Big Bang Now

[sol invictus]

If spacetime were infinite, what would it be "in"?
And if not, what would whatever it is in, be "in"?

Not all questions in English that sound like they should make sense have an answer. My favorite example is, "What's north of the north pole?"

Ok. So the universe's expansion does not make the present curve in any relevant way or anything?

Well, there's a natural definition of "present" in cosmology, which is the spatial "slice" of the spacetime on which the density is approximately constant. That slice of course does not touch the big bang (where the density is infinite). But it's perfectly valid to consider a slicing on which the density is not constant. The only way I can see to guarantee that one can't reach the big bang on such a slice is if

a) it (the BB) is timelike or a future directed null cone "pointed" at the observer, which is never the case as far as I know, or

b) the universe is finite and sufficiently small (at the time of interest) that there isn't any piece of the bang far enough away. That may actually happen in some examples, but it's not generic.

 

[CurtC]

I also am not sure I understand the question, but we're all within the light cone of the Big Bang event. It's not that it intersects our individual light cones - our light cones are all contained completely within the Big Bang's light cone.

Is that what you meant?

 

[Dorfl]

I also am not sure I understand the question, but we're all within the light cone of the Big Bang event. It's not that it intersects our individual light cones - our light cones are all contained completely within the Big Bang's light cone.

Is that what you meant?

No. I think light-cones are pretty much irrelevant to the question. I was wondering what things the present, which is a hyperplane, intersects.

How do I post pictures? Because this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_line.svg shows the relationship between the light cone and the present pretty well.

 

[sol invictus]

I also am not sure I understand the question, but we're all within the light cone of the Big Bang event. It's not that it intersects our individual light cones - our light cones are all contained completely within the Big Bang's light cone.

The big bang doesn't have a single lightcone, because it's not really a single spacetime point. It's best thought of as a spacelike hypersurface (i.e. a volume at fixed time). So it's certainly true that we are within the light cone of some parts of the big bang, but there are other parts of it we are not inside the lightcone of, and it's those our present can intersect.

 

[Dorfl]

Well, there's a natural definition of "present" in cosmology, which is the spatial "slice" of the spacetime on which the density is approximately constant. That slice of course does not touch the big bang (where the density is infinite). But it's perfectly valid to consider a slicing on which the density is not constant.

Hmm... I think I'll have to look up the exact definition of ''slices'' of spacetime. I feel a bit in over my head right now.

The only way I can see to guarantee that one can't reach the big bang on such a slice is if

a) it (the BB) is timelike or a future directed null cone "pointed" at the observer, which is never the case as far as I know, or

b) the universe is finite and sufficiently small (at the time of interest) that there isn't any piece of the bang far enough away. That may actually happen in some examples, but it's not generic.

About the last. If the universe is finite, does the present then wrap around and connect to itself on the other side of the universe?

 

[Singularitarian]

When an observer moves, that observer's present is tilted with respect to another observer. In all normal situations the effect is negligible, and the observers will agree in which order things happen.

The most obvious exception is when an observer is travelling close to the speed of light. Then you can get situations where observers will disagree as to the order of events (if they are space-likely separated). Another exception is when you look at a part of an observer's present which is really far away. Then the slight tilting can be enough to move the present plane very far in time. Our lecturer did a demonstration of this when he walked back and forth in the classroom, and claimed that the differences in velocity were enough to shift what was present to him in the Andromeda Galaxy back and forth by about a day.

It did not occur to me to ask this to him until after the course was over, so I ask the forum: Does this mean that the parts of the Big Bang that are really far away can be part of my present? or does something, for example some effect of General Relativity, forbid this?

And if my present intersects the Big Band, does it also extend into some sort of pre-Big Bang state, or what?

No.

To be correct, the big bang is actually still happening. It does you no good to say ''are there parts of it which is part of my present,'' for the univese as a whole is still expanding, and is still part of that original big bang, or bangs, as the current trend holds.

 

[Dorfl]

No.

