The big bang, something from nothing?

[Bear Wild]

The current reality was, as understood in the relative domain we know and love did not exist at the time of the bb. The laws that govern our universe, including causality did not begin to coalesce until after the event.

As to who believes. like all hypothesis of how the universe was formed, its hypothetical. I know of 28 different hypothesis, perhaps there are many more. They are all mathematically sound, and some have the benefit of physical evidence/artifacts in our universe.

I have found a wiki on false vacuums that may help in understanding the arxiv paper i linked a few days ago.

So the theory of the big bank coming from nothing is one theory while Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok’s cyclic universe model is another not that I am arguing their case. So we can only say that the universe arising from nothing is one view with others saying it came from something else? Is that a reasonable statement?

 

[ChristineM]

So the theory of the big bank coming from nothing is one theory while Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok’s cyclic universe model is another not that I am arguing their case. So we can only say that the universe arising from nothing is one view with others saying it came from something else? Is that a reasonable statement?

And the multiverse theory of Lee Smolin or the colliding universes theory of Laura Mersini-Houghton, etc, etc, etc

There is some physical evidence that indicates some of the ideas could be correct, most are mathematically feasible.

But essentially i see that as a reasonable statement

However, i see them more as hypothesis than theory.

 

[`mud]

There are no `theories` that explain the Cosmos,
one should never try.
If one could get to the `edge` of the Cosmos,
one would sense the continued expanse beyond,
and no more. There is no `end`,
and no beginning
Look around
life is here
and stuff is everywhere.
Why do we need more ?

 

[Milton Platt]

Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?

Possibly. It's all very hypothetical.

 

[Bear Wild]

And the multiverse theory of Lee Smolin or the colliding universes theory of Laura Mersini-Houghton, etc, etc, etc

There is some physical evidence that indicates some of the ideas could be correct, most are mathematically feasible.

But essentially i see that as a reasonable statement

However, i see them more as hypothesis than theory.

Thanks I will have to read up about the other.

 

[gnostic]

So the theory of the big bank coming from nothing is one theory

No. Not really.

The Big Bang is more like a theory of “something” coming from “unknown something else”.

 

[tayla]

Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?

Seems to me that all this speculating by materialist scientists has gone beyond the scope and domain of science following the scientific method.

 

[ChristineM]

Seems to me that all this speculating by materialist scientists has gone beyond the scope and domain of science following the scientific method.

Actually no, all the hypothesis regarding the bb are based on, at least, some physical properties and are mathematically sound otherwise they would not make the grade.

Regarding a universe from nothing here is one mathematical possibility
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[`mud]

Some more chalk on an invisible blackboard !

 

[`mud]

Can photons pass through a total void ?
Can photons even exist in a total void ?
Given that void of nothingness,
from where'd the photons come ?
What can be made from a total nothingness ?
Isn't the original singularity surrounded by the `void`,
what is forming the inertia to propel the photons ?
What is the `gravity` of a void of nothingness ?
What in turn provides the momentum of the photons ?
And on and on and on...
NuffStuff

 

[joelr]

Yes The curriculum in the UAE is identical to the American curriculum In particular scientific materials

I do not believe in the theory of relativity completely
I have objections because there are illogical things
I have a special vision and go further

Everything that can change Except the absolute truth is God

For example it was said that the speed of light was 300,000 km / s (186,000 mi / s)
angels were created from the light
The Qur'an tells that of maximum speed of winged angels can recorded


this is verse in Ways of Ascent surrah
Unto Him the angels and the Spirit ascend on a Day the duration of which is fifty thousand years.

This as a Muslim shows that there is something other than light equivalent to the speed of light which is the Spirit

We'll do a calculation
365 days in 50 years equals 18250000

18250000 * 24* 300,000 km/s Equal to the potential speed of angels


also
this is story of king Solomon when he said
38. He said, “O notables, which one of you will bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?”
39. Astalwart of the jinn said, “I will bring it to you before you rise from your seat. I am strong and reliable enough to do it.”
40. He who had knowledge from the Book said, “I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you.” And when he saw it settled before him, he said, “This is from the grace of my Lord, to test me, whether I am grateful or ungrateful. He who is grateful, his gratitude is to his own credit; but he who is ungrateful—my Lord is Independent and Generous.”

