Re: Re: God, Big Bang or Both?
) but its nice how it allows for new and more specific questions …
I noticed that per your profile you have a B.S. in Physics. So let me derail my thread and ask you a couple of questions if you don't mind --
1) Is it possible that all of the particles and anti-particles came from another dimension? Do the other dimensions (curled-up) that the various QM theories mention have to belong to our universe -- or could some of them belong to another or other universes?
2) On an extremely simple level I'm aware of how sound waves and noise cancellation work. To put it in super simplistic terms -- if two pure tones are timed just so, and put perfectly out of phase with each other -- they will cancel each other out. If one tone is halted however, you will hear the other one. If the timing of the pure tones' sound waves are altered, one would hear both tones.
The reason I brought that up is because I wonder if this could be an analogy for what happens with the particle and anti-particles pairs that appear out of nowhere? Could they actually be around, but just not detectable by anyone until they are colluded into by other particles which would cause them to move out of "phase" (or their equivalent) and only then be detectable?
--
This version of the Big Bang Theory is really very fascinating. Thanks again for bringing it up.
Thanks Upchurch. I wasn't aware of this version of the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't completely answer the big questions (thank goodness, that would be boring!Upchurch said:
) but its nice how it allows for new and more specific questions …I noticed that per your profile you have a B.S. in Physics. So let me derail my thread
and ask you a couple of questions if you don't mind --1) Is it possible that all of the particles and anti-particles came from another dimension? Do the other dimensions (curled-up) that the various QM theories mention have to belong to our universe -- or could some of them belong to another or other universes?
2) On an extremely simple level I'm aware of how sound waves and noise cancellation work. To put it in super simplistic terms -- if two pure tones are timed just so, and put perfectly out of phase with each other -- they will cancel each other out. If one tone is halted however, you will hear the other one. If the timing of the pure tones' sound waves are altered, one would hear both tones.
The reason I brought that up is because I wonder if this could be an analogy for what happens with the particle and anti-particles pairs that appear out of nowhere? Could they actually be around, but just not detectable by anyone until they are colluded into by other particles which would cause them to move out of "phase" (or their equivalent) and only then be detectable?
--
This version of the Big Bang Theory is really very fascinating. Thanks again for bringing it up.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: Re: Re: God, Big Bang or Both?
I'm not saying that it is an easy concept to grasp. Our human minds evolved in such a way that we could survive in our macroscopic world where these kinds of phenomena average out to approximate what we see everyday. It is very difficult to retrain yourself to think in terms of the very big or very small. I was only marginally successful at the former and completely failed at the latter.
I dunno. I'll admit that you're asking questions that are beyond my personal knowledge and understanding of the subject. At this point, I don't have any answers for you.
No prob. This version may not even be in anyway correct, but for now, anyway, it's the most likely.Shera said:
Just remember that I only have a B.S in physics. I am a loooong way from being able to act as an authority on all aspects of the subject. And actually, I left the biz because I finally admitted to myself that I was unable to completely wrap my head around quantum mechanics. Stimpy might be a better one to explain all this.
I can't say it's impossible, but that is not my understanding of QM. Virtual particles are the result of an underlying probability that a particle will be in a certain location at a certain time. It's a small, but non-zero probability. It isn't that those particles are "coming from somewhere", they're just there.
I'm not saying that it is an easy concept to grasp. Our human minds evolved in such a way that we could survive in our macroscopic world where these kinds of phenomena average out to approximate what we see everyday. It is very difficult to retrain yourself to think in terms of the very big or very small. I was only marginally successful at the former and completely failed at the latter.
The idea that the particle/anti-particles were there and just canceling each other out do to out-of-phase osculation (sp?) is an interesting one, but I'm not sure I understand what mechinism would cause only one of the pair to change it's phase and not the other.
I dunno. I'll admit that you're asking questions that are beyond my personal knowledge and understanding of the subject. At this point, I don't have any answers for you.
I've read about the quantum fluctuation effect as a possible trigger for the Big Bang... and so far, it's the one that makes the most sense to me in many ways. However, a couple of things about it still bother me.
Quantum fluctuation (QF, if you don't mind) takes place over an extremely short period of time - but theoretically, it's not instantaneous. There's a duration involved, small as it is. This implies the existence of time, which doesn't seem consistent with the state of things pre-big-bang.
