Big Bang Now

[Dorfl]

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?

[wackyvorlon]

I know modern telescopes have managed to see very far back, to within a few hundred thousand years as I recall. It's difficult, simply because you're trying to capture light that's 13 billion years old.

Of course, the cosmic background radiation is the result of the big bang, and can be measured here on earth.

[Dorfl]

I know modern telescopes have managed to see very far back, to within a few hundred thousand years as I recall. It's difficult, simply because you're trying to capture light that's 13 billion years old.

Of course, the cosmic background radiation is the result of the big bang, and can be measured here on earth.
Yes. But my point wasn't about what we can see now. I was wondering if the Big Bang is part of my present, never mind how I would have to go about actually seeing it.

By definition, the present consists of events that I will have to wait to be able to observe. So any discussion about it pretty much has to be purely theoretical if we are talking about things further than 100 light-years away.

[wackyvorlon]

I'm afraid I don't believe I understand your question.

[MattusMaximus]

Yes. But my point wasn't about what we can see now. I was wondering if the Big Bang is part of my present, never mind how I would have to go about actually seeing it.

Yes, in this sense the big bang is part of your "present". Read up on the cosmic microwave background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB) - the "afterglow" of the big bang - to learn why. Anyone with the proper equipment can detect it.

By definition, the present consists of events that I will have to wait to be able to observe. So any discussion about it pretty much has to be purely theoretical if we are talking about things further than 100 light-years away.

Why 100 light-years? We observe all events in the past because of the finite propogation of light. Your assertion about 100 light-years seems rather arbitrary.

[Bob Klase]

Why 100 light-years? We observe all events in the past because of the finite propogation of light. Your assertion about 100 light-years seems rather arbitrary.

I would guess because anything presently happening more than 100 lights years away means you'll have to live for more than 100 years to see it. 100 years is arbitrary. 50-80 years seems more reasonable for most people already old enough to be posting here.

[Dorfl]

I'm afraid I don't believe I understand your question.
Since I don't know how much relativity you have read, I am not sure exactly how to clarify it. Sorry if the following is just repeating a lot of stuff you know, without actually clarifying a fuzzy question:

Any observer traces out a world-line in spacetime. At any point on that line the observer has a present, which is a volume containing the events which the observer would consider to be occurring at that moment. Note that even though he will have to wait 100 years to actually see an event currently happening 100 ly away, it is still part of his present. If you draw a diagram with the x-axis representing some spatial axis and the y-axis representing the time axis, then the observer, if we consider him stationary, traces a straight line upwards in the diagram and his present at any point on that line is just another perpendicular line. It is usually convenient to scale the diagram so that a light pulse from the observer makes a line with a 45° slope.

However, if we consider him to be moving, then his present will not be perpendicular. Instead, it will be tilted, with the same angle from the horizontal as the observer has from the vertical. This means that what the things he consider to be part of his present, the events he considers to be simultaneous, will vary depending on his velocity. So if he zig-zags through space time (as the lecturer did by walking back and forth), his present will sort of wobble in space time, meaning that an event can be current while his is still, future when he is moving one way and past when he is moving the other. The effect is normally negligible, unless he is moving close to light speed (giving him a very noticeable angle in the diagram) or the event is very far away (putting it far off on the x-axis).

Of course, this just describes what happens in one dimension, but it can easily be generalised to three. It just becomes harder to show on paper. (Speaking of which, this would be much easier if I could scribble on a napkin or something while talking.)

Anyway, his present continues to infinity in both directions, even though he will have to wait longer to find out about them, the farther away events in his present are. To me, it seems reasonable that if you look at his present far enough away from him, it should intersect the Big Bang. I could be completely wrong though, but then I would like to know why.

I'm not sure if that clarifies things or not. Tell me if it was something completely different you wondered about.

ETA: According to wiki–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line–it is incorrect to refer to events outside of the observer's light cone as either ''future'' or past'', so I guess it is more correct to say that as the observer zig-zags events end up above, below or intersecting his present.

[Dorfl]

Yes, in this sense the big bang is part of your "present". Read up on the cosmic microwave background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB) - the "afterglow" of the big bang - to learn why. Anyone with the proper equipment can detect it.

Why 100 light-years? We observe all events in the past because of the finite propogation of light. Your assertion about 100 light-years seems rather arbitrary.

Because I'll be dead by then. Bob Klase is right that maybe 60-70 would be a more realistic estimate of my life expectancy, but it was a nice round number.

[Psi Baba]

I was going to suggest you study up on the idea of light cones, but I see you already referenced that. I think that may be your best shot at an answer to your question. A light cone model should clarify whether something can or cannot extend into your present.

[Dorfl]

I was going to suggest you study up on the idea of light cones, but I see you already referenced that. I think that may be your best shot at an answer to your question. A light cone model should clarify whether something can or cannot extend into your present.

Yeah... We did go through light cones pretty thoroughly in Special Relativity, and from what I learnt then it should definitely be possible for my present to intersect the Big Bang. Problem is that it should also intersect the pre-Big Bang, which doesn't seem to make sense. Especially if there is no ''before the Big Bang''. So I wondered if there was any General Relativistic reason why it cannot. Space curvature or something, I don't know.