To be correct, the big bang is actually still happening. It does you no good to say ''are there parts of it which is part of my present,'' for the univese as a whole is still expanding, and is still part of that original big bang, or bangs, as the current trend holds.

Is it clearer if I ask if the state of infinite density can be part of my present?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Not all questions in English that sound like they should make sense have an answer. My favorite example is, "What's north of the north pole?"

While accepting the truth of your statement, I can't help feeling it's a bit of a cop-out.
In the case of the north pole example, it comes down to the definition of "north", I suppose. If , while heading for the north pole, we define "north" as the direction on the Earth's surface in which we happen to be travelling, then simply continuing the great circle would answer the question perfectly. (ie "North" simply flips at the pole and becomes "south"). Only if we grant "north" some special ("pseudo vector"?) status such as "The direction that leads towards the north pole by the shortest route from where we are now", does the sentence become self limiting. In that case there is simply a limit to how far north one can go.
It's a likely metaphor, I agree, but the flipside of your statement about grammatically well formed sentences sometimes being meaningless is that we can't extrapolate from the limitations of language to the conclusion that because there's nothing N. of the NP, there is nothing "outside" the universe.

 

[Singularitarian]

Is it clearer if I ask if the state of infinite density can be part of my present?

surprisingly? Yes. That is more compatible, since the infinite energy density does require a real energy within the boundary of real time, which is the present frames of time, which means any past and future are essentially, not real [1].

In other words all that is present in a single given frame of existence, (and let's give it a Plankian Derivational and Temporal Boundary of [latex]10^{-44}[/latex] is in fact the time in which the present time in the universe (as a whole) does incorporate a single frame quantity of energy resident in the vacum, which remains untainted to change. This immutable existence can be explained that the cosmological density of energy is unchanging even if something removed an x amount of energy, but not an infinite amount. An infinite amount wouldrenormalize the energy contained, and present values similar to Einsteins Cosmological Constant.


[1] - i can provide references to this if required.

 

[sol invictus]

In the case of the north pole example, it comes down to the definition of "north", I suppose. If , while heading for the north pole, we define "north" as the direction on the Earth's surface in which we happen to be travelling, then simply continuing the great circle would answer the question perfectly. (ie "North" simply flips at the pole and becomes "south").

Except that which south you mean depends completely on "the direction on the Earth's surface in which we happen to be traveling". All directions are south, which would mean, according to your definition, that they're all north too. But on the up side, with that the analogous answer to "what came before the big bang?" is "the future", which I rather like.

It's a likely metaphor, I agree, but the flipside of your statement about grammatically well formed sentences sometimes being meaningless is that we can't extrapolate from the limitations of language to the conclusion that because there's nothing N. of the NP, there is nothing "outside" the universe.

Of course - it wasn't intended as an argument for something, but merely to illustrate that reasonable sounding questions ("what came before the big bang?") don't always have answers (other than "nothing").

By the way, it's a rather precise analogy in the sense that it's quite close to one of the proposals for how to resolve the big bang (which is that time rounds off smoothly in a way that's mathematically very similar to a pole).

 

[Singularitarian]

I composed a mathematical derivation of a renormalization of the total [latex]\Delta E_{0_t}[/latex] energy density as applied to the hidden energy in the vacuum today, which was i said what i said before.

Using inverse mathematical relationships, you can describe the functions [latex]g[/latex] and [latex]f[/latex] as renormalizable constants. The fundamental law of the comsological conservation states that you
cannot create, nor destroy matter, even though we have contradictory observational evidence that energy is created all the time from the vacuum. It is possible however this energy has already been measured, and
that this energy is not as spontaneous as it may seem [1].

Consider the equation, [latex](E=Mc^2)+(-Mc^2) \approx 0[/latex]. In this equation, one unit of positive mass is cancelled mathematically by a negative solution. Taking this to the symmetry of particle birth, before
synthesis was even initiated, it is currently believed that every positive particle of either mass or energy should have a corresponding negative solution, we call, the antiparticle. The two would conserve a gamma
photon if both particles where real, but if one was purely potential in nature, then it remains to equal upon addition to value zero, or approximately zero, analogous to the cosmological constant value.

