The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What was before the big bang?  (Read 45291 times)

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #175 on: 16/09/2015 15:45:02 »
Quote from: Timey
Quote from: Bill
Would I be right in thinking that this would involve a continuous creation of new matter/energy; similar to the steady state theory, but a bit less “steady”, in that it would come in cycles?
I anticipate an interplay between clumped mass and the black hole phenomenon that produces more particles.

Now you’ve lost me; what interplay is that, and how does it produce more particles?
Quote from: Timey
No need for a referee!  No... you are not misinterpreting this.  The basis of requiring a nothing that 'is' a something has been the whole point of my venture.

I really think we need a third party opinion here, ideally from someone with expertise.

You are saying that nothing is something.

I maintain that that is a contradiction in terms.

Is there anybody out there who can find us some common ground, or even tell us both we are nuts, and why?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #176 on: 16/09/2015 17:23:16 »
Ok, Bill... I will try to answer your questions, but first I want to explain to you about my use of the terminology 'progressive thought structures'.  We are discussing an area of physics that is not as yet defined.  To initiate progressive thought it is necessary to look at any situation from an alternative perspective.  This is all I am doing here.  I am using logic to define a situation in order that it may be viewed from an alternative perspective.  Given that we can view this path of logic as a progressive thought structure, we are now free to follow the path of logic further.
This does not necessarily mean that we are going to get anywhere truly significant with it, although we may find that to view the situation from an alternative perspective could afford us some smaller realisation along the way.  I often find this to be the case!
So please know Bill, and Mordeth, that I am not here saying, "this is the way it is", I am here saying, "hey, this is another way of looking at nothing, this being that nothing 'is' something"...

Now if we take what Alan has said:

The test of a "pre big bang theory" will be that it predicts something like the observable universe and is consistent with whatever happens tomorrow.

In relation to what Jeff's post is relating:

If we have two values of energy where A is positive and B is negative then we can have a situation where A + B = 0. You then have a mathematical nothing and yet the energy has not gone away.

Apart from if you talk absolute (heading towards an absolute absence of energy) where you cannot have negative energy.

then A + B would never equal absolute zero. If you can have negative energy in the absolute scale it would be like having negative mass

Not if we are talking purely in terms of kinetic energy. The kinetic energy in the direction of a gravitational field (free fall) can be considered to be negative.

Jeff, that is really interesting!
If we have a 0 state that can hold kinetic energy in the negative, could quantum fluctuations arise under those circumstances?  Do quantum fluctuations carry mass?  If the answer to these questions is yes, I can see the possibility that perhaps the time aspect that we need for these fluctuations to occur in 'could' perhaps be related to mass ""through"" kinetic energy... ???

Here we can see that by defining nothing as a physical reality, be this correct or not, we have opened up a discussion about the concept of a moment of creation.  In this discussion, we see that it is necessary in nothing for time to not exist, and to then start existing in order for anything to occur.  If there can be merit in the idea's above, then the phenomenon of time being perhaps related to mass, and therefore to gravity, via kinetic energy is an idea that we can relate back to our state of everything today and experiment with.

Quote from: Timey
Quote from: Bill
Would I be right in thinking that this would involve a continuous creation of new matter/energy; similar to the steady state theory, but a bit less “steady”, in that it would come in cycles?
I anticipate an interplay between clumped mass and the black hole phenomenon that produces more particles.

Now you’ve lost me; what interplay is that, and how does it produce more particles?

As I said, this is an 'anticipated' interplay.  Basically this means I don't know :D... I observe matter in my garden multiplying.  Sacks of the stuff must be removed every year in order to maintain clear space.  Perhaps particles can multiply???

I really think we need a third party opinion here, ideally from someone with expertise.

You are saying that nothing is something.

I maintain that that is a contradiction in terms.

Is there anybody out there who can find us some common ground, or even tell us both we are nuts, and why?

I'm good with that :) ...

I am saying that if everything is physically absent then nothing is the physical result.  This rendering nothing as a physical reality.

Bill says that nothing cannot be a physical reality, that this is a contradiction in terms.

If we could have an expert opinion at-all please?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #177 on: 16/09/2015 19:29:57 »
Quote from: Timey
Bill says that nothing cannot be a physical reality, that this is a contradiction in terms.