In less than a second
The palace moved from Yemen to Palestine

Why don't you do a search on science that the Qur'an got wrong? Then you will see that all of the science isn't correct and the passage about the angels and light is simply one of those non-science passages?

Qur'anic scientific errors - RationalWiki

The location of the stars and moon is wrong. The sky is solid, the Earth is flat and the sun sets into muddy water. If you don't believe those things then why get so hung on on a passage about light that you disbelieve relativity?

 

[`mud]

I ask again, from the Quran, or without.
Who created the angels, with wings or without ?
I'm getting too old for this crap !
Before light of the sun, or without stars ?
Too old I say...way too old !

 

[viole]

The Big Bang is FACT
Now, what happened in the first milli-seconds is still up for debate; but the Big Bang (although it may not have been a bang) is accepted science, it explains so much of what is happening in the Universe.

Nothing that happened in the first milli-second is objectively true. And the reason is that time intervals cannot be used to measure objective events.
Actually, the sentence "what happened in the first milli-second" is meaningless. There is no first milli-second.

I am puzzled that after more than 100 years, since we realized that time intervals are relative, we still think in terms of time events as if they were absolute. There is no first milli-second.

There is no absolute time. Like there is no absolute space. Even asserting that the Universe is X years old is physical nonsense, it is like saying the Universe is Y m^3 wide. Nonsense. Time and space are relative. Relative meaning that they all have meaning only in some parochial system of coordinates.

Looks like time flow is an illusion that is much more persistent than Einstein might have thought.

Time DOES NOT flow. Like all relative things, it does not do anything that is objectively true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

Nothing that happened in the first milli-second is objectively true. And the reason is that time intervals cannot be used to measure objective events.
Actually, the sentence "what happened in the first milli-second" is meaningless. There is no first milli-second.

I am puzzled that after more than 100 years, since we realized that time intervals are relative, we still think in terms of time events as if they were absolute. There is no first milli-second.

There is no absolute time. Like there is no absolute space. Even asserting that the Universe is X years old is physical nonsense, it is like saying the Universe is Y m^3 wide. Nonsense. Time and space are relative. Relative meaning that they all have meaning only in some parochial system of coordinates.

Looks like time flow is an illusion that is much more persistent than Einstein might have thought.

Time DOES NOT flow. Like all relative things, it does not do anything that is objectively true.

Ciao

- viole

Yes but we do experience different amounts of time depending on our motion.
Someone traveling in a ship at 80% light speed for what measured 1 hour to them would measure 1.5 hours from someone on Earth waiting for them.

But for each person it feels like the time was "flowing" by.
According to 4D block time all time exists at once but some physicists have a problem with this because that doesn't fit what we know about quantum mechanics.

 

[Polymath257]

Nothing that happened in the first milli-second is objectively true. And the reason is that time intervals cannot be used to measure objective events.
Actually, the sentence "what happened in the first milli-second" is meaningless. There is no first milli-second.

I am puzzled that after more than 100 years, since we realized that time intervals are relative, we still think in terms of time events as if they were absolute. There is no first milli-second.

There is no absolute time. Like there is no absolute space. Even asserting that the Universe is X years old is physical nonsense, it is like saying the Universe is Y m^3 wide. Nonsense. Time and space are relative. Relative meaning that they all have meaning only in some parochial system of coordinates.

Looks like time flow is an illusion that is much more persistent than Einstein might have thought.

Time DOES NOT flow. Like all relative things, it does not do anything that is objectively true.

Ciao

- viole

In General Relativity, it *is* possible to talk about the time of a local reference frame that is at rest with respect to the local expansion. That is known as the co-moving frame and is well defined. It is typically the frame from which time is measured when discussing things like 'the first millisecond'.