The other thing that bothers me is that QF happens continually. Logically, then, assuming homogenity of the pre-big-bang "egg", the very first QF should have triggered the expansion... and that (I think) puts us right back behind the eight ball... because I had to use the word "first". What "triggered" the "first" QF? Or if nothing "triggered" it, then what was unique about a particular QF that started the expansion?
Alternatively, if the "egg" wasn't homogenous, what differences existed that would preclude any QF from "hatching" the "egg" instantly? (And, of course, this raises another question. If the "egg" wasn't homogenous - which seems somewhat likely, given recent astronomical observations identifying a "super-cell" structure to the universe's galaxy clusters - then what were the differences in properties between the regions?)
It's a puzzlement to me.
(Edited to add info about super-cell structure)
Quantum fluctuation (QF, if you don't mind) takes place over an extremely short period of time - but theoretically, it's not instantaneous. There's a duration involved, small as it is. This implies the existence of time, which doesn't seem consistent with the state of things pre-big-bang.
The other thing that bothers me is that QF happens continually. Logically, then, assuming homogenity of the pre-big-bang "egg", the very first QF should have triggered the expansion... and that (I think) puts us right back behind the eight ball... because I had to use the word "first". What "triggered" the "first" QF? Or if nothing "triggered" it, then what was unique about a particular QF that started the expansion?
Alternatively, if the "egg" wasn't homogenous, what differences existed that would preclude any QF from "hatching" the "egg" instantly? (And, of course, this raises another question. If the "egg" wasn't homogenous - which seems somewhat likely, given recent astronomical observations identifying a "super-cell" structure to the universe's galaxy clusters - then what were the differences in properties between the regions?)
It's a puzzlement to me.
(Edited to add info about super-cell structure)
uruk said:
I think you might be right, but I'm not sure. If I have the time tonight, I'll go through my books and try to find the explanation. It's been a while since I read it. (I think it's in Hawkings book where he explains his theory about black holes evaporating... but it could be another book explaining Hawking's theory.)
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
The thing to keep in mind is that matter/energy and spacetime are interdependant. The emergence matter is equivalant to the emergence of spacetime. So, if there were QFs "prior" (I'm not exactly sure what that would mean, but speaking hypothetically) to the one that kicked off our little spacetime, the mutual distruction of the particle/anti-particle pair would result in the disappearance of its spacetime as well.jmercer said:
Again, this is hard stuff and difficult to explain outside mathematics. (okay, it's hard to explain inside of mathematics too, but at least mathematics is the native language for this stuff.)
The idea of a Big Bang "Egg" has the exact same problems as Shera's opening post. You are taking a situation where matter and time do not exist and putting it within our common context of matter and time. It's inapplicable. You have to stop thinking of time as something that is always moving in the same direction, always has been, and always will be no matter what.
Upchurch said:
Huh... hard stuff to get my head around, that's for sure.
Ok, I think you're saying that any information from the priming QF's (priming, as in starting the known universe) brief "flirtation" with it's own spacetime was destroyed in the ensuing event. Ok, if I'm right in my interpretation, that makes sense.
But I'm still knocking my head against the question "Why that particular QF?" What was different about that particular one?
As I was wracking my mind, trying to recall what I'd read, I seem to remember that one interpretation was that the QF simply kept expanding for unknown reasons. That would address some of the questions, but not all of them.
Upchurch said:
Ok... wooot! Woot! Woot! Abandon egg! Abandon egg!
Fair enough. We lose time (which is simply another aspect of space, after all), and we start looking at something that is infinitely small. Dunno about density, but if there's no spacetime, we have to be talking about something that's a zero in volume. There can't be any dimensions to it.
Right? Hopefully?
I won't go too much further than this with my questions at this point - too little data - but if so... how does a QF manifest itself under those conditions? Or - by the act of manifesting itself - does the QF become the central point of the universe, as in the QF inflation idea?
Now MY head aches...
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
....aaaaand we've reached the limit of what I can contribute from a position of knowledge. On to the conjecture....jmercer said:
There is no reason to believe that there was necessarily anything unique about that particular QF, except that it triggered our particluar spacetime. It is entirely possible that every QF that does not occur in a pre-existing spacetime behaves the same way and creates it's own spacetime set.
