Was Space Present Before the Big Bang or Did It Expand with the Universe?

[4newton]

Chronos I know how you feel. I feel the same way when people do not see things the way I see them. I then need to force myself to remember that they may have a valid point. I also admit that some times I can not see their point of view because I am biased of blinded by my view.

The reason I have moved away from SR is that the theory is contained and is unable to provide a path to the Big Bang BB and the observational expansion of the universe. SR has no concept of time it self or of dimensions. I do not see very many conflicts with SR in the concepts I have presented. If you look close at SR it does not deny a zero reference frame of motion it only states that a ZRF is not needed. The not needed has been extended by most, as there can not be. If my ideas are in error I would be happy if you could point this out to me. Please don’t just make the statement that I am wrong. Give me the reason my thought is wrong. Let me learn your view.

Thank you for being on line. I have found that your thoughts have required me to review my point of view many times. I would like it if we could find more common ground and resolve some of our disagreements.

 

[RingoKid]

...no apology needed Chronos. I take no offense for anything posted on the net.

With regards to your challenge. I don't think I could propose an experiment verifiable within our 3+1 d universe.

As the frame of reference required to prove it lies outside the universe, inside points of spacetime and wrapped up in hidden dimensions.

I don't know maybe jumping into a black hole or getting to the edge of the visible universe might be a good place to try. I'd imagine an object visible in the event horizon of a BH from our frame of reference would also be visible at a point on the edge of the expanding universe before it gets annihilated and reconstituted. Does that violate relativity or am i showing complete ignorance again ?

check my "wave of thought" or "strings and brane shapes" thread in the strings section it kind of qualifies what i believe a little. I would appreciate some feedback there though.

Cheers

 

[John]

Lorentz covariant

I didn't realize until now that Relativity is based on the idea of something affected by two reference frames. I have this interesting, simple physical model that has the two reference frames as one of its features. There is the reference frame we see, and the reference frame that causes what we see. I now see that is the same as Relativity. Now I see that Einstein, and his girlfriend, were trying to explain things that were really happening in experiments. In my model, atoms change shape (contract, expand) because of the space around them. That contraction causes both gravity and momentum in objects to work.

I pursued this model of a universe made out of physical points of matter. I figured out how things move through that sea of matter.

I thought Einstein arrived at the idea of contraction through math. But it was an unexplained phenomena that was in an experiment! All of Relativity was apparently based on that experiment. In my model I realized things had to expand on one side and contract on the other as they got faster, in order to maintain constant momentum while traversing a sea of matter, which we call space.

This contraction/expansion of molecules is also what causes gravity to work. There is a test of my ideas. I believe the neutrons cause molecules to change their shape. Therefore neutrons cause gravity. Hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, and hydrogen clouds in space which maintain their shape for centuries don't appear to have any gravity. Hydrogen also doesn't appear to have any momentum. The explosion of a star goes out into space then stops. It doesn't dissipate nor does it collapse back.

 

[magus niche]

hmmm..

hey people, I have been most entertained by the discussions on this forum. as a first timer (and certainly not an academic mathematician but an academic none the less), i find some consistencies and predictable contradictions among the many posts. But again excuse my ignorance if applicable

BIG BANG: i have always aligned myself with the notion that an event by which everything is spontaneously manifested is modeled on a very western linear rationale, proposing time as having a beginning and therefore an end. I am not saying that this is not correct, but simply observing human theorising. Our brains are seemingly infinite in there idea constructing, what makes everyone seem to think the universe is not working in a similar way: infinitely complex chaos being ordered by random (maybe willful) actions?

SHAPE OF UNIVERSE: ok, people keep referring to to the OBSERVABLE universe, observable by what? Our seemingly limited sensory organs that zoom in on SELECTED details? Or maybe our observations are based on technological feats such as telescopes or microscopes, both of which we, as human beings, have constructed to fulfill our own desires to understand this mysterious thing we call reality. Tools (technology) have been one of human beings' greatest achievements, don't get me wrong, but sometimes i just think we need to remember that they based on our own constantly developing understanding of light, lenses etc. and not some universally profound higher knowledge.

To bring this discussion slightly down to Earth (i wouldn't want to burst any infinitely expanding bubbles ) i pose this question which will probably seem ignorant to the maths inclined: how can we trust observations through our eyes or through the lenses of telescopes (radio, x-ray or whatever) concerning the beginning of space and time, when we are on a planet that seems to be rotating around its own axis, its own star, around its own spiral galaxy? all this movement seems to point towards some extremely large distortions of evidence.

ps. if this question is completely off the topic, i don't blame anyone for not answering...
cheers

 

[Chronos]

Modern, mainstream theory is based on relativity and a background independent reference frame. That is to say the results of experiments will be identical.. no matter what speed, or direction, you travel compared to anything else. More importantly, it says the results will always be the same. Time and space may bend, shrink or contract by their perspective, but, never by yours.

