- #36
Parbat
- 29
- 0
alt said:
Has Neil Turok told somethin about how the "universes" which collide to form new universe exists?
isn't he missin somethin again?
The Big Bang Theory: Was There No Space?
- Thread starter Parbat
- Start date
In summary, the big bang suggests that there was only a concentrated mass.was there no space?If there was no space where did it come from?time also started after big bang.how did it start?
Has Neil Turok told somethin about how the "universes" which collide to form new universe exists?
isn't he missin somethin again?
- #37
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
i have heard something like this before, like our dimension was formed becouse of a collision of some other dimension and now we can interact with matter becouse matter was composed of one of those dimensions we have time becouse time was composed of another dimension so on and so forth. anyway remember that before we can prove any of this we have to unverstand the universe on a small scale.
- #38
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
as of the big bang,The Big Bang happened at precisely 9:14:33.397584326986723 a.m. on the morning of Thursday, April 17th, 15,108,563,209 BC. As for where it happened? It happened in a little corner of the universe that is presently occupied by a microscopic particle of pepperoni in the space within the top half of the letter "e" on the raised lettering of the word "stream" on the tip of the spray nozzle of a bottle of Windex on the third shelf of a closet in the women's bathroom of Sal & Tony's Pizzeria at the corner of 79th St. and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, USA, the Earth, Sol Solar System, 3rd spiral arm, Milky Way Galaxy, M31 Local Group.
- #39
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
robsharp14 said:
untill i can find hard evidence proving this wrong this is right
- #40
Tanelorn
- 906
- 15
Hey This is even more speculative than my thread! :)
- #41
Gaius Baltar
- 49
- 0
robsharp14 said:
Quite amusing.
Unfortunatly, the Nozzle I believe was invented in 1945 - and those streets & pizza places did not exist.
Neither was any of this:
- #42
mortalitas
- 4
- 0
If the Big Bang created time and space, than how could the Big Bang even exist? There would be no space or time for it to be there! Its like creating water without hydrogen or oxygen.
Last edited:
- #43
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
unless matter traveld from the fourth dimension and that matter converts into mass and so on and so on but i doubt that this happend
- #44
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
presently occupied
- #45
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
@ gaius baltar
- #46
sprudence
- 3
- 0
Hi, I'm new on these forums, I'm not particularly geared up with mathematical prowess and only know the basics of physics, neutrinons, protons, photons, atomic structures etc, however I am absolutely fascinated by the questions that arise from potential theories.
I am a firm believer that much of what transcends on Earth are signals of understanding space or our universe.
In both Earth and Universe I feel you can look at similar occurrences, for example the explosion of a bomb must have enough potential energy. So would you say potential energy is the secret to a big bang, potential energy within space, looking for a spark... that may be a question but raises more fundamental questions such as what caused the spark, which is the main question here I think.
On the other hand as mentioned earlier in the thread, the potential collision of two universes within a multiverse may have spawned our universe - very interesting because isn't something we see with life? Bacteria can reproduce in a seemingly similar way?
My opinion, although I am certainly of no authority on the subject is that the building blocks of the universe may be more engrained in Earth that we think.. and I think ultimately that's what allows us to question and theorize these concepts.
Anyway apologies if I made no sense whatsoever.
I am a firm believer that much of what transcends on Earth are signals of understanding space or our universe.
In both Earth and Universe I feel you can look at similar occurrences, for example the explosion of a bomb must have enough potential energy. So would you say potential energy is the secret to a big bang, potential energy within space, looking for a spark... that may be a question but raises more fundamental questions such as what caused the spark, which is the main question here I think.
On the other hand as mentioned earlier in the thread, the potential collision of two universes within a multiverse may have spawned our universe - very interesting because isn't something we see with life? Bacteria can reproduce in a seemingly similar way?
My opinion, although I am certainly of no authority on the subject is that the building blocks of the universe may be more engrained in Earth that we think.. and I think ultimately that's what allows us to question and theorize these concepts.
Anyway apologies if I made no sense whatsoever.
- #47
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 24,775
- 792
skydivephil said:
Sure! When his mathematical model first showed a bounce, he didn't immediately CALL it by that name. But by FEBRUARY 2002 he was calling it a bounce.