This shouldn't be confused with the Many Worlds interpretation which postulates that there are many parallel worlds within a single spacetime set. What I'm suggesting here is multiple spacetime sets. The difference is that there is a possibility of interaction between the former collection of "many worlds" and I couldn't imagine any such interaction could exist in the latter. That would require some kind of meta-hyperspace*, I think.
On the other hand, if not all QFs in the absence of a pre-existing spacetime don't identically create their own spacetime set, we wouldn't be here to ask the question of our particular QF hadn't sparked this particular spacetime. Unfortunately that's a circular argument: our QF was special because it did something special.
Unfortunately, I learned of Cosmic Inflation after I had left my life as a physicsist, so I neither have anyone to explain it to me nor have I kept up the necessary skill to read about it on my own and understand it in any great detail. I don't have any idea why a QF went gang-busters instead of distroying itself, but I'm sure there is someone out there who has an clue or the idea wouldn't have lasted this long.
eh... mostly. Just remember that for there to be something there, there has to be a "there". Just like there is no time "prior" to the Big Bang, there is also no space either. So, we're not talking about an "object" with no dimension. We're talking about a complete absense of anything and literally something appearing out of nothing. It's counter-intuitive, but like I said, our intuition wasn't necessarily developed for this kind of stuff. It's more of a hinderance than a help.
Within our spacetime, QF usually just appear and immideately disappears. The most noticable exception is when a black hole is at the exact right distance and a Hawking radiation situation occurs.
* WARNING: not necessarily a real word
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
Re: Re: Re: God, Big Bang or Both?
Basically it goes like this.
Time, as we experience it, cannot possibly last "forever" (i.e. go to infinity) pretty much by definition. All we can say about the infinite nature of time is that it hasn't ended yet.
This works both forwards and backwards. Time can exist an arbitrarily long while either way, but just as it can't go on for an infinite while, it can't have started an infinite while ago.
There may be things which exist outside of time, but that's not the same as existing "forever".
Actually, if you don't mind I'll just provide a link to where I mentioned this before, and we can continue discussing it here.Shera said:If you have the time, that would be great!
Basically it goes like this.
Time, as we experience it, cannot possibly last "forever" (i.e. go to infinity) pretty much by definition. All we can say about the infinite nature of time is that it hasn't ended yet.
This works both forwards and backwards. Time can exist an arbitrarily long while either way, but just as it can't go on for an infinite while, it can't have started an infinite while ago.
There may be things which exist outside of time, but that's not the same as existing "forever".
Thanks Beleth, I just finished reading your thread "No such thing as Eternity". I really liked the way you explained your viewpoints on eternity, the eternal moment, timeless and time not being infinite.
Time being a property dependent on the existence of space, I can almost understand that. Space-time not being around until the first quantum fluctuation -- I can almost understand that as well too. But the idea of the first quantum fluctuation … no, I can't wrap my brain around that one.
(Upchurch helped me get to as close an understanding as I ever had -- thanks Upchurch!) But it's nice to know that I'm not alone in that..
Time being a property dependent on the existence of space, I can almost understand that. Space-time not being around until the first quantum fluctuation -- I can almost understand that as well too. But the idea of the first quantum fluctuation … no, I can't wrap my brain around that one.
(Upchurch helped me get to as close an understanding as I ever had -- thanks Upchurch!) But it's nice to know that I'm not alone in that..Upchurch said:....aaaaand we've reached the limit of what I can contribute from a position of knowledge. On to the conjecture....
There is no reason to believe that there was necessarily anything unique about that particular QF, except that it triggered our particluar spacetime. It is entirely possible that every QF that does not occur in a pre-existing spacetime behaves the same way and creates it's own spacetime set.
This shouldn't be confused with the Many Worlds interpretation which postulates that there are many parallel worlds within a single spacetime set. What I'm suggesting here is multiple spacetime sets. The difference is that there is a possibility of interaction between the former collection of "many worlds" and I couldn't imagine any such interaction could exist in the latter. That would require some kind of meta-hyperspace*, I think.
On the other hand, if not all QFs in the absence of a pre-existing spacetime don't identically create their own spacetime set, we wouldn't be here to ask the question of our particular QF hadn't sparked this particular spacetime. Unfortunately that's a circular argument: our QF was special because it did something special.
Fair enough. We've long since passed my limited understanding of this stuff, so I thank you for sharing what you know.
