Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: silvaservice on 31/01/2015 23:51:34
-
The biggest question of all has a perfectly logical answer if you think about it. Watch CREATION here http://bbc.in/1ERfWYB to find out.
-
Link is not working in the US.
Before the bang, there must be force.
-
I watched the video, and thought it started OK. But at two minutes in I was irritated at the suggestion that virtual particles pop into existence. They don't. They're field quanta, like you divide up a field into little chunks and say each is a virtual particle. I was further irritated at the big bounce and the bubble universe and the vote thing. Science is not some democracy where we vote for a shortlist of unsupported speculations. There is also none of the above. When we don't know we don't know. We don't roll over with give-up excuses like there is no North of the North pole. The Earth is a sphere in space. Space doesn't end when you get to the North pole. It's a sleight-of-hand to use this to suggest there was no time before the big bang. Something happened, and if you can't explain it you say so. You don't give non-answers and pretend they're answers. That's what the God did it guys do. That's what Hawking did when he said the universe was born of a quantum fluctuation. Huh? What fluctuated? Anyway, I thought this video was somewhat similar. Not as bad, but not saying we don't know enough.
-
Two black holes of an uncritical mass came together, merged and created a critical mass that could no longer be sustained as a black hole. In the process of merging together the cancellation of fields allowed the first burst of energy out which became the CMBR. But this is all rubbish because we don't know. You can make up anything about that period because it is not only at a resolution we cannot probe but is removed from us by an enormity of time.
Science is trying to answer this question in particle colliders but not all the answers have been found.
-
I see two possibilities either the universe is cyclical and before the big bang was the big crunch or the universe was new born and there was no before
-
You need two things. You need something without it, and something with it. Together they become a symmetry. If 'c' is a clock then that is something. That's what we can measure. If you go down to QM you will meet Planck scale where the idea of quanta resides. You have both 'time' and 'length' defined there as some smallest 'bits'. Planck scale coexist with the macroscopic definition of a arrow. If the Big Bang is a symmetry break, then 'time', as in your local 'clock', is what started to tick there. So you don't need 'force' per se, but you need something giving processes a direction. and yes, you need to presume there being rules that must exist for those processes. As for if there can be different types of rules? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how you think, different rules due to initial parameters after a 'clock' begun, or different rules coexisting without a clock?
=
Think of a hole in a dam, we're the hole :) well, sort of? (maybe more correct to think of 'time' as being the hole? With constants expressing the rules we find.) Me calling it a dam gives an impression of a pressure, but if it is, then it should be consistent with an arrow. I never seen that defined as a 'force' myself though? Alternatively you can think of it as layers possibly, coexisting. Planck scale defining where a arrow ends, us being on the side of the arrow(s). In that case the dam is consisting of holes all over :)
You can also think of it this way. There is no way to define the size of our universe, but no matter where we place ourself in it, we can define a time to it, and it will be the same. It's the sphere of light you follow in time, looking out, in, and at the universe.
The idea here is that you can 'back track' that light, all the way down to Planck scale, choosing any position you want inside a SpaceTime. And the light is the clock. Describing it this way it becomes questionable to say that a 'Big bang' is over, it's still 'here', scaling it up from Planck scale, Seen another way it is definitely behind us, as measured in time. equivalent to 'c'. That's also a very simple proof for what 'time' is. It's 'c', locally defined. If we weren't able to use time to describe a Big Bang, then 'time' and 'c' would be a illusion. But we use it constantly.
==
This one is pretty important to me ". Depends on how you think, (1) different rules due to initial parameters after a 'clock' begun, (2) or different rules coexisting without a clock?"
(2) should in this case be read as 'rules', opposing each other, as unable to coexist under a arrow (in effect different 'physics'). I don't think that is possible myself. Or maybe it is, as long as we don't introduce that arrow, to start processes with?
The simplest definition is one in where constants and 'rules' are of one kind, complementing each other. Which then makes 'no arrow' an indivisible part of our universe. It's complementary, and needed.
In the other definition you will need to give a reason why one set of 'physics' was chosen, before another, as well as you will need to explain how the 'timeless part' can 'know' the set of rules this universe plays by. Because we won't get away from the rules, and constants, coexisting with this arrow. And that pushes the question one step further into what we can't measure on.
The point there is that you can't use 'communication' for it. As soon as you imagine up some protocol communicating between what use no arrow and what does, you're creating some sort of direction. That's an arrow. If it is a symmetry though, and in some way also a symmetry break, then we're like a growth on the part without a arrow. It has to be a symmetry break though, and the symmetry break has to be 'c'. That's what that 'sphere of light' we see around us tells us. As well as it gives us 'time'.
In that case the communication goes 'one way' only, translated into rules and constants by the universe. No need for a two way communication as I see it. Or expressed another way, it's the soil on, or in, a SpaceTime evolves. Kind of like that one, a organic feel to it :) as, even though I use 'one way communication' describing it I don't really see it that way. It's a symmetry and we're 'joined' to it, inseparable from it. A Planck scale 'position' should be as close wherever you go, it's just a matter of the scaling you apply, as locally defined.