The BB and relativity

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the primordial atom of the BB theory, and the initial expansion of the universe, the only reference that was in the universe at that time was connected to the BB. What that means, is using an earth reference to correlate the expansion is invalid because it stems from a time trap. The reason this is so is connected to relativity and the laws of physics being the same in all references.

 

As way of an example, picture if someone began a mission on a relativistic journey. Before they leave the earth, they pop open a soda and pour it into a glass. This takes five seconds. After they reach relativistic speed, they pop open another can. It also takes fives seconds to fill the glass. From the earth reference they see it taking 1 hour to fill the glass due to time dilation.

 

When the earth reference tries to define the anatomy of this soda pouring do they assume it takes 1hour or 5 seconds? If the laws of physics are the same in all references, it will take 5 seconds in both references, with time dilation only creating a time illusion, which has nothing to do with the soda pouring. On the other hand, if they fall into the time trap and assume that this pouring actually took 1hour, they will have to come up with explanations to fill in the hour. Maybe viscosity increased, or the container changed shape, or they poured it one drop at a time, etc., All this speculation due to the time trap would be bogus. The person on the ship did it the same way he did it on earth and it only took him 5 seconds, because the laws of physics are same in both reference.

 

The same time trap is at work during the BB. If the laws of physics are the same in all references, then the universe formed in the amount of time guaged by the BB reference. In other words, going from BB to the formation of hydrogen is assumed to take 100,000 years. This is the time trap. The BB poured its soda in maybe 1 sec to 1 day. If we could do the same experiment on earth (in a tiny scale) it would also take 1 sec to 1 day and not 100,000 years to get to hydrogen.

 

Relativity's practical use was to help us avoid the time trap. All theories that model it taking 100,000 years to reach hydrogen are out of touch with reality, if the laws of physics are the same in all references. All the theory and data that has been generated to fill in 100,000 years got stuck in the time trap and is invalid. This data may have other important uses but it has little to do with BB, since it takes too much time.

 

I don't have a solid number with respect to the time dilation integration due to gravity and then due to diminishing gravity plus special relativity until hydrogen forms. I have heard numbers from 1 sec BB reference to a day or year. If the laws of physics are the same in all references this is how much time we have to go from BB to hydrogen. Beyond that magic number is time trap speculation.

[LaurieAG]

If you look at the primordial atom of the BB theory, and the initial expansion of the universe, the only reference that was in the universe at that time was connected to the BB. What that means, is using an earth reference to correlate the expansion is invalid because it stems from a time trap. The reason this is so is connected to relativity and the laws of physics being the same in all references.

...

I don't have a solid number with respect to the time dilation integration due to gravity and then due to diminishing gravity plus special relativity until hydrogen forms. I have heard numbers from 1 sec BB reference to a day or year. If the laws of physics are the same in all references this is how much time we have to go from BB to hydrogen. Beyond that magic number is time trap speculation.

 

Hello HydrogenBond,

 

The culprit is probably the volume of the universe in the BB model as this impacts on the density of all the things that have mass in the universe. If there is no or very little mass close to the BB the density could remain relatively constant as the volume of the universe increases greatly and mass starts to form.

[HydrogenBond]

I am a conceptual modeler. This means I look at basic solid theory and make sure other theory is consistent with this. I will leave the BB time integration as an exercise for anyone so inclined. The answer will be the foundation for physics beyond the time trap. I am not trying to destroy the time trap. I have only opened the door, so one can feel free to look around. It is a very different universe out the time trap.

 

I want to make the time trap clear. If it takes him 5 sec to pour the soda on the relativity space-ship, it will also take that long on the earth, since the laws of physics is the same in both referecne. But because of time dilation the earth may see it take an hour. This is the time trap.

 

What the one hour is, is a super slow motion version of the 5 sec soda pouring on the space-ship. In the time trap, we see an astronaut pouring his soda with a steady hand for one hour, without twitching. If you beleive this time illusion, one may conclude that special relativity somehow turned our formerly clumpsy astronaut into the new Tai Chi grandmaster. This it illustrates how far the imagination might go to fill in the time. Much of the time trap physics tries to fill in time.

 

An important time trap aid that helps fill in time is chaos and random. If everyone assumes the hour to be correct and one comes up with a theory that does it in 10 mins, it would be wrong by virtue of appearing to go too fast for the amount of assumed time we have in the time trap. So you would need to add a heaping tablespoon of chaos and 1/4 cup of random, to make it less effecient. This will satisfy the system.

 

Once you leave the time trap, choas and random are not your friend. You don't have enough time to leisurely stroll. Things needs to happen in a very logical sequence of events. There may be a little choas and random, but this is a secondary thing.