Just to clarify: in your scheme of things does "physical reality" = "something"?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #178 on: 16/09/2015 20:06:47 »
Yes, to be clear, I am proposing that the "physical reality" of nothing, determined by the physical absence of everything = something.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #179 on: 16/09/2015 22:54:40 »
Quote from: Timey
I observe matter in my garden multiplying.  Sacks of the stuff must be removed every year in order to maintain clear space.  Perhaps particles can multiply???

Particles can multiply in the same way matter accumulates in your garden; ie by the natural process of the motion of material from one place to another; or if your garden is like mine; by passers-by throwing stuff in.  I doubt that any of this stuff comes from directly nothing.  :)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #180 on: 17/09/2015 09:39:07 »
Well Bill, I have heard some pretty way out stuff, whereas the world of quantum paralleled to the macro world that we live in might well have an empty beer can or other such rubbish appear in your garden as if from nothing... :D

But seriously, if you can remember that I did also state this:

As I said, this is an 'anticipated' interplay.  Basically this means I don't know :D...

Of course matter build up in the garden is particles being displaced from one place to another.  We do not observe that particles multiply/breed.  If this multiplication of particles happens at-all, then it would probably be inside a black hole.  This however is just a 'nutty' idea of my own.  The only relevance it bears upon this conversation is due to my 'looking' at a creation moment in the microscopic region.  And this only because I want to look at the first cycles of the universe consisting of a minimal amount of particles, with each cycle becoming bigger in size/amount of particles, and longer in duration than the last.

This doesn't mean that looking at the possibility of a creation moment in the microscopic region wouldn't have any potential relevance to any other theory though...
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #181 on: 17/09/2015 15:41:44 »
As a footnote to the post above, I think it worth mentioning Bill, that as to my multiplication of particles notion that increases a universes size each cycle...

IF there was any chance that we 'could' bring forth a particle from quantum fluctuations that 'can' occur out of this 0 state, then it could be said that a state that is close to 0, where quantum fluctuations are occurring, can produce more particles.  Therefore we have a cause for a universe's cycle getting bigger in size/amount of particles.  Any part of the universe that is close to a 0 state will be producing more particles...

Just another perspective :)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #182 on: 17/09/2015 17:29:11 »
...and to take this path of logic further,  IF we were to consider that a 0 state 'could' arise quantum fluctuations that 'can' produce a particle/particles...  Then we can now 'perhaps' dispense with the cyclic universe notion in favour of an eternal cosmos scenario that holds it's moment of creation in the microscopic, and has been expanding ever since.  A Big Bang scenario turned Little Bang if you like.
This scenario would uphold both the second law and the conservation of energy law.  It would explain expansion, and accelerated expansion and would be suggestive of this expansion continuing to infinity.

Again, how the time aspect might emerge in the scenario of this moment of creation in the microscopic, and what rate it is occurring at, would, I believe, be incredibly relevant...
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #183 on: 17/09/2015 22:22:11 »
Let’s see if I am beginning to understand your idea. 

Nothing was eternal into the past.  At some point, something, possibly a particle, appeared in this nothing.  The particle had energy which caused it to “explode” into a number of particles.  These particles constituted the universe.  They expanded until something, possibly gravity, pulled them back together into a small crunch, which initiated a new expansion.  The second expansion followed the same pattern as the first, but with additional matter/energy.  Cycles have continued, on increasing scale, until our Universe emerged.  This cyclic process may continue for ever.

How’s that for a first attempt?
 

Offline Mordeth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #184 on: 18/09/2015 01:12:48 »
Quote from: Bill S
Is there anybody out there who can find us some common ground, or even tell us both we are nuts, and why?

He is trying to create a logical bridge between "nothing" and "something". Unfortunately, no logical bridge exists.  So, what is being asked is an impossible explanatory demand. Namely,  to determine the reason for the existence of something (everything) without using an existential premise. It is an explanatory trap. So one tries to define the indefinable and then rationalize the belief with the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.  ie.,

If there is nothing then there is something.
There is something, therefore there is nothing.

You are both arguing over the very nonexistence of reality itself.  This "nothing" cannot be explained, imagined, calculated or defined.

Infinite regress is also a very real problem in attempting to understand the origin of everything, and I have painstakingly explained this.  Furthermore, there is no event prior to the Big Bang that is observable and this will probably always be the case.  So how do you plan to test these grand conclusions?  Do you think you can logically deduce the most important question that ever was asked?

