Jump to content

Narrowband

Big Bang Speculation


Recommended Posts

Many people speculate about the actual occurrence of the 'Big Bang' including me.. For that matter i postulate that the beginning of time is not coherent with the phenomenon 'Big Bang' at all. Which basically concludes that there should have been something 'previously' or 'initially'. And in fact speaking of' initially', i encourage to believe that the meaning of the word is not in any way applicable to the forces of the universe in relation to matter..


R.V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we think of time as a dimension then it's possible to imagine it being trapped in an incoherent state, not 'opened out' as it is now, until the big bang did render it open and coherent.

We do not yet have, in my view, an adequate theory of time. Since terms like 'before' belong in the theory of time we now have I don't think they can get us very far. ('Before' only makes since within the theory of time we do now have, sometimes called the tensed theory of time. Past, moving present, future.)

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBT however, is not just ‘people speculating’. It is predicated on other strongly tested theories, such as General Relativity, and it is consistent with current observations, such as:

- data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and their subsequent analysis, which give an age for the universe which is consistent with observed stellar age methods;

- the ratio of baryons to photons is consistent with the ratio of deuterium to helium predicted from primordial nucleosynthesis;

- the hubble constant is consistent with measurements from distant supernovae, the Tully-Fisher relationship, and the surface brightness of galaxies;

- the cosmological model from the WMAP measurements is consistent with measurements of large scale structure from surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the Two-Degree Field Survey; http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/wmap_parameters.pdf

- the effects of redshift time dilation are observed in type Ia supernovae;

- the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect can be observed in spectra of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

The BBT is consistent with the evidence we currently have, and there’s quite a lot of it.

At least theory supported by evidence enables us to say something credible about the age of the universe and the nature of time.

Ray 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people speculate about the actual occurrence of the 'Big Bang' including me.. For that matter i postulate that the beginning of time is not coherent with the phenomenon 'Big Bang' at all. Which basically concludes that there should have been something 'previously' or 'initially'. And in fact speaking of' initially', i encourage to believe that the meaning of the word is not in any way applicable to the forces of the universe in relation to matter..
R.V.

I do not quite understand what you are getting at. Is it the occurrence of the big bang itself, or the postulation that time started at the big bang that you doubt? The latter is indeed a very complex matter, and many models suggest both space and time itself came into being at the big bang (or expanded from a singularity state). Our theories tend to break down below the Plank scale, so I think this will remain a point of heated debate for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.

Saint Augustine (about 400AD)

The definition of time is an age old problem.

Another approach to define time draws on the idea of there being more than the observable universe (ie. some sort of multiverse). So instead trying to understand the universe as beginning in a state of very low entropy, some cosmologists ask what is hoped to be a more tractable question: 'Why did part of the universe pass through a state of very low entropy?'

All pretty deep but very interesting. I could imagine that a good definition of time would answer a fair few cosmological questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.

Saint Augustine (about 400AD)

The definition of time is an age old problem.

Another approach to define time draws on the idea of there being more than the observable universe (ie. some sort of multiverse). So instead trying to understand the universe as beginning in a state of very low entropy, some cosmologists ask what is hoped to be a more tractable question: 'Why did part of the universe pass through a state of very low entropy?'

All pretty deep but very interesting. I could imagine that a good definition of time would answer a fair few cosmological questions.

The problem with the tensed theory of time is that it seems very obvious and satisfactory in everyday life. Past, moving present, future. However, at very large and very small scales it seems not to work too well (and we've been there before!) At large scales the idea of the present is rather undermined by the impossibility of two widely separated observers agreeing when 'now' is. And at small scales we run into the entangled photons observation and others. Maybe one day we'll have a theory of time free from artefacts of observation.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people speculate about the actual occurrence of the 'Big Bang' including me.. For that matter i postulate that the beginning of time is not coherent with the phenomenon 'Big Bang' at all. Which basically concludes that there should have been something 'previously' or 'initially'.

I think you may be confusing 'the Big Bang' with 'the beginning of our universe', which is a very common mistake. The actual theory only deals with the evolution of the very early universe onwards. The Bang is a consequence of inflation, but the cause of inflation is a mystery. Whether 'the time before inflation' is a meaningful concept is an open question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people speculate about the actual occurrence of the 'Big Bang' including me.. For that matter i postulate that the beginning of time is not coherent with the phenomenon 'Big Bang' at all. Which basically concludes that there should have been something 'previously' or 'initially'. And in fact speaking of' initially', i encourage to believe that the meaning of the word is not in any way applicable to the forces of the universe in relation to matter..
R.V.