[Perpetual Student]

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?

This concept is discussed by Brian Greene in The Fabric of The Cosmos, where he describes all of space and time as a "frozen river" (using only two dimensions of space). The Maximum angle that can be used is 45o because of the limit of light speed. I believe this restriction would not allow our "present" to be at the time of the big bang. This concept this has nothing to do with light cones, which in reality would exclude causality in this definition of "present."

[Dorfl]

This concept is discussed by Brian Greene in The Fabric of The Cosmos, where he describes all of space and time as a "frozen river" (using only two dimensions of space). The Maximum angle that can be used is 45o because of the limit of light speed. I believe this restriction would not allow our "present" to be at the time of the big bang. As you point out this has nothing to do with light cones, which in reality would exclude causality in this definition of "present."

I don't know. I picture the Big Bang as an essentially straight line at some distance back in the time direction. This would imply that the line of the present pretty much has to intersect it at some point. Maybe that picture is too simplistic, though.

Hm, I have a bookstore gift card which I wondered what to do with today. I suppose I might as well see if they have Greene's book. :)

[Perpetual Student]

Actually, Greene does say that if space is infinite, any slice of spacetime can be part of your present. So, the 45o restriction wouldn't prohibit the big bang as part of your present. If you can find the book, just read pages 127 through 142 (soft cover edition) for his description of the "frozen river." It's merely an elaboration of the description given by your professor. Again, this does not incorporate the concept of lightcones and the issues of causality.

[Dorfl]

Actually, Greene does say that if space is infinite, any slice of spacetime can be part of your present. So, the 45o restriction wouldn't prohibit the big bang as part of your present. If you can find the book, just read pages 127 through 142 (soft cover edition) for his description of the "frozen river." It's merely an elaboration of the description given by your professor. Again, this does not incorporate the concept of lightcones and the issues of causality.

I suppose that any part of spacetime can be part of my present, at some point in my world line. But that only means that I was simultaneous with the Big Bang when I too was Big Banging, does it. I don't think it necessarily means I can be simultaneous with parts of it now.

Speaking of infinite space: what happens to the present if space is finite and closed? Does it sort of wrap around, or join with itself on both ends, or what? Maybe I should start another thread on that.

[Perpetual Student]

I suppose that any part of spacetime can be part of my present, at some point in my world line. ...

Note: I said any "slice" of spacetime not any "part." Greene's book gives a good description of that distinction.

[Dorfl]

Sorry, I missed that bit.

I'll see if I can find the book. Or if not that, if wiki-ing will turn up something I can understand.

[Zeuzzz]

bah!

....nevermind.

[sol invictus]

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?

Yes.

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

Well, no one knows. That's equivalent to asking what came before the big bang.

[Soapy Sam]

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

I feel I need more coffee.

[Dorfl]

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

Well, no one knows. That's equivalent to asking what came before the big bang.
Fair enough.

[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 10^{-44} 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 \Delta E_{0_t} 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 g and f 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, (E=Mc^2)+(-Mc^2) \approx 0. 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 f(g(x)), where g and f are assumed
to renormalize:

(f \circ g)=(g \circ f)(x)=x^2

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

then apply this mathematically into one:

(\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2)=(\Delta -M_c c^2 \circ \Delta M_c c^2)

so that you can replace the total energy of the universe (\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2) with the cosmological constant \Lambda, 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 \int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2=1. 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 \Delta E_{0_t} 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 g and f 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, (E=Mc^2)+(-Mc^2) \approx 0. 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 f(g(x)), where g and f are assumed
to renormalize:

(f \circ g)=(g \circ f)(x)=x^2

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

then apply this mathematically into one:

(\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2)=(\Delta -M_c c^2 \circ \Delta M_c c^2)

so that you can replace the total energy of the universe (\Delta M_c c^2 \circ \Delta -M_c c^2) with the cosmological constant \Lambda, 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 \int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2=1. 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93deWitt_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.

[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:

f(x)= 1 / x

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:

f(x)= 1 / x

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 t=0 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 (5.3)10^{-44}. 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:

\rho_{pl}=\frac{c^5}{hG^2}


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

and

t_{pl}=\sqrt{(\frac{Gh}{c^5})}

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

[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:

f(x)= 1 / x

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.

\lim_{V \to 0} \frac{m}{V} = \infty

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.

\lim_{V \to 0} \frac{m}{V} = \infty

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."

[Singularitarian]

Ignoring evidence that cannot be refuted. Typical crankary of the meek in statements that don't uphold truth.

[Dorfl]

This is the big bang.

Bang.

Forget light cones.

Everything thing is happening all at once.
Huh?

Could you clarify that, please?

[Dorfl]

It does mean that, because if it didn't, we would not have a big bang model where 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.

I'm sorry, but I still do not see what it is about infinite density which necessarily implies the creation of time.

[quarky]

Huh?

Could you clarify that, please?