[LaurieAG]

Hello HydrogenBond,

 

I concur, but there could be other reasons for the trap.

 

If you use 'relativistic' speeds of 1/2, 1 and 2 times the speed of light you can get the following conceptual model of what is actually happening in the 'relativistic' time trap (you don't actually need speeds >= to the speed of light, it just serves to highlight the core conceptual discrepancy in speed of light relative clocks).

 

Consider the following conceptual exercise (thought experiment).

 

There are 2 Absolute timers at points A and B, exactly one light year apart. These absolute timers are both set to start ticking (At0) when they detect the same type a supernova from an equidistant galaxy. When these timers start an experimental space craft starts travelling at half of the speed of light from point A to point B. There are also 2 'relative (to the speed of) light clocks' at A and B that are only triggered when a light signal passes from A to B (or vs a vs) to start the clock (Rt0).

 

When the ship arrives at point B At1=2yrs and Rt1=1yr. On returning to point A (ignoring turnaround time etc) At2=4 and Rt1=2.

 

On return another ship has been developed that can travel at the speed of light. This ship starts travelling to point B. It arrives at At3=5 and Rt3=2 and starts back to A where At4=6 and Rt4=2.

 

Once again another ship is developed that can travel at twice the speed of light. This ship starts travelling to point B and arrives at At5=6.5 and Rt5=1.5. On return the times are At6=7yrs and Rt6=1 year.

 

The difference between the Absolute and the Relative clocks merely reflect the lag caused by the triggering mechanism of the 'relative to the speed of light' clock.

[HydrogenBond]

I agree with your analysis. Let use assume that all three references, are not connected but watch the supernova from their ship. Assume this is a new phenomena that none of the three have seen before. Each will see the same event from a different time reference. Based on what they see and how the laws of physics work in their reference, each will come up with a slightly different scenario to fill in their perception of how long the event appeared to take. If they meet any one of the references, make friends, and then compare notes, three different theories would result; function of how long they beleive it took.

 

The BB was the universe at one time. It was the only reference for physics to occur. The BB physics was occurring in this singular time dilated reference (relative to the future earth reference). In that reference it only took 1sec to 1day from BB to hydrogen. If we had been watching from that reference, our theory from BB to hydrogen would still use the laws of physics but we would have to make that theory work in only 1sec to 1-day, not 100,000 years.

 

The time trap still allows us to generate the correct data but it also causes us to generate a lot of extra stuff. For example, picture if we had a ball of plasma O and H, contained in a semi-conductive container and cool it to ambient conditions until H2O forms. If we allow it to cool for 1 hour, the O and H will goes through a series of transitions states. Some of these slowly cooling states may linger, allowing sub-states, etc.. If we do a second experiment but cool it in 1 sec, if may still go through transitions states, but maybe not all of them due to the time constraint. The secondary states would also be much more rare due to the time element. The faster cool down could still use much of the slow cool down data but it won't have time to use all of it. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater respect to existing theory. Much of exsiting theory may be useful but much of it won't apply under those conditions.

 

Another visual example is picture point A and B separated 10 meters and we travel at 1 meter/sec. It will take us 10 sec to go from A to B. If we increase the time to 100 sec, we can no longer go in a straght line from A to B, if we maintain 1meter/sec (analogous to the laws of physics being the same). What we would have to do, is move in a sine wave so we can use up the 100 sec and reach point B.

 

The sine wave is indicative of all the extra data, beyond the straight path, that we need to touch to accommodate the time. We will still cross the straight path periodically (the good data) but we will also go outside this good data and touch needed secondary data. The amplitude will be a function of how much time we have to kill, the more time the higher the amplitude, the more time we will be spending on secondary data. Eventually, since most of the time will be in the zone of secondary data, that will become the preponderance of the data and will become the basis for our theory.

 

As we decrease the amount of allotted time, the amplitude of the sine wave will decrease, such that less and less secondary data will be touched by our path. When we finally, reach 10 sec, we will only be touching the primary data needed to reach point B.

 

The opposite alternative is what happens if we go too fast and exceed the laws of physics. If this case, we move at 2meters/sec. Irronically, it will still follow the correct path but will skip steps because of the longer stride. The lesson to be learned is that it is better to go too fast than too slow, since too slow will create a sine wave into unrelated data. It is easier to add more steps than take away steps, since these extra steps can influence the assumed path. Adding steps just fill in the area between steps without changing the basic path. For example, if I assumed from BB right to hydrogen, without intermediates, this will be wrong but the alignment is still correct. Now we explore a possible intermediate point keeping this alignment. This keeps us on the path.

