Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 09 Oct '13 11:24 / 8 edits
    Cross posted in thread. " Part 2 - The Big Bang Theory Wrong? "

    [........ some word noice .........Then comes my subject.] In this thread I ONLY want to discuss [0]x[0]x[0] space. Other people who want do discuss other subjects - make your own thread about that. Please? (I asked nicely).

    About Big Bang
    My point was this. (Now I will talk some regarding "time" ). According to Stephen Hawking, in a book of his, "time" started at the Big Bang. (Even though that is hard to beleve). He used it as a counter argument when the Pope of rome had said things that did not agree with Physics. The Pope wanted to have a "God", and then "God" started the Big Bang. Hawking then said in his book: No time existed before BB. Then "started the BB argument" becomes meaningless. Since to start something - time is required.
    The point I was making. According to BB (at least to my knowledge) there whas an event, called BB, in which everything was compressed in a small space of something like (if 3 dimensions) [0] times [0] times [0] meters. (Unsure about wether this means a mathematical zero. You understand what I mean). My point beeing. Many physics BB scientists have a hard time fitting a [0]x[0]x[0] start event to their theories. Some of them beleve this is not what really happened. Perhaps we could discuss this? Seriously. That would make me a very happy person.

    Since all threads tend to diverge.... I hereby start NEW THREAD for this subject. Called "Fitting [0]x[0]x[0] space, into the Big Bang theory". [This name was too long. New name is now "Fitting [0]x[0]x[0] space, to Big Bang."]
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Oct '13 15:28
    Originally posted by bikingviking
    Cross posted in thread. " Part 2 - The Big Bang Theory Wrong? "

    [........ some word noice .........Then comes my subject.] [b]In this thread I ONLY want to discuss [0]x[0]x[0] space.
    Other people who want do discuss other subjects - make your own thread about that. Please? (I asked nicely).

    About Big Bang
    My point was this. (Now I wil ...[text shortened]... ang theory". [This name was too long. New name is now "Fitting [0]x[0]x[0] space, to Big Bang."][/b]
    There are also theories about how our universe came to be that involves black holes in one universe begetting another universe where there it would be a 'white' hole. So the idea there about time would be there would be a lot of different time flows, the time flow of the parent universe and the starting of time flow for the universe being created by the black hole in the parent creating a daughter universe.

    There the time for the daughter would start fresh for that universe but since there would be higher dimensions involved each universe would have a different time flow and different time rates relative to the parent.
  3. 09 Oct '13 16:01
    Physicists tend to believe that the universe started in a singularity, because that theory best fits our current empirical data.
  4. 09 Oct '13 18:38
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Physicists tend to believe that the universe started in a singularity, because that theory best fits our current empirical data.
    I find it hard to imagine where else except in a singularity! The universe is expanding now so, logically, everything must have been closer together in the past and, if you go further back, everything gets closer together and, if you go still further back, everything gets closer together …..and...so on. Well, the only most obvious thing I can imaging that must be at the end of that “...and...so on” is a singularity because, as you imagine what goes on if you run time backwards, that seems the only point where the universe can stop getting even smaller. If there was no singularity, then the expansion must have started when the universe was already a certain size and I assume a small size but not so small to be a singularity and before that, if there was a 'before' that, it was never any smaller. I have yet to hear of a reason why I should rule out that possibility but I find that rather anti intuitive because it would then begs the question in my mind “why did it start with it being the larger-than-singularity size it did?”
    So, Anyone:
    Can anyone give me a reason or point to evidence for ruling out the possibility that the universe started not in a singularity but some arbitrary size larger than a singularity (such as, say, 1cm across ) ? Does such a reason or evidence ruling that possibility out exist?
  5. 09 Oct '13 19:17
    Originally posted by humy
    So, Anyone:
    Can anyone give me a reason or point to evidence for ruling out the possibility that the universe started not in a singularity but some arbitrary size larger than a singularity (such as, say, 1cm across ) ? Does such a reason or evidence ruling that possibility out exist?
    I don't have anything that is known to rule it out, but if space turns out to have granularity, or a maximum energy or something like that, it would rule it out.
    I think we just don't know enough about singularities to make any definite statements.