I've heard of the multiple spacetime sets before... as I recollect, it's a theory that suggests multiple universes that have absolutely nothing connecting them (not even origin-wise). The only commonalilty is that they exist in some kind of meta-dimension. Damfino where I read that, though... might have been the NY Times Science section, I think.
The last part about the circular argument isn't all that circular, really. It's one argument that bugs me because it's utterly consistent and utterly unprovable. "We exist in a universe that supports life because if the universe didn't support life, we wouldn't be here to observe it." Weak anthromorphic principle, I think it's called... when I first read about it, it was in context of a discussion for an ongoing set of expanding/collapsing universes. The last "version" may not have supported life, and the next "version" may not, but since the one we're in does, that's why it appears to be designed for life. I think it was dropped eventually because it didn't solve the "What started the first one" issue.
As I said, I think the collapse/rebirth theory's been killed, but the basic anthromorphic principle is still intact. Although if there are no multi-universes... or one continually expanding and collapsing series... then the odds of a single version having exactly the right parameters for life are rather disturbing, if one thinks in terms of a non-planned universe.
Upchurch said:
Makes sense... but after following this stuff for a while, I've come to the conclusion that there are factions even among scientists that keep certain ideas alive long after they should have been discarded. I don't have an update on this one; I was hoping someone here might.
Upchurch said:
That's probably the hardest part of this for me to get my head around. No wonder the creationists claim it supports "LET THERE BE LIGHT." Something out of nothing is rather miraculous.
Upchurch said:
Yeppers, that was the first place I read about 'em. For those that haven't read this stuff, I think Hawkings called them "virtual particle pairs". They're generated by QF's, and remain "virtual" until one is sucked into a black hole. When that happens, (occasionally) the remaining particle will go off on a vector allowing it to stay out of the Swartzchild radius. Then both particles become "real". (Adding to the overall mass of the universe while it's mirror anti-particle reduces the mass of the black hole... causing it to appear to evaporate and return mass to the universe at large.)
It was a great concept and an elegant revelation when I read it. Thought it was utterly cool - and I still do! I could never get one thing straight, though.
Hawkings stated that anti-particles appearing within the radius would eventually reduce the mass of the black hole by annihilating with the existing mass, reducing it by one particle's mass at a time. (I may be wrong wtih the specific terminology, but I'm pretty sure that was the overall concept.)
What I still can't grasp is why more anti-particles would fall inside the radius than regular particles during a QF "split". It seemed to me that in a fully random situation, the number of anti-particles generated in the radius should equal the number of regular particles generated inside, as well... and that should balance out the situation, preventing evaporation.
(sigh)
Gonna take that asprin and water Shera was nice enough to provide - thanks, Shera and thank you, Upchurch!
(Edited to correct spellings and some poorly phrased sentences)
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: Re: God, Big Bang or Both?
I'm glad I could help. I've had to explain this a couple of times on this board, so I was worried that I being too brief this time through.
Now that you are feeling relatively comfortable with all that junk about QF and the Big Bang, I want to re-point out something:
I think the Big Crunch is going to be much more spectacular than the Big Bang.
I'm glad I could help. I've had to explain this a couple of times on this board, so I was worried that I being too brief this time through.
Now that you are feeling relatively comfortable with all that junk about QF and the Big Bang, I want to re-point out something:
That's the part that really blows my mind. Conceptually, I get it. Emotionally, I want to know where the **** all those anti-particles are and when is this really, really big quantum fluctuation going to stop its fluctuating.Upchurch said:
I think the Big Crunch is going to be much more spectacular than the Big Bang.
The net sum is zero... that IS mindblowing. I had just gotten my head around the concept of multiple arrows of time, too... plus the thought that they can reverse direction.
The big crunch - dunno if it's actually going to happen. It could be more like the big dissolve, from what I'm reading these days... unless they've reversed the recent observations about the universe increasingly accelerating it's expansion. Which is anothing thing I'm trying to drive into my thick skull these days.
I had just gotten my head around the concept of multiple arrows of time, too... plus the thought that they can reverse direction. The big crunch - dunno if it's actually going to happen. It could be more like the big dissolve, from what I'm reading these days... unless they've reversed the recent observations about the universe increasingly accelerating it's expansion. Which is anothing thing I'm trying to drive into my thick skull these days.