Very interesting. I have some questions and remarks.

  • Many people speculate about the actual occurrence of the 'Big Bang' including me.
Maybe many people misunderstand the idea. It might frighten others. Some simply don't like science. Others prefer an alternative explanation, and some have reasons not to want the 'Big Bang' to be the beginning of the cosmos. What's your take?
  • ... the beginning of time is not coherent with the phenomenon 'Big Bang' ... [The Big Bang implies] that there should have been something 'previously' or 'initially'.
Of course not. The concept ‘Big Bang’ is defined as the beginning of space and time. I suspect you’re making an equivocation error here or you're fighting a straw man.
  • And in fact speaking of' initially', i encourage to believe that the meaning of the word is not in any way applicable to the forces of the universe in relation to matter.
I don't understand this part. Maybe you need to elaborate a bit. It might for instance be helpful if you presented an alternative to the Big Bang that avoids the problem with the meaning of the word initially.
It's usually a mix of arguments and/or evidence that incline me to believe a proposition. Proof is even better, but that is sometimes hard to find.
Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be confusing 'the Big Bang' with 'the beginning of our universe', which is a very common mistake. The actual theory only deals with the evolution of the very early universe onwards. The Bang is a consequence of inflation    

That seems to unnecessarily muddy the waters though. As far as I know, Fred Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang' as a derisive put-down to those who questioned his steady state theory. This was long before the concept of 'inflation' and Hoyle clearly intended his term to refer to the 'actual beginning'. If cosmologists are now saying the BB is a result of inflation, it would be less disingenuous to invent some new term, rather than appropriate the BB phraseology, which is clearly established in the public mind, and even some scientists, as referring to the moment of origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just work on the basis that the seriously knowledgeable scientists who spend their lives studying advanced astrophysics and cosmology know a ton more stuff about their subject than I will ever know and thus any speculation or thoughts I may have about the subject are just pointless mind games that I cannot hope to actually provide any evidence to support. This is one subject on which I will always defer to the experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems to unnecessarily muddy the waters though.

This is how science progresses, ideas evolve. Before the 1980s there was no theory of conditions that predated the Big Bang, so it's not surprising the terms were used synonymously. I'm trying to de-muddy the waters, we can't have a meaningful conversation if we're talking about different things. ;) The OP and post #3 appear to be using the terms differently and are therefore talking at cross purposes. Unfortunately this happens quite a lot.

I just work on the basis that the seriously knowledgeable scientists who spend their lives studying advanced astrophysics and cosmology know a ton more stuff about their subject than I will ever know and thus any speculation or thoughts I may have about the subject are just pointless mind games that I cannot hope to actually provide any evidence to support. This is one subject on which I will always defer to the experts.

Threads like this one can help build our understanding, we aren't realistically going to advance the science itself. Ultimately my opinion on matters of real science is close to worthless but I can understand and appreciate the subject, up to a point at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The Bang is a consequence of inflation, but the cause of inflation is a mystery.

No. Inflation is something that occured after the bang, caused by the presence of a scalar field (maybe the Higgs, or a different scalar field dubbed the inflaton). The bang is a singularity at time = 0 in the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric. What caused the big bang, what happened before, and whether it makes sense to speak of "before" and "cause", remain open questions. "Brane" theories such as the ekpyrotic universe postulate a time before the big bang. So do some other "multiverse" theories, such as "eternal inflation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

There are various ways of regarding the big bang as the beginning of time, with no before. One way, popularised by Hawking in "A Brief History Of Time", involves "imaginary time" (where "imaginary" here refers to so-called imaginary numbers, as in the square root of minus 1). Then the Big Bang becomes analogous to the north pole of a sphere: a singularity of coordinates only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

There have also been those who, for various reasons, have argued that time does not really exist (we only think it does).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric#Closed_timelike_curves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how science progresses, ideas evolve. Before the 1980s there was no theory of conditions that predated the Big Bang, so it's not surprising the terms were used synonymously. I'm trying to de-muddy the waters, we can't have a meaningful conversation if we're talking about different things. ;) The OP and post #3 appear to be using the terms differently and are therefore talking at cross purposes. Unfortunately this happens quite a lot.

Threads like this one can help build our understanding, we aren't realistically going to advance the science itself. Ultimately my opinion on matters of real science is close to worthless but I can understand and appreciate the subject, up to a point at least.