[LaurieAG]

The time trap still allows us to generate the correct data but it also causes us to generate a lot of extra stuff. For example, picture if we had a ball of plasma O and H, contained in a semi-conductive container and cool it to ambient conditions until H2O forms.

...

For example, if I assumed from BB right to hydrogen, without intermediates, this will be wrong but the alignment is still correct. Now we explore a possible intermediate point keeping this alignment. This keeps us on the path.

 

Hello HydrogenBond,

 

Interesting points,

 

If you structure your problem to remove paradoxes, as in the thought experiment, many of the problems of the actual path taken do not need to be resolved. Like Achilles and the Tortoise, any observations from one or the other contestant in the race, will leave you with a paradox. Only observations from the finish line will remove this relative paradox.

 

The rapid expansion of the universe just after the BB would be expected to be linked explicitly to the type and amount of matter created and the exact time when that matter was created. The initial state at the BB (or very close to it) would have very little matter, an almost infinitessimally small volume and much energy. As soon as any form of matter was created the volume of the universe would have to expand to keep the relative mass constant with any change in density.

 

As further types of matter were created the expansion rate of the early universe would be expected to increase in direct proportion to the difference between (as a result of the density of the new matter) the sum of the current matter in the universe and the corresponding universal volume at that discrete point in time.

 

If you consider, in a universal (just after the BB) perspective, that Einsteins equation involved the sum of the universal energy and the sum of the universal mass you will get a clearer picture.

 

In this context sigma E = sigma m*c^2 and D=m/V (m=D*V)

 

Gives us sigma E=D*V*c^2

 

In this context t1, t2, t3 etc from the BB (t0) all produce a discrete stepped series of expansions of volume and density, directly related to the type of mass being created, being consistent with the law of conservation of energy and mass, without the involvement of infinity or a singularity in the calculations.

[HydrogenBond]

What you say is true but the constraint is still a very small amount of time for the laws of physics to act in the BB reference. This reduces the number of transition steps and/or the time that can be spent in any particular step.

 

Here is a really fast process, that gets the job done in minimum time with high matter conversion efficiency. Say we start with energy. From that we get matter and anti-matter, but without force being present. Without force, positrons and electrons, for example, would not annihilate but simply coexist. What would happen instead, to reflect the energy lowering, is this material will rearrange itself so it can head toward the lowest energy or most stable states, which are protons and electrons.

 

In other words, whether we talk in terms of strings, quarks, waves, etc., the hydrogen proton and electron are the most stable composites. So if you start out with both unstable and stable composites lowering energy, without distinct force, per se, this would involve the migration of substructure out of the unstable higher energy states(strings, quarks, or waves) into the most stable configurations.

[HydrogenBond]

Physics is now at a cross roads. With the laws of physics the same in all references and with the BB expansion reference time dilated, the laws of physics needed to act in a relatively short time to get the job done. Much shorter than is currently assumed. There may be more than one possible alternative to get the job done. But all alternatives that take too long are obsolete by virtue of the time constraint.

 

Personally, I am curious as to how physics will deal with this dilemma. If sub-physics and cosmology is just mathematical philosophy it will ignor this reality since relative explanation is good enough for philosophy. But if it is real science, it needs to start skinnying down to the best collection of speedy logical alternatives.

 

This is a blessing in disguise. The exercise will help physics do something it hasn't been able to do in 50 years, get everyone to come to a focus on a singular task. It is house cleaning time.

[Erasmus00]

Physics is now at a cross roads. With the laws of physics the same in all references and with the BB expansion reference time dilated, the laws of physics needed to act in a relatively short time to get the job done. Much shorter than is currently assumed. There may be more than one possible alternative to get the job done. But all alternatives that take too long are obsolete by virtue of the time constraint.

 

You act as if you are the first person to assert that time would be dilated and we need to account for this. This is certianly not true. All modern theories of cosmology, INCLUDING the big bang are formulated within the language of general relativity. Time dilation is built in, so this has already been accounted for!

 

This is a blessing in disguise. The exercise will help physics do something it hasn't been able to do in 50 years, get everyone to come to a focus on a singular task. It is house cleaning time.

 

The "time trap" you propose doesn't whittle away any of the prominent theories of cosmology. As I mentioned above, these were built taking relativity into account.

-Will

[LaurieAG]

Time dilation is built in, so this has already been accounted for! The "time trap" you propose doesn't whittle away any of the prominent theories of cosmology. As I mentioned above, these were built taking relativity into account. -Will

 

Hello Erasmus/HydrogenBond,

 

I think the real answer is a hybrid of the relative and the absolute and there is a way to bring them both together. A middle ground.