 

[Phobos]

Welcome to Physics Forums, magus niche!

BIG BANG: i have always aligned myself with the notion that an event by which everything is spontaneously manifested is modeled on a very western linear rationale, proposing time as having a beginning and therefore an end. I am not saying that this is not correct, but simply observing human theorising. Our brains are seemingly infinite in there idea constructing, what makes everyone seem to think the universe is not working in a similar way: infinitely complex chaos being ordered by random (maybe willful) actions?

Given the many different creation myths around the world, the western mind is not the only one that likes beginnings & ends. Perhaps it's a hardwired human trait.

From scientific studies, we get the Big Bang model which shows that the universe had a beginning but will not have an end (other than an end in the sense of all matter falling apart...but spacetime goes on). If you pop over to the String Theory forum, you'll probably find some discussions of potential pre-Big Bang time (whatever that means) which may hint at an infinite timeline in the past too.

SHAPE OF UNIVERSE: ok, people keep referring to to the OBSERVABLE universe, observable by what? Our seemingly limited sensory organs that zoom in on SELECTED details?

The observable universe means the portion of the universe that is within our field of view based on the finite speed of light and the age of the universe. Since the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, we have the potential to see things up to 13.7 billion light years away (ok, I'm simplifying here). For anything further than that, the light has not had time to reach us.

So, it doesn't mean the portion we can detect (and we know that we can't detect a whole bunch of stuff within the observable universe...like dark matter).

Tools (technology) have been one of human beings' greatest achievements, don't get me wrong, but sometimes i just think we need to remember that they based on our own constantly developing understanding of light, lenses etc. and not some universally profound higher knowledge.

Certainly.

how can we trust observations through our eyes or through the lenses of telescopes (radio, x-ray or whatever) concerning the beginning of space and time, when we are on a planet that seems to be rotating around its own axis, its own star, around its own spiral galaxy? all this movement seems to point towards some extremely large distortions of evidence.

Astronomers are aware of all that motion and they take it into account as best they can when they do their calculations (e.g., doppler shift of lightwaves, rotating a telescope at the same rate to cancel out the effect of relative lateral motion, etc.)

Anyway, rest assured that cosmologists readily admit that we have a lot to learn still about the universe!

 

[Nereid]

I didn't realize until now that Relativity is based on the idea of something affected by two reference frames. I have this interesting, simple physical model that has the two reference frames as one of its features. There is the reference frame we see, and the reference frame that causes what we see. I now see that is the same as Relativity. Now I see that Einstein, and his girlfriend, were trying to explain things that were really happening in experiments. In my model, atoms change shape (contract, expand) because of the space around them. That contraction causes both gravity and momentum in objects to work.

I pursued this model of a universe made out of physical points of matter. I figured out how things move through that sea of matter.

I thought Einstein arrived at the idea of contraction through math. But it was an unexplained phenomena that was in an experiment! All of Relativity was apparently based on that experiment. In my model I realized things had to expand on one side and contract on the other as they got faster, in order to maintain constant momentum while traversing a sea of matter, which we call space.

This contraction/expansion of molecules is also what causes gravity to work. There is a test of my ideas. I believe the neutrons cause molecules to change their shape. Therefore neutrons cause gravity. Hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, and hydrogen clouds in space which maintain their shape for centuries don't appear to have any gravity. Hydrogen also doesn't appear to have any momentum. The explosion of a star goes out into space then stops. It doesn't dissipate nor does it collapse back.

These ideas are pretty easy - in principle! - to test John, and AFAIK hydrogen has mass, and is 'affected by gravity'. For example, the Sun's mass has been measured to several decimal places; models of the Sun, built with theories in which mass causes gravity (whether the mass is H, D, He, or pure neutrons) are consistent with observations.

You mention that you think neutrons cause molecules to change their shape - how? in what ways? can you point to experiments which have found that the addition of neutrons to an atomic species in a molecule results in changes in the shape of that molecule? Perhaps water - if it is D₂O instead ('heavy water'), will its shape be different? What about if the O is ¹⁸O instead of ¹⁶O?

 

[John]

The same mechanism that produces gravity produces mass in large objects. You can't measure the mass of the sun and say its mass is not equal to its gravity, therefore I am wrong. Mass in large objects and gravity are always going to be equivalent.

