Big Bang Now

[Singularitarian]

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.

What, like a singularity infinity?

 

[Dorfl]

What, like a singularity infinity?

Yes. If you follow anything's world-line far enough back in time, you will reach a state where temperature and density approach infinity.

 

[Singularitarian]

Yes. If you follow anything's world-line far enough back in time, you will reach a state where temperature and density approach infinity.

Naturally, of course. If there is a beginning to time that is.

 

[Dorfl]

Naturally, of course. If there is a beginning to time that is.

I'm not sure that is a necessary prerequisite. The Big Bang doesn't have to be the beginning of time, although my question becomes less interesting if it isn't.

 

[Singularitarian]

Yeh, it pretty much is, see, most physicists will agree that time is primal. If it is primal as implied by the classical theory of relativity, then it's a prerequisit of practically everything.

Reason is because if spacetime is one single set of dimensions, as spacetime, then when the big bang happened, it did not just incorporporate the existence of a spatial dimension, but one of time as well. The beginning of time i essential therefore for an excited state universe which would have a singularity in its past light cone and most probably it's future cone.

 

[Singularitarian]

So yeh, the big bang must imply time from a physical and theoretical viewpoint. Space cannot exist without time, because the imaginary space dimension (time) is in fact a universal invariant. The beginning of time became the beginning of the universe as we know it.

 

[Dorfl]

Yeh, it pretty much is, see, most physicists will agree that time is primal. If it is primal as implied by the classical theory of relativity, then it's a prerequisit of practically everything.

Yes, obviously the existence of time is a necessary prerequisite for most of the universe. What I meant is that time beginning with the Big Bang is not necessary for there to have been a state of infinite density at some point in time.

 

[Singularitarian]

I will explain again.

''Time beginning with the Big Bang is not necessary'', as was in your own words, is wrong. If we are agreeing we are working with the standard model of cosmology, i.e. big bang, then we are talking about a theory which must encorporate time. If you want me to give you some examples of why, i will.

In this specific case it must also mean everything expanded from some point in spacetime that was smaller than a proton. The state of infinity density could be given as:

[latex]f(x)= 1 / x[/latex]

That is simply an algebraic solution to a singularity, but in relativity, involves many mathematical changes and formulations that i do not know of myself. Relativity indicates the existence of time through the presence of matter, and matter is the presence of curvature in space, which is the same as time itself, and they are found to be co-dependent as the same entities.

Thus the beginning of any big bang which involved energy, or mass, or the form of spatial freedom, it is found synonymous to the simultaneous existence of time.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I will explain again.

''Time beginning with the Big Bang is not necessary'', as was in your own words, is wrong. If we are agreeing we are working with the standard model of cosmology, i.e. big bang, then we are talking about a theory which must encorporate time. If you want me to give you some examples of why, i will.

In this specific case it must also mean everything expanded from some point in spacetime that was smaller than a proton. The state of infinity density could be given as:

[latex]f(x)= 1 / x[/latex]

That is simply an algebraic solution to a singularity, but in relativity, involves many mathematical changes and formulations that i do not know of myself. Relativity indicates the existence of time through the presence of matter, and matter is the presence of curvature in space, which is the same as time itself, and they are found to be co-dependent as the same entities.

Thus the beginning of any big bang which involved energy, or mass, or the form of spatial freedom, it is found synonymous to the simultaneous existence of time.

That is simply not true. It has been made amply clear in many discussions in these threads that current big bang models give no information about t = 0, and whether time has a beginning or not. There are differing opinions among cosmologists on this very point. If you are attempting to inject religion here, give it up!

 

[Singularitarian]

No, i think you mean we have no idea of what existed before [latex]t=0[/latex] which is expressed as t<0 actually, which is a negtivity in times existence, so we are referring to what cannot exist before the first chronon. A chronon is an indivisible unit of time we are restricted to, which exists for approximately [latex](5.3)10^{-44}[/latex]. The apperance of this time is also known as the Planck Time, and it is related to the Planck Density (a subject you yourself adored into this discussion, debate, or what have you), by these mathematical descriptions:

[latex]\rho_{pl}=\frac{c^5}{hG^2}[/latex]


.... and who mentioned religion? Are you kidding, or just as usual, being condesending?

and

[latex]t_{pl}=\sqrt{(\frac{Gh}{c^5})}[/latex]

and so spatial coordinates are interrogated to be applied where space corresponds to an equally indivisible unit, or square measurement which is approximately [latex](10^{-33})[/latex].

 

[Dorfl]

I will explain again.

''Time beginning with the Big Bang is not necessary'', as was in your own words, is wrong. If we are agreeing we are working with the standard model of cosmology, i.e. big bang, then we are talking about a theory which must encorporate time. If you want me to give you some examples of why, i will.

No need. Any physical theory not describing exclusively stationary states must by definition involve time.

In this specific case it must also mean everything expanded from some point in spacetime that was smaller than a proton. The state of infinity density could be given as:

[latex]f(x)= 1 / x[/latex]

That is simply an algebraic solution to a singularity, but in relativity, involves many mathematical changes and formulations that i do not know of myself.

Yes.

[latex]\lim_{V \to 0} \frac{m}{V} = \infty[/latex]

That much is fairly obvious.

