No Big Bang?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, from what I understand, the singularity is what contained space itself.

[KebertX]

I thought I would clear up one thing.  I don't see anything that says that time would move backwards if you converted space to time.  If time is converted to space and mass converted to length, he says that the reverse is true, meaning that space can be converted to time and length converted to mass.  None of this conversion is outside of its current temporal relation that I can see, and that is actually a problem with what he's talking about, or a problem with my understanding.  I imagine it is a problem with my understanding, since this stuff is way over my head for the most part.  If I am right though, there is still a problem.

Now, someone said they could see how time can be converted to space, but not how mass can be converted to length.  I have the opposite problem.  I can see how length and mass can be connected, only because if you stretch out the space some given amount of matter takes up, it becomes less massive.  The hard part comes in where you have to imagine mass where there is no space, which is one of those problems I have with big bang models.  You can never get to T=0 with them.  If you remove all space, that means there is nowhere for any mass to hide, since it has no "where" there.

My problem is, I can't figure out what you have if you have more and less time based on what he's saying.  I'll have to look at it more in depth when I have more time.

It's implied by the idea that the expansion of the universe is due to the conversion between time and space. Driving the arrow of time forward, and the expansion of the universe outward. If this conversion work both ways, causing the universe to expand and contract. The idea that contraction of the universe is possible implies that the arrow of time could begin to move backward.

I just find it hard to visualize. I suppose length IS just another spatial dimension, like time. So really they both make the same amount of sense (Space is to time as Mass is to length). I'm not convinced. This theory is completely unsubstantiated. If it picks up speed within the scientific community, then maybe I'll reconsider it.

[Prometheus]

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? I like the direction this guy seems to be going in I just want to see how he gets there.

I've always rejected the concept of a universe which begins and ends. Also the concept of a singularity doesn't really explain the birth of the universe because the singularity itself(Which seems to have energy and/or mass in some form bound up within it) can't just come from nowhere. Its like a theist saying "god made the universe" then someone saying "what made god?" It seems to me that we are just trying to make the laws of physics conform to our expectations(Something we can easily process which "makes sense" in our minds). Our minds evolved to deal with a relatively simple level of reality. We have little need(As far it effects our survival and ability to pass on our genes.) to understand the bigger picture but most of us strive to do so anyway. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the true nature of reality(The inherit laws which govern our universe.) are completely beyond our ability to comprehend. We might be a little like Plato's cave-dwellers doing our best to understand things we can't really see. (At the same time our minds aren't the least bit equiped to deal with this unseen reality.)

[hackenslash]

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper?

pdf

I've always rejected the concept of a universe which begins and ends. Also the concept of a singularity doesn't really explain the birth of the universe because the singularity itself(Which seems to have energy and/or mass in some form bound up within it) can't just come from nowhere.

This constitutes a mimsunderstanding of just what a singularity is, along with some misconceptions about the input for the big bang. Firstly, a singularity is simply a place in which our theories break or yield absurd results. In the case of the big bang singularity (which has not been established), we are talking about a quantum event with significant relativistic mass, and any time QM and GR are brought together, the yielded results are infinities, which are a clear sign that something has gone wrong. This is why the search for a quantum theory of gravity is seen as the most important area of physical research at the moment. Secondly, the idea that the big bang singularity came from 'nowhere' is a bit misleading. 'Nowhere' refers to a spatial location, and there was no space before the big bang, so the idea is meaningless. Further, there are models on the table that may provide the energy input for cosmic instantiation, and some of them are even testable.

[Prometheus]

Blast. I reevaluated most of what I know about the subject after reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by bill bryson. I've not been all that impressed by his "insights" into fields I am more familiar with(Chemistry, biology, and newtonian physics.) but I finished the book anyway because it was a gift from a proffessor. He described the singularity as something more of a cosmic event and less of a mathmatical premise.

'Nowhere' refers to a spatial location, and there was no space before the big bang, so the idea is meaningless. Further, there are models on the table that may provide the energy input for cosmic instantiation, and some of them are even testable

I put that a little to plainly then. I wasn't aware my statements would be picked apart to such an extent. To rephrase: The Matter and Energy(I refered to this earlier as the singularity) which, according to the theory, were present before the "big bang" has to have come from somewere(Not a place. I'm saying it can't just suddenly come into existance from nothing.).
           I've read a little about the "energy input" you mentioned. Most of the theories I've heard involve darkmatter. You have nothing, then u have something and antisomething which sum to nothing so its all mathmatically sound(Rofl). I don't have muct to say in regards to them except that they seem a little too convenient. I can get behind nuclear physics where matter and energy are interchangeable but its gonna take some hard evidence to convince me that Something can come from Nothing. But like I said before, we're all basing our reasoning on reality as we understand it based on past experiences here on earth and the "Equation of everything" might just be beyond our comprehention now and possibly forever.

