Alpha and Omega

[Little Bang]

Will, some how or other that sounds exactly like a quote from a book and has absolutely meaning in our effort to understand what is the BB.

[pgrmdave]

Most physicist I've seen on documentaries say it was pure energy and I would like to get the members ideas of what is this pure energy.

 

I believe that's part of what the LHC is supposed to answer.

[lawcat]

 

 

Please explain the BBT in your words.

 

BBT says there was singularity. A point in space, and a point in time, since which and from which everything expanded. And then it attempts to explain what happened with energy, gases, plasma, all the way to present day. Apparently, according to BBT, the initial expansion energy was so large that we are still expanding.

 

BBT provides no cause for the initial event. BBT provides the theory of effect after the initial event occured, or was caused.

 

Similarly, BBT assumes that the time was 0 (there was no time) prior to BB. It presumes, as science does, that time is merely an arbitrary reference point.

(When there is no motion, there is no time; or at least, if there is time, time is irrelevant because everything is still.) It is also inconsistent with relationships of a matter, energy, time, and space.

 

BBT provides no answer for time, or cause.

[Pyrotex]

G'day from the land of oz

Sometime we have to remind ouselves that the BBT is just a theory. As to its reality, thats another isssue...

Greetings to the dwarf planet of Oz.

:doh:

Righto! Dead on.

There is at least one viable counter-theory out there (Quantum Gravity) that doesn't have a BB, at least not the same sort as the "BB Theory" does. Who knows, in 20 years, the BBT may be as dead as Phlogiston and the Ether.

Pyro

[Pyrotex]

If the universe originated from a single point then the where of the point is at the center of the universe, assuming the universe expanded like a balloon blowing up.

:(

:(

 

I'm sorry, but I guess I didn't make it all clear. You're still thinking of a 3-dimensional "balloon", just like the ones daddy bought you when you were a kid. Perhaps you just "skimmed" through my last post. Why not go back and read it a little slower.

 

Focus on this: The best "model" that explains this is the balloon model. But you have to keep in mind that our Universe is being modeled ONLY by the SURFACE of that balloon. The INTERIOR of the balloon is NOT OUR UNIVERSE.

 

JUST the Surface.

 

Now---where is the "center" of the SURFACE of a balloon???

 

Answer---there isn't any. The 2-dimensional SURFACE of a balloon has NO CENTER and has NO BOUNDARIES.

 

If you can follow that, then you should easily be able to follow my last post.

Good luck!!!

:doh: :hihi: :(

[Pyrotex]

...Similarly, BBT assumes that the time was 0 (there was no time) prior to BB. It presumes, as science does, that time is merely an arbitrary reference point....

The best explanation I've heard is similar to what you said. Time is a measure of changing energy states. Before the BB, our "universe" did not exist at all. Non-existence implies non-change (stasis). Stasis implies no Time at all.

 

Something out "there" (perhaps in a 4 or 5 dimensional "metaverse" :doh: ) caused some "subset" of the metaverse to lose its stasis property. Maybe it was just a random fluctuation. Whatever. Who knows? :( But the first "change" occurred, and started an unstoppable cascade of changes.

A cascade of changes is the very definition of Time. So Time began at the "first change" -- whatever the speculative hell that was :hihi: .

 

So, the BB essentially marks the "instant" that Time started in our universe.

 

But I grant you, this is all very hard to digest. I REALLY hope someone comes up with a viable theory that does away with the BBT.

[pgrmdave]

BBT says there was singularity. A point in space, and a point in time, since which and from which everything expanded.

 

Actually, as I understand it the 'singularity' is our entire universe. It isn't that there was a sudden explosion of mass and energy, but that there was a sudden explosion of volume.

 

It's not that we had this expansive universe with nothing in it - the three spatial dimensions didn't exist until the BB.

 

 

How is quantum gravity a counter theory to the BB? How does it handle Olbers' Paradox?

[lawcat]

When we speak of two-dimensional objects, we speak of geometrical center of an object--because two-dimensional objects do not exist in real world, as far as objects are concerned. A geometrical center can be determined.

 

A balloon can not be two-dimensional. Aside from definitional problem, a two-dimensional balloon would place a two-dimensional constraint on everything within it--which is factually not true.

[pgrmdave]

The balloon is not the thing, it is merely a metaphor. Don't get caught up in silly little details like that.

 

The balloon is only used as a teaching tool, a thought exercise. Assuming that we were beings on the balloon, we'd see everything moving away from everything else. However, no matter how much we traveled along the surface of the balloon, we'd never find the 'center' of the surface. In much the same way, we will never find a 'center' of three dimensional space.

[lawcat]

Why not.