A bit, perhaps.
The singularity still exists. Our perception focuses on one of many potential universes that could come into being, had the big bang occurred.
The initial particle is not bound by "C", it manages all the subsequent particles required to manifest material. It changes spin and position to be all 6 quarks, and all the rest, at a speed that we can't grasp. C to the Cth power. Yet it remains intact in a spaceless zone, pre-big bang.

We're assembled from it. However you look at it.

[Dorfl]

A bit, perhaps.
The singularity still exists. Our perception focuses on one of many potential universes that could come into being, had the big bang occurred.
The initial particle is not bound by "C", it manages all the subsequent particles required to manifest material. It changes spin and position to be all 6 quarks, and all the rest, at a speed that we can't grasp. C to the Cth power. Yet it remains intact in a spaceless zone, pre-big bang.

We're assembled from it. However you look at it.
I've never heard of anything like that before. Do you have a source so I could read up more on it?

[Singularitarian]

I'm sorry, but I still do not see what it is about infinite density which necessarily implies the creation of time.

Because if we re-wound the universe back to some primal begininning, then we find all of energy and matter infinitely compressed with an infinite density.

[quarky]

I've never heard of anything like that before. Do you have a source so I could read up more on it?

I'm the source. occasionly, I toss out a bit of it around here. I call it the single quark hypothesis. Its not popular. some night, if I get drunk enough, I'll toss out the whole thing. One of its implications is that sub-atomic particles are able to express as different conglomerations, simultaneously, for lack of better terms.

[Dorfl]

Because if we re-wound the universe back to some primal begininning, then we find all of energy and matter infinitely compressed with an infinite density.

Extrapolating backwards from the data we have about the Universe's present and past rates of expansion, we eventually reach a time where the density approaches infinity, yes. However, that does not necessarily imply that that point in time is also the earliest point in time. It is still possible that time continues past the Big Bang.

[Dorfl]

I'm the source. occasionly, I toss out a bit of it around here. I call it the single quark hypothesis. Its not popular. some night, if I get drunk enough, I'll toss out the whole thing. One of its implications is that sub-atomic particles are able to express as different conglomerations, simultaneously, for lack of better terms.

Sounds like a good theory. I have a similar theory that Santa is actually Thor who has retired, and it's not very popular either.

[ben m]

Because if we re-wound the universe back to some primal begininning, then we find all of energy and matter infinitely compressed with an infinite density.

That's close enough to true for some purposes, but this is wrong in a way that explains your "ekpyrotic is not the big bang" statements.

Better would be:
If we re-wind the Universe back towards some primal beginning, we find that all of the energy and matter is so compressed that we don't know enough physics to rewind any further. In fact, the naive "rewinding", where you pretend that GR is always true, seems to predict infinite density---a singularity. Various theories (inflation, ekpyrotic, etc.) cite different directions for the earliest rewinding.

[quarky]

Sounds like a good theory. I have a similar theory that Santa is actually Thor who has retired, and it's not very popular either.

Mine's a hypothesis. The math is sound, or not wrong, at least.

[Singularitarian]

That's close enough to true for some purposes, but this is wrong in a way that explains your "ekpyrotic is not the big bang" statements.

Better would be:
If we re-wind the Universe back towards some primal beginning, we find that all of the energy and matter is so compressed that we don't know enough physics to rewind any further. In fact, the naive "rewinding", where you pretend that GR is always true, seems to predict infinite density---a singularity. Various theories (inflation, ekpyrotic, etc.) cite different directions for the earliest rewinding.

Oh please,

qoute me were i related the Ekp. Theory to the BB, and i will subdue to your arguement, otherwise, stop making these elaborated tales up.

[Singularitarian]

Mine's a hypothesis. The math is sound, or not wrong, at least.

The math isnt sound. Mapping your theory in my head does give one inconsistency, so it does not hold.

[Dorfl]

The math isnt sound. Mapping your theory in my head does give one inconsistency, so it does not hold.
What is that inconsistency?

[Singularitarian]

You said;

''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.''

Which is all right but the bolded part.

In reply - the singularity does not need to imply intersects that relatively imply the infinite density is of th spacetime frame you gave it in present time. Though i am impressed by this conclusion, because essentially nothing exists other than present time, but with the thermodynamical violation of the conservation of energy due to the uncertainty principle inherent as an origin of the ZPF tells us that if the universe has energy, many conclusions suggest its density has changed due to dispersion in expansion. If you want references, i will give them.

[Dorfl]

In reply - the singularity does not need to imply intersects that relatively imply the infinite density is of th spacetime frame you gave it in present time. Though i am impressed by this conclusion, because essentially nothing exists other than present time, but with the thermodynamical violation of the conservation of energy due to the uncertainty principle inherent as an origin of the ZPF tells us that if the universe has energy, many conclusions suggest its density has changed due to dispersion in expansion. If you want references, i will give them.

Come again?

I'm sorry, but I cannot make sense of this. It seems like the first sentence is missing a few words that would be necessary for the whole post to be intelligible.

Note that I am not disagreeing with the content of the post, yet. I'm just saying that it contains too incorrect language for me to understand what you are trying to say.

[Singularitarian]

Goodnight.