Relativity indicates the existence of time through the presence of matter, and matter is the presence of curvature in space, which is the same as time itself, and they are found to be co-dependent as the same entities.

Thus the beginning of any big bang which involved energy, or mass, or the form of spatial freedom, it is found synonymous to the simultaneous existence of time.

I agree that the Big Bang is simultaneous with the existence of time. That is not the same as saying that Big Bang necessarily means the creation of time.

 

[Singularitarian]

No need. Any physical theory not describing exclusively stationary states must by definition involve time.


Yes.

[latex]\lim_{V \to 0} \frac{m}{V} = \infty[/latex]

That much is fairly obvious.

I agree that the Big Bang is simultaneous with the existence of time. That is not the same as saying that Big Bang necessarily means the creation of time.

It does mean that, because if it didn't, we would not have a big bang model wher everything came from an infinitesimally-small region. You'd be left with something similar like the Ekpyrotic Theory, which does not encorporate a big bang.

 

[Perpetual Student]

It does mean that, because if it didn't, we would not have a big bang model wher everything came from an infinitesimally-small region. You'd be left with something similar like the Ekpyrotic Theory, which does not encorporate a big bang.

That is not correct. The Steinhardt ekpyrotic theory does incorporate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model. You seem to make a habit of writing with great authority, while throwing around mathematics and jargon with marginal understanding.

 

[Singularitarian]

Nope -
Steinhardt said that his theory isn't really a big bang at all in the event of creating matter, for it already existed in a frozen state possibly for eons. His theory is not a big bang theory, but rather when two branes excite each others dorment energy. Big bang theory does not account for what happened before t=0, so it does not answer for any time existent before it, unless one adapts and uses the theory of Ekpyrotic Brane Cosmology to say everything existed in a frozen state.

 

[quarky]

This is the big bang.

Bang.

Forget light cones.

Everything thing is happening all at once.

 

[Singularitarian]

That is true, if we neglect relative observations internal of the universe cataloging the change in a gradient of time and allow diffeomorphisms to unleash a geometry which seems to have a history that is essentially timeless.

 

[ben m]

It does mean that, because if it didn't, we would not have a big bang model wher everything came from an infinitesimally-small region. You'd be left with something similar like the Ekpyrotic Theory, which does not encorporate a big bang.

Sing, all mainstream cosmology theories include the "big bang", understood as the evolution of the universe from a hot, dense, flat state of unknown origin. The ekpyrotic scenario is one hypothesis for the prehistory of that initial state; inflation is another. Both are "big bang theories". Neither requires, or necessarily extrapolates to, the t=0 singularity that you read about in old books.

 

[Singularitarian]

Sing? It's you who is coming up with the wrong interpretation of the Ekpyrotic Theory.

Right now, physicists are devising new theories on how to experimentally test this. Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, and Neil Turok of the University of Cambridge believe that it might be possible to experimentally test this theory through the discovery of the so-far-unseen 'gravitational waves,' that are thought to ripple ever outwards throughout all of spacetime. However, though the big bang states that these gravitational waves are thought to pervade spacetime, the two scientists believe that they are rare, to say the least. 'Ekpyrotic' comes from the Greek word, 'conflagration.' It was coined by Steinhardt, Ovrut, Turok and Khoury in the DAMPT in Cambridge, England.
The Ekpyrotic Theory is directly linked to String Theory - therefore, our universe and our twin will be classified as 'branes', instead of parallel universes though there is very little difference between the two expressions. Before our universe collided with our siemese twin, our universe was completely frozen. When the brane collided into our own universe it sent the gravitational waves rippling, exciting fluctuations in temperature and density - and above all, it gave rise to matter - a soup of quark gasses. This theory is being recognized as quite a serious theory by physicists, because it seems to be a better alternative to both the standard interpretation of the big bang coupled with cosmic inflation, (when the universe spurted out everything faster-than-light).
The difference with the standard model of big bang and the big bang described by the Ekpyrotic Theory is that it wasn't a big bang at all - paradoxically enough. The cataclysm of big bang in this theory rather states that there was an event when the immense energy in the infant universe quite literally drove it to expansion.
Paul Steinhardt, mentioned just previously say's, ‘'our universe begins in a static, featureless state, that persisted for eons.''

''But how long are we talking about,'' One might ask. The truth is we cannot be sure. We could be talking numbers anything like trillions upon trillions of years. The Ekpyrotic Theory though, isn't too different to the usual parallel universe theory - as each universe exists in a superpositioning as myriad sheets all placed among each other. Accordingly, there was a collision; and this set everything in motion.
As Ovrut explains, ' It's a beautiful idea because it says that all of the particles we see actually arise from one object... a string.'' Weird this isn't it? All these strings’ particles contained in the universe and all universes actually constitute one single mega-string! The only way to describe this is by analogously describing this single string as being like a normal string of cotton. Like any fabric weaved into one single string, it is made up itself of much smaller string, all finely interwoven into each, causing them to join into one single woven string. The strings that represent gravity in this universe can easily flow into another brane, and this is how they all couple to each other. They are closed strings.

 

[quarky]

bang!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Singularitarian:

You are an ignorant blowhard! Congratulations -- you are the first person I have put on "ignore."