I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.

According to physicists, it is expanding into nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nothing.

That might not sound sensible to you, but consider this....

SPACE is the thing that is expanding. This expansion is, in fact, what is creating "space" itself.
So there is no "space" that "space" is expanding into.... That makes no sense.

Secondly, there either is "something" or there is "nothing".
And the universe (space and time) IS the "something.

The "something" is what is expanding.
Into what? Well... nothing... because the something isn't expanding into something - because it itself is the "something".

Sure, that doesn't sound very sensical. I get that. We can't possibly begin to wrap our puny human minds around that.

Then again, our puny human minds evolved to avoid being eaten by tigers on the african plains, not to understand quantum mechanics. Our minds evolved to deal with medium sized object traveling at medium speeds in an environment governed by medium gravity.

Our minds aren't in touch with the weirdness that goes on in the sub-atomic or in the presence of extreme gravity or lightspeed. We are even less in touch with what it means to exist "outside" of space-time - if such a thing even is possible or sensical in the first place.

So, when it comes to such advanced physics, it is important to let go of your human biases and what you would otherwise call "common sense" - because it honestly simply doesn't apply to that world. Pretty much everything in "extreme physics" (as I like to call it), is going to be counter intuitive.

Yes I understand and appreciate your position that the universe is expanding into nothing.

And btw, according to your understanding, did the universe arise from nothing in the first instance or was there some sort of singularity already in existence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to physicists, it is expanding into nothing.

Ok, so the next question is, did the universe arise from nothing?

 

[Milton Platt]

Ok, so the next question is, did the universe arise from nothing?

Nobody knows

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nobody knows

Thank you Milton.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so the next question is, did the universe arise from nothing?

That would imply that there was a time before the universe. But time is *part* of the universe (spacetime), so that is impossible.

if you think of the universe being ALL of spacetime, then it did NOT 'arise'. It just is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That would imply that there was a time before the universe. But time is *part* of the universe (spacetime), so that is impossible.

if you think of the universe being ALL of spacetime, then it did NOT 'arise'. It just is.

Ok, then can it be asked if there was an initial start to an oscillating universe, or is it an eternal process?

On edit. I think we are done Polymath so you can let this question slide, I get what you are saying, Thank you.