Either way I don't see the "Big bang" theory as a valid answer to where the universe began for the reasons I mentioned before(There still no answer to "Where did all this crap come from? And where will it go?").

Thanks for the link.

[hackenslash]

I haven't actually come across any theory of cosmic instantiation that employs dark matter, and that wouldn't explain the input anyway. Guth's inflationary model is a good one, and involves only physics we experience in our cosmic expansion. The other front runner at the moment is the Turok/Steinhardt 'brane-worlds' model, which is very interesting and testable to boot. This provides a quite parsimonious explanation for the energy input. As far as I'm aware, nobody is really suggesting 'something from nothing', not least because 'nothing' is a completely invalid concept, and would constitute a violation of one of our best established principles.

As for the Bryson book, I found the whole thing to be a little woolly, but especially in the areas I have some understanding of, such as cosmology.

[Prometheus]

Yeah lol. Bryson has that habit of "dumbing things down" to the point that they wind up just being dumb. I read a history book with a similar problem last week.

If you look hard enough, someone, somewhere, is suggesting pretty much every crazy idea that could be thought up . I know i saw that theory somewhere about matter and antimatter being created simultaneously.(The nothing and something i was talking about. It was represented as two inverse sinosoidal waves.) Wish i could find it, ive read way too many random papers, most of which are probably baseless crap.

The brane worlds thing is cool, i dont know much about it honestly but it was referenced in a sci fi novel called Olympos by Dan simmons. Great book.

I'm more interested in string theory now although i dislike the fact that its founders seem to be saying its untestable.(Can it be a theory if its untestable lol)

Are you still here by the way? I know its been a while.

[Stevil]

Firstly, a singularity is simply a place in which our theories break or yield absurd results. In the case of the big bang singularity (which has not been established), we are talking about a quantum event with significant relativistic mass, and any time QM and GR are brought together, the yielded results are infinities, which are a clear sign that something has gone wrong.

A singularity is energy/matter with zero volume, which means it has infinite density. I don't believe this is possible.

there was no space before the big bang

Scientists don't know what was around before the big bang. I think it is absurd to suggest that there was no space prior.
Space is not a substance. Space is merely a conceptual three dimensional coordinate system. Space does not exist, never has done, never will.

Although I must say that it is interesting to consider what is "distance". If Space isn't a substance then how can there be distance between two objects e.g. Earth and the moon. What keeps track of where things are positioned within non existent Space? Where is this spacial attribute stored?
Einstein proved that distance is relative to speed. We have no idea how fast we are traveling through Space. We don't know what a stationary point in space would be or even if such a thing exists.

We don't know if there are other big bangs, thus other universes in Space, we don't know if there is a three dimensional path between our universe and other universes. We don't know if our perception of our universe matches the perception of an observer outside our universe. It is possible that what we perceive as a very large, very fast expansion of energy and matter looks like empty space to someone outside our universe. Thus our perception of distance and substance could be very different.

Our perception of space, of reality, is a three dimensional coordinate system, which is all relative with no absolutes. The only thing really that we know is that regardless of where you are, how much mass you have or how fast you are going, the speed that you observe unimpeded light traveling at is a constant.

BTW, if anyone understands what I have just said, then hats off to you. I understand my own thoughts but to try and explain them in an articulate and understandable fashion to someone else, it a real challenge.

[Stevil]

Space is to time as Mass is to length

As far as I understand it, this statement is incorrect.
We can't relate anything to space.
Time relates to matter and energy. Without matter and energy there would be no time.

[Stevil]

Are you still here by the way? I know its been a while.

This is such an old thread. I don't think Hack is around, he disappeared for a while, turned up not long ago but hasn't really been posting as of late.
It is unfortunate as he has a good grasp on cosmology, science and quantum physics, he was always a great contributor to the forum.

[Prometheus]

It seems that advanced physicists see space as more than simply 3 dimensional "Nothing". If you start looking at relativity and such(Which i barely understand) space and time appear to be something rather than simply the absence of anything. Funny as hell when you consider ancient theory on the subject which often treated the vacuum of space as an "aether" with almost magical properties.

I really don't have a good grasp on any of this, as you learn more about it you realize that only those who specialize in physics or perhaps very dedicated hobbyists are able to keep up with the more advanced aspects of physics(Or chemistry or other fields). I myself don't have much faith in our modern theories, some of them may be close to the truth but my money says centuries from now people look back at them the same way we look back at the greeks(And many times scientists from just a century or two ago). its funny how we all seem to to think we've just now gotten everything right when we know people a few decades or centuries ago thought the same thing about ideas that are almost laughable now.