 

This is an extension to my thought experiment (above) with the Absolute and Relative (to the speed of light) clocks sitting side by side at points A and B.

 

Given that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, and you have both Absolute and Relative timers in close proximity at both points A and B, devise a way to send a series of time signals (either compressed or dilated depending on the direction of travel from A to B & vs a vs) from points A or B to the moving space craft that will tell the occupants the current Absolute time (i.e. like GPS satellite calibration/corrections). But remember, at all times, there's only one spacecraft and only one absolute time (and no prizes for inaccurate answers like in economic rocket science).

 

If you have done any of the older 'pure(er)' financial maths you would see a similarity in the way the following problem is solved.

 

How much money do you have to put away in a bank account now, that will compound at a rate of X anually, so that your three sons aged 11, 15 and 18, will all receive an exact payment of 10,000 when they reach their 21st birthdays, without any remainder after the last payment.

 

Cheers

[Erasmus00]

This is an extension to my thought experiment (above) with the Absolute and Relative (to the speed of light) clocks sitting side by side at points A and B.

 

The whole point of relativity is that there is NO absolute time!

-Will

[LaurieAG]

The whole point of relativity is that there is NO absolute time!

-Will

 

So, you think the old paradox caused by the relative positions of Achilles and the Tortoise are unsolveable? The paradox is removed when your viewpoint is on the end point!

 

This extension is similar to the Black Scholes method, the main difference being you don't get any money if your calculation is wrong and your absolute timing pulse arrives before or after the spaceship.

[Erasmus00]

So, you think the old paradox caused by the relative positions of Achilles and the Tortoise are unsolveable? The paradox is removed when your viewpoint is on the end point!

 

The paradox doesn't exist in any reference frame! Careful consideration of velocity as a limit makes the paradox go away.

 

Also, this is unrelated to whether or not there is an absolute time/absolute reference frame. Thus far, no one has found one.

-Will

[LaurieAG]

Hello Erasmus00,

 

Until we get cosmological observations from a point that is stationary with regards to our own galactic center, all we will see is twisted light.

 

Here are two letters, printed in the April 7 New Scientist, that are 'related' to your comments.

 

Mark Bennet of London

 

''Is Marcus Chown right to say a single particle or onject can be in two places at once (17th March, p36)? In the twin-slit experiment we cannot determine which slit the particle goes through and also maintain the interference pattern. But that does not mean it "goes through" both slits when we don't look. We only ever measure a particle in one place never two. So isn't its being "in two places at once" an unobservable metaphysical notion resulting from incorrectly applying the macroscopic concepts of wave and particle - arising from human experience - to microscopic physics? If a particle were "really" in two places at once, then its mass, charge and spin would be doubled. That would violate the macroscopic laws of conservation of energy and charge - unless the particles appearances were confined within Heisenberg uncertainty limits, which would make it a pair of virtual particles. And if a particle could be "really" in two places at once, why not more, or an infinite number? ...'

 

Peter Fyfe of Sydney

'Marcus Chown's opening line, "How would you like to be quantum?" demonstrates a common fallacy that arises from interpreting quantum physics without the benefits of contemporary and ancient metaphysics. A quantum superposition does not concern the existence of a thing, but knowledge of it: that is, it is not an ontological concept, but an epistemological one. It arises from a theory that is predicated on the idea that the observer is existentially separate from the observed. Put another way, the superposition stems from the imposition of the model used to understand the world rather than the present experience of the world itself. As a consequence, one cannot "be" quantum any more than one can "be" in a superposition, because "to be" requires presence in an ontological reality, not an epistemological one that exists only in thought. As whimsical students and frustrated philosophers often remark, Schrodingers cat knows if it's still alive. I suspect Its size is unlikely to change its view.'

[firecracker]

:) Referring to the original post by HydrogenBond, I don't think we've taken everything stated by the theory of relativity into account. The five second pouring phenomena is correct, except that the reference to the traveller and the earth don't involve the 'same' five seconds. I think the theory says that "clocks and measuring rods are longer" which applies to the clock faces, component parts, etc., which, to me, implies that the seconds being measured are also longer although they appear the same to the measurer.

The density of the primordial universe seems to me to have been so dense that 'time' would not have been allowed to 'begin' and the universe would not have been allowed to expand. (Big Bang theory says "time and space at once began!" If general relativity was in effect at the Big Bang, and gravitational time dilation applied to all reference frames, then time dialtion would have been infinitely long!) FFT