Using a mathematical formula i worked out the now to explain this, i show first a recognizable form of association in the form of inverse relationships taking the form of [latex]f(g(x))[/latex], where g and f are assumed
to renormalize:

[latex](f \circ g)=(g \circ f)(x)=x^2[/latex]

let [latex]f=\Delta M_c c^2[/latex], where the lower case [latex]c[/latex] refers to the cosmological energy value, so Delta refers to the total amount (not change) and allow [latex]g=\Delta -M_c c^2[/latex]

then apply this mathematically into one:

[latex](\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2)=(\Delta -M_c c^2 \circ \Delta M_c c^2)[/latex]

so that you can replace the total energy of the universe [latex](\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2)[/latex] with the cosmological constant [latex]\Lambda[/latex], and solving the rest of the equations, you find that the cosmological
constant should have a value either near or exactly zero, through some process of renormalization, discluding somehow the resident energy in the vacuum. Perhaps being potential energy rather than active energy makes all the difference?

[1] - The Bohmian Interpretation of physics states that the universes wave function, and all those which followed till some end or infinity had already collapsed. The identification of one or two waves collapsing in given
by [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2=1[/latex]. This means that everything that came into existence would not have had a spontaneous extension from the big bang, even if the big bang was spontaneous itself. The spontaneity of the
big bang released the ''determined'' path of every quantum system along its lightcone, which is itself a measure of relative history.

 

[Dorfl]

I composed a mathematical derivation of a renormalization of the total [latex]\Delta E_{0_t}[/latex] energy density as applied to the hidden energy in the vacuum today, which was i said what i said before.

Using inverse mathematical relationships, you can describe the functions [latex]g[/latex] and [latex]f[/latex] as renormalizable constants. The fundamental law of the comsological conservation states that you
cannot create, nor destroy matter, even though we have contradictory observational evidence that energy is created all the time from the vacuum. It is possible however this energy has already been measured, and
that this energy is not as spontaneous as it may seem [1].

Consider the equation, [latex](E=Mc^2)+(-Mc^2) \approx 0[/latex]. In this equation, one unit of positive mass is cancelled mathematically by a negative solution. Taking this to the symmetry of particle birth, before
synthesis was even initiated, it is currently believed that every positive particle of either mass or energy should have a corresponding negative solution, we call, the antiparticle. The two would conserve a gamma
photon if both particles where real, but if one was purely potential in nature, then it remains to equal upon addition to value zero, or approximately zero, analogous to the cosmological constant value.

Using a mathematical formula i worked out the now to explain this, i show first a recognizable form of association in the form of inverse relationships taking the form of [latex]f(g(x))[/latex], where g and f are assumed
to renormalize:

[latex](f \circ g)=(g \circ f)(x)=x^2[/latex]

let [latex]f=\Delta M_c c^2[/latex], where the lower case [latex]c[/latex] refers to the cosmological energy value, so Delta refers to the total amount (not change) and allow [latex]g=\Delta -M_c c^2[/latex]

then apply this mathematically into one:

[latex](\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2)=(\Delta -M_c c^2 \circ \Delta M_c c^2)[/latex]

so that you can replace the total energy of the universe [latex](\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2)[/latex] with the cosmological constant [latex]\Lambda[/latex], and solving the rest of the equations, you find that the cosmological
constant should have a value either near or exactly zero, through some process of renormalization, discluding somehow the resident energy in the vacuum. Perhaps being potential energy rather than active energy makes all the difference?

[1] - The Bohmian Interpretation of physics states that the universes wave function, and all those which followed till some end or infinity had already collapsed. The identification of one or two waves collapsing in given
by [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2=1[/latex]. This means that everything that came into existence would not have had a spontaneous extension from the big bang, even if the big bang was spontaneous itself. The spontaneity of the
big bang released the ''determined'' path of every quantum system along its lightcone, which is itself a measure of relative history.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how that addresses the question.