[Stevil]

It seems that advanced physicists see space as more than simply 3 dimensional "Nothing". If you start looking at relativity and such(Which i barely understand) space and time appear to be something rather than simply the absence of anything

I don't know what advanced physicists think or know.
Did a google search and it seems many people have many different ideas.

I personally wouldn't define the substance of space by what is contained within it. If I have a box and I have toys in it, it is a box. If I take all the toys out of it, it is still a box.
Space is not like a box, it doesn't have any borders, it is not made of substance (as far as i am aware). As our universe expands it takes up more and more volume within space, it never reaches the limits of space, does this mean coincidentally that it is creating space? I don't think so.

If there are two expanding universes within 3 dimensional space is it possible for them to expand so much that they collide?
If so then there is a spacial path between them, a relative timeline and a coordinate system separating them by distance. It is interesting to think about.

When i get some time i will do spend some more time trying to find out what actual physicists, cosmologists think space is.

[Stevil]

If there is no spacial path between two universes and if space only comes into existence along with matter/energy and time (a space bubble if you will) then the implications are inelegant.

It means that all the energy and matter that make up our universe had to have come into existence all at once, in the instant of the big bang. This means that there was nothing and then poof "everything". It means that there was no slow accumulation of energy/matter over the aeons of seemingly infinite "time".
Why couldn't things accumulate? Because as we have asserted as a premise that there is no spacial path between two universes (because space is bound to an individual universe instance).

Another inelegant implication is the problem of black holes. It means that black holes will last forever (as nothing can escape the gravity grip of a black hole). As black holes over time collect energy/matter they simply get more and more massive and the energy/matter becomes lost to the "free space" within our universe.

Another non elegant implication is the problem of infinity. Scientists have proven that our universe will continually expand forever, dissipating into virtual nothingness. If our Earth were able to survive for tens of billions of years more we would come to a point where it seems we are alone in space, we would see no other stars, there would be no background radiation. So over time (tending towards infinity) our universe will be an error in existence, something that exists, but is inert, there is no perpetual cycle, no equilibrium. This I find is highly inelegant.

[Prometheus]

The answer to your black hole issue is possibly a white hole. I'll let google tell you more but basically all that stuff you're worrying about piling up just pops into existence elsewhere according to at least one theory. These theories tend to suggest that their are multiple universes/dimensions and many/all of them are connected somehow(Not mainstream science as far as I know). Some people have even thrown string theory into the equation here(Small obscure joke. Get it? ) . A bit more mainstream tho i don't understand much at all about it.

It means that there was no slow accumulation of energy/matter over the aeons of seemingly infinite time".

The theory holds that time, space, mass, and radiation didn't exist before the "big bang". So no time could elapse prior to the event. I wonder vaguely and with little semblance of order if any single universe(birthed from a single singularity event) isn't part of some greater dimensional organization with an infinite number of such universes. This has been said before by people a lot smarter than me. You could then possibly think less about something coming from nothing and more about something moving from somewhere where it was to somewhere where nothing was and now something is. rofl Now I'm dumbing things down to the point that they're just dumb but in all seriousness this just moves the age old question elsewhere. where did this shit come from before that? Has it always been and will it always be? Without a constant linear sense of time the last sentence isn't so hard to accept. There would be no beggining and no end, such things being later additions to the system(And still possibly meaningless nonsense dreamed up by selfimportant apes on an insignificant blue speck ).

Much of what you say assumes theres an order to all of this, as if someone planned it(Kind of clashes with the websites name eh?). Who's to say this all isn't just some highly impropable fluke? Or even that any of this really exists as we percieve it to? i've said for years that reality does not neccessary conform to our expectaions/ability to understand it. It seems more likely that the opposite is true and any absolute truths/laws are beyond our understanding.

The "heat death" you seem to be talking about has always interested me. Once everything drifts about to the extent that no reaction or radiation is possible/likely.

As our universe expands it takes up more and more volume within space, it never reaches the limits of space, does this mean coincidentally that it is creating space? I don't think so.

This is exactly what the big bang theory states i believe. That space is being created(The universe expanding). What lies at the edge is a bigger question, one we can't easily wrap our heads around since they insist something must be there(Even if it is nothing/vacuum).

There's no reason the 2-3 universes you mention have to collide. you're thinking in terms of 3 dimensional space. think in terms of 4 or more. If your head dousn't explode, you might decide that these universes could all neatly expand infinitely in 3 dimensional space without risk of contact. Compare this to two infinitely wide and long tables sitting on each other which expand in two dimensions.

[Prometheus]

Space is not like a box, it doesn't have any borders, it is not made of substance (as far as i am aware).

Just noticed this. Books have been written just about this. Again, beyond my limited understanding of the field but space and time are supposedly tangible things. Space/vaccum actually has properties to it that do not exist where tehre is no space.(Lets say for example just past the edge of the universe)