See page 14 of his February 2002 paper:
==quote Bojowald's http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0202077 ==
Intuitively, we have the following picture of an evolving universe: For negative times n
of large absolute value we start from a classical universe with large volume. It contracts
... to reach a degenerate state ..., classically seen as a singularity, in which it bounces off in order to enter an expanding branch and to reach again a classical regime with large volume. ... What remains to show is that for large volume we have in fact the correct semiclassical behavior, to which we turn now...
==endquote==
In 2003 Bojowald co-authored an improved version of his model with Ashtekar and Lewandowski.
physics_931 said:
That was an incremental improvement. How do we now IT will not be improved on in turn? Indeed the 2006 version has now been improved on by Rovelli and others and will probably be replaced. The story can hardly be considered finished when no version has yet been empirically tested. Just because Bojowald's original has been successively improved does not mean that any particular one of those improvements should be called "first".
The Loop Quantum Cosmology model Bojowald gave us around 2001 has been gradually modified over the years, not only by Bojowald himself but notably by Ashtekar, and by Singh and several others who worked with Ashtekar on this. I followed this with much interest back in 2006, reading the "new dynamics" papers of Ashtekar et al as soon as they were posted on the Arxiv.
But the fact that it has been improved and become a collective effort (as early as 2003 but especially after 2005) is no reason to deny that Bojowald's model resolved the BB singularity and gave a bounce, which by early 2002 he was calling a bounce.
physics_931 said:
Often in science the first time somebody does something there can be flaws and bugs need to be ironed out. Bojowald did creative pioneering work, essentially fathered Loop cosmology in which bang singularity was replaced by bounce. It would be patently disingenuous to deny this. And much credit also goes to other people (including Parampreet Singh) for later improvements.
I have no interest in squabbling about this.
Last edited:
- #48
familia
- 7
- 0
I think time existed before the big bang by itself or at least something like it
- #49
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 24,775
- 792
familia said:
I could subscribe to that view
During the past ten years (at least) a number of models have been presented where space, time, and matter go back before where we used to think the singularity (a breakdown) occurred.
So far there is no scientific reason to believe one version rather than the other. No reason to suppose that the one that breaks down says "time stops" is any better than the one that doesn't suffer a breakdown and says "time continues on back".
It a case where one has to put up with the frustration and discomfort of suspending judgment and maintaining an open mind.
- #50
skydivephil
- 474
- 9
Just to echo what you said about the big bounce. Alan Guth's orioginal verison of inflation didnt work either and I believe he said so at the time. It was "fixed" by Linde and Stendhart but people still give Guth the credit and perhaps rightly so. even though there were precursors there too.
- #51
K^2
Science Advisor
- 2,470
- 33
This is by far the best analogy I've ever seen, even if actual topology is likely to be a bit different.Waveparticle said:
- #52
familia
- 7
- 0
I think that the concept that we have of spacetime is true for our little spacetime bubble
but once we look at what is outside spacetime we will find that not all but most of the accepted laws of physics brake down except maybe time by itself
but once we look at what is outside spacetime we will find that not all but most of the accepted laws of physics brake down except maybe time by itself
- #53
skydivephil
- 474
- 9
K^2 said:
Not at all. We have a lot better evidence the there's a north pole and ntohing north of it than we do there's nothing before the big bang. The latter statement is just an assumption.
- #54
familia
- 7
- 0
do we have any evidence o the universe spinning as whole relative to its event horizon
- #55
Driftwood1
- 67
- 0
can you disentangle time from space?
is nothingness something?
If the Universe expands forever and its average temperature approaches zero Kelvin, then nothing is happening - does time cease at that point?
Time needs to be defined clearly - and so does space (and infinity for that matter)
is nothingness something?
If the Universe expands forever and its average temperature approaches zero Kelvin, then nothing is happening - does time cease at that point?
Time needs to be defined clearly - and so does space (and infinity for that matter)
- #56
skydivephil
- 474
- 9
I believe that's what Roger Penroser Conformal Cyclic Model is about. As all matter becomes decays away there's no way to make a clock and hence no way to measure distance so the begning of the universe and thhe end are effectivley the same thing. But to be honest his new book "Cycles of TIme" is very hard to follow and I admit I was unable to do so.