    What I find hardest to wrap my mind around is the concept that the universe may be infinite, yet may have still started from a singularity. If it is infinite, then it was always infinite from every point after the singularity. It is just getting more spread out over time.
  6. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    09 Oct '13 19:55
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't have anything that is known to rule it out, but if space turns out to have granularity, or a maximum energy or something like that, it would rule it out.
    I think we just don't know enough about singularities to make any definite statements.

    What I find hardest to wrap my mind around is the concept that the universe may be infinite, yet may hav ...[text shortened]... s infinite from every point after the singularity. It is just getting more spread out over time.
    This could be rubbish but ...

    Are there any BB theories which do not require space shrinking to a singularity?

    Just because the universe has always been expanding does not (mathematically) imply that it was once zero.

    In other words no matter by what factor you shrink something it never becomes zero; just infinitessimaly small.
  7. 09 Oct '13 20:54
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    There are also theories about how our universe came to be that involves black holes in one universe begetting another universe where there it would be a 'white' hole. So the idea there about time would be there would be a lot of different time flows, the time flow of the parent universe and the starting of time flow for the universe being created by the bla ...[text shortened]... each universe would have a different time flow and different time rates relative to the parent.
    Thanks sonhouse! I only have to add one thing (correct me if I am wrong).

    According to Stephen Hawking ;

    Black holes can end in White holes. Hawking says that. A Black hole can lead to a White hole. But then .... No information (particle configurations?) Traveles from the Black hole, to the White hole.
  8. 09 Oct '13 23:00
    I googled some (like 10-15 minutes). I'd like to share it. Perhaps useful, or not.

    If short in time read only these 2.

    http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-whats-the-difference-between-black-holes-and-worm-holes-could-black-holes-take-you-to-other-universes/

    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

    //////////////////


    Wikipedia has very little to say on due subject.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#1980s_-_present_speculations

    An artist made a creative picture of a black hole. Copy and paste! Btw, it's from http://www.zarkanderson.com/2010/08/white-holes-wormholes-and-oh-my.html

    http://zarkauthor.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5500940a988340134864b8507970c-pi

    And perhaps (very basic)

    http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/solar_system/black_holes_wormholes_white_holes.htm


    /////////////////////

    This could be rubbish but ...

    Are there any BB theories which allows time-travel?

    Just because the time has always been going forward does not (mathematically) imply that if crossing a black hole. Then time would start going backwards.

    ///////////////

    Here in Sweden time is 00:49, and I happen to be "between jobs", hence I have some free time to spend in this very forum... In case you wondered. THEREFORE. I have to go to bed and sleep. PERHAPS. I might have something more on this subject, tomorrow. not now. sleep. MM.

    /////////////
  9. 10 Oct '13 05:26
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Are there any BB theories which do not require space shrinking to a singularity?
    Amoung others:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
  10. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    10 Oct '13 05:32
    Physicists, as far as I know, have no working theories regarding the properties of the pre-Bang "singularity." It's a limit point which can't be reached with the Standard Model, only approached.

    As for "time," I don't see it as some kind of thing with a life of its own. Time is events. If nothing is happening, then time does not exist. Since the Big Bang is defined to be the first event that occurred in this universe, then by definition the Big Bang is the beginning of time. Perhaps another universe existed "before" the Big Bang, but that is not an essential part of the theory.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    10 Oct '13 05:50
    Originally posted by humy
    Can anyone give me a reason or point to evidence for ruling out the possibility that the universe started not in a singularity but some arbitrary size larger than a singularity (such as, say, 1cm across ) ? Does such a reason or evidence ruling that possibility out exist?
    At the size of elementary particles such as electrons and photons, it seems to me the idea of "size" just breaks down. An electron really has no size as such, does it? There's just a probability cloud, and technically that cloud encompasses the universe since technically there's a nonzero probability the electron could appear anywhere in space at any given instant. I'm guessing the size of an electron is determined as the, say, 95% cut-off of the cloud -- that is, the region of space where the electron has a 0.95 probability of being found at some particular time. That would seem reasonable, anyway. After all, if the electron itself really had a nonzero volume, that would imply it is made up of some kind of "stuff" even more fundamental than an electron. Right? And then we find ourselves sliding down the slippery slope of infinite regress that is more the stuff of demons and wizards than serious science.