 

We are three-dimensional beings, and we can find the center of three-dimensional objects, through reason. I don't see how it is any different with a hypothetical two-dimensional beings, or four-dimensional beings examining a four-dimensional object. (Notwithstanding some books out there that may claim different, most of the dimensions books out there claim that a two-dimensional being can not examine a three dimensional object because it lacks perspective--in advance of a theory that we live in a multi dimensional world and are unable to perceive everything))

[lawcat]

 

How is quantum gravity a counter theory to the BB? . . . QUOTE]

 

"[Q]uantum field theory depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. General relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as a gravitational mass moves"

 

See Quantum gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

BB is modeled after General Relativity. See WMAP Big Bang Concepts

[pgrmdave]

Why not.

 

We are three-dimensional beings, and we can find the center of three-dimensional objects, through reason. I don't see how it is any different with a hypothetical two-dimensional beings, or four-dimensional beings examining a four-dimensional object. (Notwithstanding some books out there that may claim different, most of the dimensions books out there claim that a two-dimensional being can not examine a three dimensional object because it lacks perspective--in advance of a theory that we live in a multi dimensional world and are unable to perceive everything))

 

We can only find the center of things if they have boundries. There is no center of the surface of the earth. You can travel in any direction from any direction and just keep going. Likewise, there is no center of the perimeter of a shape - you can travel in either direction infinitely. There is no center of the universe, because you can travel in any direction infinitely.

[lawcat]

We can only find the center of things if they have boundries. There is no center of the surface of the earth. You can travel in any direction from any direction and just keep going. Likewise, there is no center of the perimeter of a shape - you can travel in either direction infinitely. There is no center of the universe, because you can travel in any direction infinitely.

 

True, There is no center of the perimeter. Why would one even attempt to find the center of a perimeter. It seems a useless exercise. The only relevant thing is the center of a shape or an object. The perimeter is only relevant as a length or an area of its object, as it relates to anything within the object.

For example, a cross sectional flux through the surface of an object.

 

But center of perimeter has no relevance to anything.

 

Similarly, if universe has no boundary, it is pointless to talk of boundary; much less of any of the properties of such "no boundary." However, the "no boundary" is just an assumption.

[pgrmdave]

Ah, you say that there is no center of a perimeter, but what is the perimeter of a circle (2nd dimension shape with a center) but a straight line (infinite 1st dimension), curved in the 2nd dimension? What is the perimeter of a sphere (3rd dimension shape with a center) but a plane (infinite 2nd dimension), curved in the 3rd dimension? What is the perimeter of a (4th dimension shape with a center) but a universe (infinite 3rd dimension) curved in the 4th dimension?

 

Our universe is likely infinite (either closed or open).

 

However, this does not have to do with the Big Bang. Here's another way to look at it.

 

If it was an explosion of matter/energy, then we would not see an increased red shift with greater distance. Only if it is the space between objects increasing would we see that phenomenon.

[lawcat]

I still maintain that a perimeter center is irrelevant. Perimeter is defined as a closed boundary, at least for the purposes of our discussion. Because it is a closed boundary it has no beginning or an end. Thus, any attempt to characterize it as a line, once stretched from a circle, is arbitrary. Upon such arbitrary assumption, one can find a center of a stretch of a line; but any attempt to make such center useful as it relates to the circle would be useless and irrelevant.

 

Similarly, the boundary of the universe is an assumption, and any attempt to relate any findings on that boundary to what is going on inside the universe is useless, and theoritically speculative.

 

By definition, expansion implies the stretching of the boundary. If there is expansion, there is boundary. But if there is no expansion, that does not mean that there is no boundary.

 

The fact that red-shift is observed can be interpreted as expansion, or movement away in existing infiniteness. Thus, boundary or no boundary are both plausable. In addition, BB could have happened within the boundary, causing expansion, or within infiniteness.

[pgrmdave]

Red shift is definitely moving away from the observer. However, what we observe is that the farther away the object, the faster it's moving away. Since everything is moving away from us, you have to either assume that the 'center' of the universe is within our galaxy, and that these galaxies far away from us aren't remains from the big bang (as is current theory) but rather extremely fast moving objects that have not slowed down. The big bang's theory of an expanding third dimension takes care of all of this very simply.

[Pyrotex]

Why not? We are three-dimensional beings, and we can find the center of three-dimensional objects, through reason. ...

I'm sorry you cannot understand the metaphors and examples we have given you. But if you assume that anything you do NOT understand must be wrong -- you will find that you cease to learn. And your ability to appreciate the grandeur and beauty of the universe will shrivel.

 

And by the way, ponder this: The Universe is NOT an "object". I mean that. Seriously. ...

 

I started to put down the reasoning behind this, but ... Never mind.

Sorry.