- #57
Driftwood1
- 67
- 0
skydivephil said:
Penrose is an astonishing writer - but he has no sympathy for the reader.
He published a giant telephone size book a few years ago - "Road to reality" (or something like that).
Your comment goes right to the heart of the problem - just because matter is indisguishable in an ever expanding cold universe, and there are practical problems with constructing a clock doesn't mean that the concept of time vanishes.
Mathematicians have never really bothered with reality - they are only interested in PROOF and logic - whether their theorems reflect reality is irrelevant.
thats why Pire Maths is more of a Philosophy rather than a Science
- #58
Godswitch
- 34
- 0
If the Big Bang did take place
Due to the infinite size of the universe there is a large number of possibilities, but
Before the Big Bang suggests there was some disturbance or instability in a non specified space. This was either instigated by a divine creator or is an instabilty that is inherent to large amounts of matter, the latter being more likely...!?
How everything got there is a complete unknown, what you can say though is the big bang is a convenient way of explaining what we see around us and what we can derive from facts, figures and calculations based on our observable universe seems to go hand in hand with the BBF [BIG BANG THEORY]
And what that tells us in a larger scale is...nothing, it does not tell us that the universe is infinite,only very big, it tells us that we cannot comprehend our immediate universe and that the science we have created around this, whilst very clever may only serve our purposes and not the universe we imagine is out there.
And the answer to that is - There is most definitely something responsible for the Universe!
Due to the infinite size of the universe there is a large number of possibilities, but
Before the Big Bang suggests there was some disturbance or instability in a non specified space. This was either instigated by a divine creator or is an instabilty that is inherent to large amounts of matter, the latter being more likely...!?
How everything got there is a complete unknown, what you can say though is the big bang is a convenient way of explaining what we see around us and what we can derive from facts, figures and calculations based on our observable universe seems to go hand in hand with the BBF [BIG BANG THEORY]
And what that tells us in a larger scale is...nothing, it does not tell us that the universe is infinite,only very big, it tells us that we cannot comprehend our immediate universe and that the science we have created around this, whilst very clever may only serve our purposes and not the universe we imagine is out there.
And the answer to that is - There is most definitely something responsible for the Universe!
- #59
Driftwood1
- 67
- 0
Hawking and co., considered time on an imaginary number scale, and described the big bang moment as a surface which avoids some of the problems assciated with a singularity.
Some models have more supporting evidence than others
Some models have more supporting evidence than others
- #60
familia
- 7
- 0
From what I understand and please feel free to correct me if I understood it wrong if the universe did start from a singularity basically the singularity would collapse under its own gravity until the point where matter can no longer be compressed now starting here and going back to before the big bang I think that the following happened and please this is just speculation on my part so please feel free to tell me I'm wrong : I think that there was a previous universe and that universe collapsed into the singularity now the reason that I think that is simple I believe that outside our universe is something that exerts pressure from every angle into the universe and that this force is responsible for the spin of the universe because objects don't spin by themselves and ultimately when our universe expands out where the gravity doesn't create any resistance to that force it will start pushing all matter back into a singularity again
- #61
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
im beginning to doubt that the big bang created space and time, but I am beginning to think that time and space was already in existence but once the big bang happened space began to expand outward and still is. Time was moving at an extremely rapid pace before the big bang but after the big bang time began to move very slowly. I don't know about this theory though it was kind of thought of at random
- #62
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 24,775
- 792
robsharp14 said:
That much of what you are saying is certainly in line with an active area of research these days.
On the order of a hundred research papers get written each year about this idea.
There are new ideas and models mostly post-2000 or post-2005. The older idea of Hawking (which is pre-2000) where there was no pre-bang universe does not get studied much anymore.
The trouble is, there is no popularization or almost none, of the mainstream current work in quantum cosmology.
A popular book came out this month, but I haven't seen it yet so can't say what I think of it.
Maybe someone will glance at it in a bookstore and say how they like it:
It is called "Once Before Time"---which sounds like it's a "once-upon-a-time" story of the universe. There really should be 5 or 6 popular books to choose from, so everybody could find one to his or her taste and level of knowledge.