The thing you can do is measure the mass of Jupiter. Its mass is about five times that of Earth according to my merky memory. Then say, "What? Jupitor is only five times heavier than earth?" That doesn't seem right! All the figures are right. It projects that much gravity and its mass is exactly equivalent to its gravity, but it is not as much heavier than Earth as we would expect, considering its size. Jupiter is mostly hydrogen.

The hydrogen doesn't seem to be registering as much mass as it should, considering the size of Jupiter.

The sun is also different. It is a nuclear reaction in progress. You can't really say it is hydrogen. It is hydrogen being torn apart, and the hydrogen is becoming a form of neutrons. Neutrons produce gravity, I say. Neutrons are also instrumental in producing mass in large objects. So I say both gravity and mass are from neutrons.

We can't take the particles inside an atom, add up their weights and get its mass; for a lot of reasons, dark matter is one of them, and when you examine closely it seems that hydrogen, which should be registering, isn't really registering.

I developed a mecahnism for how mass does work. The faster you push something the more it contracts. In my model it just did. I didn't know that was the basic idea behind Relativity. That contraction causes it to maintain a consistent speed through a space that is more like a sea with waves than a empty expanse.

 

[magus niche]

stuff

cheers phobos for your response! this forum gets me thinking a lot, and i am curious to know the relevance of knowledge of things so far away that we cannot observe them. i suppose i ask myself similar qusetions about knowledge concerning the mind and other subjects that are difficult to ponder upon. As a visual artist and musician i am starting to view my place in the world as a 'medium' between the everyday practical, and the eternally ethereal. I believe in questioning everything. Not doubting everything, but believing in everything, sort of.

To me it seems that the universe is infinite and in balance between chaos and order, but how about the planet we live on? i suppose what i am getting at is maybe there are links to be made between the stars and atoms and one should always be looking for similarities between the macro AND the micro AND everything in between. but that isn't the astrophysicist's job though i suppose...

to continue my thinking out aloud: what gives the human being the right to define boundaries based on generalisations? do i or anyone else have the right not to consider say, a cell, as a universe, or maybe the human body? hmm... interesting...

these correlations have been made for thousands of years by mystics in various cultures around the world. its curious that specific sciences and disciplines 'zoom in' to various details without thinking about the overall relevance to life on planet Earth (which we are only one small part). i am not pointing a finger to anyone in particular (in fact these discussions give me confidence that there is a lot of speculating going on) but does anyone see my point?

catchya

 

[Chronos]

Your point is not supported by facts in evidence. Modern science is very good and has a lot of observational evidence in support. It is not speculative and it is not arbitrary. Just because you don't like some of it does not make it wrong. Join the crowd, there are many who do not like the implications. You are entitled to question theory, but, it is entirely wrong to question observation: unless the observation is in error. You don't have to take my word for it, but, observational evidence gets pounded before it gets published. Anymore, most writers routinely quantify the uncertainty in their results.

 

[Harveyf]

I must agree with Chronos on observational evidence as opposed to conjecture. As my life ticks by, I am confronted daily with the marvelous human mind coming up with alternative explanations to observational realities. The universe exhibits its presence to me in absolute terms. Although I am ignorant of the processes involved in its origins and maintenance, I am subjected to the reality of its existence by the senses I am endowed with in my evolutionary development. I am aware of what I am looking at: Space, Time, Matter, and my participation in that reality, until such a moment when I reach a state of immateriality. All else is conjecture, and flights of fancy, until hard evidence reveals an alternative truth to what my senses reveal as positive. As to where black holes empty into, or the singularity produced by gravity wells, various dimensions of being, and super strings of creation; all of these high-minded subjects cannot increase [or decrease] the certainty of what my senses perceive of what is "out there." I may never grasp the concepts created by the laws and disciplines of physical science; I am, after all, just a creature of philosophical romanticism, but I am always open to the dialogue [and dialectic] which produces the excitement of new ideas, and alternative evidentiaries which keep moving my species towards a greater understanding of the observational reality of "what is!"
Harveyf

 

[magus niche]

absolutely: observation is all we can really go by i suppose, just keeping you on you're toes, not floating in space - it's not a race.

to dismiss the mind and it's inherent biases would be a big mistake, would you not agree? and how do we map this enigmatic entity? probably the same way we mapped the physical world: reductive generalisations, but ones we seem destined to make.

isn't the world a magic place? confusingly beautiful and simply infinite. anyway i'll cruise over to the less physical forums and leave you in peace...

 

[Harveyf]

Not at all, Magus; happy to receive your response - nothing like parallel wavelengths to make the conversation stimulating. Where, exactly, is the "less physical" forum you allude to? Perhaps I'll stroll over and see what's cooking.
Harveyf

 

[magus niche]

check out philosophy:metaphysics, for a range of views on existence. cheers see you round