My comment related to original posters postulations, not the subsequent posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Inflation is something that occured after the bang, caused by the presence of a scalar field (maybe the Higgs, or a different scalar field dubbed the inflaton). The bang is a singularity at time = 0 in the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric.

I'm not qualified to answer this, but a professor of astrophysics disagrees with you. As I said above, are we using the term to mean the same thing?

My comment  related to original posters postulations, not the subsequent posts.

I agree with what you said in the post above. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not qualified to answer this, but a professor of astrophysics disagrees with you. As I said above, are we using the term to mean the same thing?

The blog post by Ethan Siegel seems to be referring to eternal inflation, which I referred to in my post, so there is no disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
My statement could be contemplated relatively different. I think that time, the concept time, has no beginning whatsoever. It was always there, disregarding the observation that entropy raises gradually over time. That given basically declares that the consequence of a certain event or singularity has taken place
 
- "We do not yet have, in my view, an adequate theory of time."
 
No we certainly do not, since there isn’t any absolute stillness and thus no preferred reference frame declaring tome to be extremely relative, therefore Einstein has made his theory on special relativity. Time might be one of many perceptional illusions created within our very own brain.
 
 
-"It is predicated on other strongly tested theories, such as General Relativity, and it is consistent with current observations"
 
There sure has been conducted a lot of research among all concepts regarding the BBT and therefore we have a significant archive of evidence but as it always goes with science, there are always contradictions. Einsteins theories on general relativity and special relativity for that matter are extraordinary theories and a vast contribution to science but there are always ‘holes’ or inconsistencies. For example the fact that black holes emit heat radiation and sub-atomic particles contradicts general relativity and since Einstein hasn't incorporated the mathematical probability of incertitude of elementary particles in quantum field into his equations, the quantum state or 'superposition' of given particles due to their prodigious erratic behavior are not unified with gravity at all. His theory on special relativity however does at some point unify with quantum mechanics but nonetheless also entirely disregards gravitational force. Therefore i believe that eventually the concept of gravity has to be redeveloped to incorporate quantum field theory in order to declare gravitational phenomena relative to certain factors such as 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' and their true nature which are momentarily considered the most mysterious phenomena of modern astrophysics.
 
 
- "Is it the occurrence of the big bang itself, or the postulation that time started at the big bang that you doubt?”
 
To be more specific i actually mean both, not the actual occurrence but the thought that the ‘Big Bang’ is the origin and thus the creator of everything. For example it might be a singularity within another singularity that is part of a bigger system. For that matter that automatically declares why i postulate that time is incoherent with the creation of our universe.
 
 
- "Another approach to define time draws on the idea of there being more than the observable universe (ie. some sort of multiverse). So instead trying to understand the universe as beginning in a state of very low entropy, some cosmologists ask what is hoped to be a more tractable question: 'Why did part of the universe pass through a state of very low entropy?’"
 
I certainly agree on this one and that is somewhat the direction i’m pointing at.
 
 
- "The Bang is a consequence of inflation, but the cause of inflation is a mystery. Whether 'the time before inflation' is a meaningful concept is an open question."
 
As ‘acey' described above, the Big Bang is NOT a consequence of inflation, this is clearly stated by the evidence of the cosmological microwave background.
 
"inflation is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate”. (source wikipedia)
 
But the time before the Big bang for that matter is indeed an open question that bothers me immoderately.
 
 
-"Time is a concept, which we measure our age"
 
Indeed WE measure it, therefore time might be one of many perceptional illusions created within our very own brain as i stated above.
 
 
-"Maybe many people misunderstand the idea. It might frighten others. Some simply don't like science. Others prefer an alternative explanation, and some have reasons not to want the 'Big Bang' to be the beginning of the cosmos. What's your take?  It might for instance be helpful if you presented an alternative to the Big Bang that avoids the problem with the meaning of the word initially."
 
I have referred to this matter above.
 
 
I’d like to thank everyone for their response, i honestly didn’t expect it so copiously and my apologies for the somewhat extremely delayed response on my behalve.. I’m always rather occupied but this was getting out of hand honestly.
 
R.V.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Indeed WE measure it, therefore time might be one of many perceptional illusions created within our very own brain as i stated above. "

That thought must therefore apply to everything else we measure then. If we accept that, then we resign ourselves to a universe that is a perceptional illusion of our own creation.  Including ourselves and our own creation.  Mmm, sorry folks, as an engineer I really enjoy living in the real world and for that reason I'm with the late Groucho Marx on this matter - "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana":icon_biggrin:

I'll get my hat and coat!

interesting thread nonetheless, thanks to all.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.