    So, the pre-Bang singularity was probably quantum-sized, which is to say sized so small that the classic notion of size becomes meaningless and there are only clouds of probability. Otherwise we must contend with the idea that the singularity had internal components, which sort of contradicts the usual understanding of the term "singularity." Besides, there is no space before the Big Bang, is there? So how can there be size if there is no space?
  12. 10 Oct '13 06:22
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    An electron really has no size as such, does it? There's just a probability cloud, and technically that cloud encompasses the universe since technically there's a nonzero probability the electron could appear anywhere in space at any given instant.
    And when it does appear, does it have a location and size?
    I think you are assuming the probability cloud which predicts probability of an interaction is the electron. But what is the thing that reacts?
    I am not saying you are totally wrong, I just think it is a bit more complicated than your description.
    We may not know exactly where an electron is when its orbiting an atom, but we can usually be pretty sure that the electron is orbiting the atom because of the negative charge it produces.
  13. 10 Oct '13 14:35 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And when it does appear, does it have a location and size?
    I think you are assuming the probability cloud which predicts probability of an interaction is the electron. But what is the thing that reacts?
    I am not saying you are totally wrong, I just think it is a bit more complicated than your description.
    We may not know exactly where an electron is wh ...[text shortened]... y sure that the electron [b]is
    orbiting the atom because of the negative charge it produces.[/b]
    Have you considered the fact that we are talking about the quantum mechanics world? / We calculate (math) - the math is right - math and physics experiments is "in harmony" with eachother / quantum mechanics seldom is working "how a human would expect" - according to his-her intuition about physics. Intuition about Newtonian physics(?) / The electron is located in a probabuility cloud. No exact location, only a probabuility for the electron to be at a certain place / orbiting around a nucleus / also know as the 'flies that follow the cow' effect, don't remember the name.

    I don't know physics at all so don't listen to me,
    however.

    {{ ---- I own a 1200 page book about quantum mechanics. It is located in a box in my garage. ---- }}
  14. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    10 Oct '13 19:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And when it does appear, does it have a location and size?
    If an electron has a positive volume, like a billiard ball does, then what exactly is "filling" that volume of space? Negativium jelly? I just can't see how there can be an answer, unless the electron is made up of other "smaller" particles, which only kicks the can down the road as we ask what the volumes of the "smaller" particles are. It might be better to think of all particles/waves as merely geometrical "wrinkles" or "patterns" in space, rather the way relativity characterizes gravity as a bending of the spacetime continuum.
  15. 10 Oct '13 20:19
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    If an electron has a positive volume, like a billiard ball does, then what exactly is "filling" that volume of space?
    I believe that even if the electron had a point like volume and location we cannot ever know where it is to greater accuracy than the plank length. However, when it does interact with another object, then we can, in theory, know the location of that interaction with an accuracy up to, but not exceeding the plank length. It is only before and after the interaction that its location is unknown and follows a probability curve that is infinite. And the better we know where it interacted, the less we know about where it will be next.
    I am not sure if it can get to another location in the universe faster than the speed of light. I haven't yet got a clear answer on that from our quantum physicist friends on this forum.


    Negativium jelly? I just can't see how there can be an answer, unless the electron is made up of other "smaller" particles, which only kicks the can down the road as we ask what the volumes of the "smaller" particles are. It might be better to think of all particles/waves as merely geometrical "wrinkles" or "patterns" in space, rather the way relativity characterizes gravity as a bending of the spacetime continuum.