 

[Singularitarian]

It's ok, let me explain, brb

 

[Singularitarian]

Using Inverse-Relationships, we can unite the Dirac Model of quantum Mechanics which described the electron moing in zig-zagged motions through space due to the vitual particles |(negative)| in energy contained dorment within the vacuum. Acting analgous to an ABSOLUTE vector dimension, the energy would require the invitation of Noethers Theorem, which sucssfully unites energy and time as conjugate variables.

If Einsteins Original Cosmological Constant was correct, it would agree that the renoralization of the potnetial particles located in the vacuum would correspond to that of the real particles, those tangible and corporeal ripples of particles in the fabric of spacetime.

If it is near zero, and all the remaining infinite potential energy remains potential because the law of physics decided to flip to entertain a ground state universe, then the superfluous amount of energy we observe could turn out to be many problems, such as a problem in relativity as [long distances], or maybe curvature of massive gravitational-influences on massive galactic sclaes, influencing the geodisics of spacetime geometry... whatever the reason, it still remains aloof.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm sorry, but I can't see how that addresses the question.

There is no honest attempt to answer your question. This is nothing more than obfuscation for no purpose other than to demonstrate his usage of LaTeX and GR/QM jargon.
Have you had the opportunity to read Greene's description of "the frozen river"?

 

[Dorfl]

Have you had the opportunity to read Greene's description of "the frozen river"?

D'oh! I knew there was something I should have looked for in the book store yesterday. Ended up buying A brief history of time instead.

 

[Dorfl]

Using Inverse-Relationships, we can unite the Dirac Model of quantum Mechanics which described the electron moing in zig-zagged motions through space due to the vitual particles |(negative)| in energy contained dorment within the vacuum. Acting analgous to an ABSOLUTE vector dimension, the energy would require the invitation of Noethers Theorem, which sucssfully unites energy and time as conjugate variables.

If Einsteins Original Cosmological Constant was correct, it would agree that the renoralization of the potnetial particles located in the vacuum would correspond to that of the real particles, those tangible and corporeal ripples of particles in the fabric of spacetime.

If it is near zero, and all the remaining infinite potential energy remains potential because the law of physics decided to flip to entertain a ground state universe, then the superfluous amount of energy we observe could turn out to be many problems, such as a problem in relativity as [long distances], or maybe curvature of massive gravitational-influences on massive galactic sclaes, influencing the geodisics of spacetime geometry... whatever the reason, it still remains aloof.

Is it possible to shorten that into a yes/no answer? Since the question is just: Can the state of infinite density be intersected by the hyperplane that constitutes my present?

 

[Singularitarian]

Well, yes and no. You see, you can have everything in the universe as though it is stuck in amber. Timelessness in the universe is a theory coming from diffeomorphisms and non-relativistic cosmology, such as the Wheeler- de Witt equation where time has a zero quantity and uses no relativity so has no relative change to itself in respect to thermodynamical entropy.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, yes and no. You see, you can have everything in the universe as though it is stuck in amber. Timelessness in the universe is a theory coming from diffeomorphisms and non-relativistic cosmology, such as the Wheeler- de Witt equation where time has a zero quantity and uses no relativity so has no relative change to itself in respect to thermodynamical entropy.

You forgot about the discrimination of the aether and the whichness of the why.

The universe is not timeless: space-time.
The Wheeler–deWitt equation is a a functional differential equation on the space of three dimensional spatial metrics, i.e. does not include time. Time is not a zero quantity in the equation.

 

[Dorfl]

Well, yes and no. You see, you can have everything in the universe as though it is stuck in amber. Timelessness in the universe is a theory coming from diffeomorphisms and non-relativistic cosmology, such as the Wheeler- de Witt equation where time has a zero quantity and uses no relativity so has no relative change to itself in respect to thermodynamical entropy.

Yes... The concept of space-time implies that you can see things as being stuck in amber. But an observer will at any point in that amber have a present, which is a hyperplane cutting through the amber. So it should still be possible to answer whether that hyperplane intersects the part of space-time where the density goes towards infinity.