This is one difference between Special Relativity and General Relativity. In SR, spacetime is flat and there is no preferred reference frame. But in GR, there can be. The geometry of spacetime is still locally Lorentzian, and there are dilations/contractions between different frames, but the geometry itself can pick out a frame with special characteristics.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes but we do experience different amounts of time depending on our motion.
Someone traveling in a ship at 80% light speed for what measured 1 hour to them would measure 1.5 hours from someone on Earth waiting for them.

But for each person it feels like the time was "flowing" by.
According to 4D block time all time exists at once but some physicists have a problem with this because that doesn't fit what we know about quantum mechanics.

Merging QM and Special Relativity was done back in the 1940's. That is what quantum field theories are all about. Such theories are all relativistic and so have such things as time dilation incorporated into them.

The problem isn't Special relativity, it is General relativity. The difficulty is that quantum fluctuations mean that the background geometry is also probabilistic and that can cause divergences in a number of the computations. One reason String theory is taken seriously is that it gets away from those divergences and also deals with gravity (i.e, spacetime curvature).

 

[joelr]

Merging QM and Special Relativity was done back in the 1940's. That is what quantum field theories are all about. Such theories are all relativistic and so have such things as time dilation incorporated into them.

The problem isn't Special relativity, it is General relativity. The difficulty is that quantum fluctuations mean that the background geometry is also probabilistic and that can cause divergences in a number of the computations. One reason String theory is taken seriously is that it gets away from those divergences and also deals with gravity (i.e, spacetime curvature).

I was talking mainly about the issue of time.
GR can't be merged with QM because creating a quantum of gravity creates a particle that acts on itself and spirals into all sorts of infinities

But as far as time and the big bang, there are ways to talk about the age of the universe for certain observers in relative frames.

Time may not flow but we do probably flow through time, just like we can move through space.
With space-time there is a relationship between moving through space and moving through time that I think proves there is a "movement through time" aspect of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

I was talking mainly about the issue of time.
GR can't be merged with QM because creating a quantum of gravity creates a particle that acts on itself and spirals into all sorts of infinities

But as far as time and the big bang, there are ways to talk about the age of the universe for certain observers in relative frames.

Time may not flow but we do probably flow through time, just like we can move through space.
With space-time there is a relationship between moving through space and moving through time that I think proves there is a "movement through time" aspect of reality.

And the quantum aspects of gravity aren't relevant for the time periods we are talking about. They only affect the analysis for times less than Planck's time. Otherwise, we choose the 'co-moving' observer in the expansion as the default frame. Are there other frames? Yes, of course. But when the age is given, that is the frame that is used.

 

[`mud]

hey Joelr,
Spiraling into infinities, the `into` fascinates me. I can see something spiraling outward away from the inertial pressures, but inward, like a drain of some sort ? Where does the infinity end ? Where is finality ?
How is this entity contained in the `frame` of which you speak ? How can it be relative to anything else,
especially being energised by the inertia. I'm afraid you lost me there.
I get confused easily, you know !

 

[joelr]

hey Joelr,
Spiraling into infinities, the `into` fascinates me. I can see something spiraling outward away from the inertial pressures, but inward, like a drain of some sort ? Where does the infinity end ? Where is finality ?
How is this entity contained in the `frame` of which you speak ? How can it be relative to anything else,
especially being energised by the inertia. I'm afraid you lost me there.
I get confused easily, you know !

What is spiraling is the math, which means we can't get a mathematical description that makes sense.
A quanta of elctromagnetism/light is a photon. They have mathematical properties in how they interact with electrons (QED) and they do not interact with each other.

The hypothetical particle of gravity - graviton would be a particle that attracts other particles to itself. But gravitons also attract other gravitons and they exist everywhere in spacetime.
This makes an attraction from both particles. It also can show there should be self attraction and all of the equations end up giving infinite answers (spiraling to infinity) as if gravity was an infinite force. Not what we experience and the normal procedure of cancelling out infinities in physics called renormalization doesn't work. Usually you take one infinity and use it to cancel a 2nd infinity. With infinite infinities you cannot get anywhere with the math that would describe a graviton and it's so unruly that physicists have been stuck for over 50 years.