As I say, I can't recommend this not having seen it yet, but here is the amazon page:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307272850/?tag=pfamazon01-20
It just came out, so it is the expensive hardcover version. The cheaper paperback will probably appear in about a year.
The author is part of a group at Penn State where they run computer models of an earlier universe that collapses (not to a point, not to infinite density) to very high density which then by quantum effects generates an expansive force which causes it to re-expand and undergo a period of very rapid expansion, inflation. The model has some explanatory power, it can help explain some of what we see. But still needs a lot of testing. For now just one of several competing ideas.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #63
Eyelegal
- 19
- 0
I think time is likely to have been going on for a very very long time before the "big bang", probably similar to the rate that we experience it, but disturbed by matter. I like to picture this on the wavy 2d sheets postulated by m theory, and have always thought they resemble einsteins view of spacetime as a sheet with mass causing distortions in the form of gravity, similar to the waves on the 2d sheet in m theory?
What robsharp said is interesting, time could exist forever but is redefined in each universe created, possibly by the amount of matter present/gravity produced. Time could move slower or faster here than it does outside of universes and inside others.
This could mean that say outside universes is a 4d space, 3 spatial 1 time, sheets float in 2d space inside this 4d space (with another dimension for the strings that make up the sheet), and the sheets define their own 4d space with time having the same general property as before but moving at a different rate depending on the structure of the universe. So they exist in their own space and time within another space and time?
I don't study or understand the mathematics behind these theories, just my random thoughts on current knowledge. Forgive me if it makes no sense.
What robsharp said is interesting, time could exist forever but is redefined in each universe created, possibly by the amount of matter present/gravity produced. Time could move slower or faster here than it does outside of universes and inside others.
This could mean that say outside universes is a 4d space, 3 spatial 1 time, sheets float in 2d space inside this 4d space (with another dimension for the strings that make up the sheet), and the sheets define their own 4d space with time having the same general property as before but moving at a different rate depending on the structure of the universe. So they exist in their own space and time within another space and time?
I don't study or understand the mathematics behind these theories, just my random thoughts on current knowledge. Forgive me if it makes no sense.
- #64
Kevin_Axion
- 913
- 2
I agree with marcus, mainstream media focuses too much on ideas like string cosmology, where as quantum cosmology (LQG in particular) has been having much greater success in this subject area. I'll also admit that M-Theory actually explains more about what possibly exists beyond our universe and lacks an explanation of the one we live in.
- #65
Eyelegal
- 19
- 0
Kevin_Axion said:
We have a reasonable idea of how our our universe was formed up to an instant after the big bang don't we? We just don't understand what happened before that? If its a multiverse like m-theory predicts won't there end up being two theories which communicate in some way, one for our universe and one for the space in which universes are created? Or is one theory really meant to be able to explain everything?
- #66
Kevin_Axion
- 913
- 2
The Big Bang says nothing about the creation of the universe, only fractions of a second after.
- #67
familia
- 7
- 0
I guess were looking for one theory to explain everything but as time goes by we keep finding new facts about the physical reality we live in therefore we keep proving and disproving the theories and refining one to explain all phenomenons found to date right now if I'm not mistaken
we have two theories that explain almost everything from black holes to quanta but all physicists are trying to combine the two to create one
we have two theories that explain almost everything from black holes to quanta but all physicists are trying to combine the two to create one
- #68
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,439
- 750
The holy grail of physics [at present] is to unite general relativity with quantum mechanics - quite a challenge. I think both theories are good approximations, but, incomplete. Until we figure out the incomplete parts, unification is not possible.
Last edited:
- #69
yoda jedi
- 397
- 1
robsharp14 said:
there are theories and theories of time so maybe...
there is not only a beginning of time, there is also an end...
...But the very fact that time was born has a fascinating corollary: it may disappear. In billions of years time could cease to be, according to Prof José Senovilla of the University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, and his colleagues, who published their findings in the journal Physical Review D...
- #70
robsharp14
- 26
- 0
this makes me think of a theory that stated the energy pops in and out of our dimension without any cause or something like that. I can't remember what this theory is called...oh well