 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #185 on: 18/09/2015 14:56:07 »
Quote from: Mordeth
If there is nothing then there is something.
There is something, therefore there is nothing.

That is precisely what I am not saying.  My position would be better expressed as something like this.

If there is nothing, there cannot be something.
Manifestly, there is something, therefore there can never have been nothing.

That is an oversimplification, but gives the general idea.

In continuing the discussion, what I am trying to do is understand Timey’s line of reasoning.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #186 on: 18/09/2015 18:43:09 »
Let’s see if I am beginning to understand your idea. 

Nothing was eternal into the past.  At some point, something, possibly a particle, appeared in this nothing.  The particle had energy which caused it to “explode” into a number of particles.  These particles constituted the universe.  They expanded until something, possibly gravity, pulled them back together into a small crunch, which initiated a new expansion.  The second expansion followed the same pattern as the first, but with additional matter/energy.  Cycles have continued, on increasing scale, until our Universe emerged.  This cyclic process may continue for ever.

How’s that for a first attempt?

Hi Bill... Almost :)

A particle is produced by quantum fluctuations that emerge from nothing.  More particles arise from further fluctuations that are rendered more possible by the existence of this particle.  These particles clump together, form a black hole, the black hole jets these particles into the next cycle.  More particles gives rise to more likely conditions for more fluctuations to emerge more particles, particles clump, form black hole, etc.

Or ... The fluctuations that emerged the first particles were 'special' and the black hole produces more particles, by particles that have been primed for reproduction by extreme compression.

Post 183 and 184, this path of logic runs past the same scenario of creation moment, but without the cyclic universe, black hole beginning and ending cycle notion.  This bearing more resemblance to the universes 'observed' expansion and accelerated expansion notion, this observation being based on the supposition of the causation of redshift.  Both dark matter and dark energy would have explaination.

Thanks Bill for wanting to understand my line of reasoning.  Appreciated!

Mordeth, I am in fact a 'she' and am now concentrating on preparing an answer to your post...an answer that will propose exactly why it is that I feel that logic 'can' prevail and that there lies the possibility that quantum fluctuations can arise from nothing and how particles may emerge from these conditions.

But... In the meantime.   If you are both proposing that there cannot be a reality of nothing, then what exactly are you proposing did come before the moment of creation/Big Bang?
« Last Edit: 18/09/2015 18:46:20 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #187 on: 18/09/2015 21:39:14 »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Infinite regress:
If proposition 1 = that nothing is a reality.  Proposition 1 relies on proposition 2 = everything is a reality.  Proposition 3 relies on proposition 2 = in that proposition 2 minus proposition 2 = proposition 1... Proposition 4 = a progression from proposition 1 into proposition 2 (this relies on propositions 1, 2 and 3 and is yet to be defined). Proposition n - 1 = a progression of everything minus the reality of nothing (infinite nothing perhaps, but not nothing infinitely due to no time scale) and proposition n = everything progressing infinitely.

Is this an infinite regress?  (Not sure if I am applying the symbols correctly).  A virtuous circle perhaps?  ... I personally do not view this as an illogical concept.  It reads more like  an algebraic equation in my eyes, but perhaps it's just me.

In any case I am certainly not the first person in the world to consider nothing as a potential reality that everything else can emerge from.  It really does surprise me that we are having such trouble getting past first base here!  I would have thought that the attempts that quantum physicists have made in their explorations into a vacuum state speak clearly of this type of investigation being oriented to a creation moment as well as searching for a quantum unification with gravity.

Truly, I think its time I stopped beating around the bush and give it to you straight.

Purely from the information given in the following 3 links, by adding one additional concept I am going to tell you a possibility that I think 'may' have the potential to lead to 'the' theory of everything mentioned in these links.

If you both read these inks in full, please note direct evidence of physicist considering nothing to be something.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Quote:
"According to Astrid Lambrecht (2002): "When one empties out a space of all matter and lowers the temperature to absolute zero, one produces in a Gedankenexperiment the quantum vacuum state."[1]"
Unquote

Quote:
"According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]"
Unquote

Quote:
"In many situations, the vacuum state can be defined to have zero energy, although the actual situation is considerably more subtle. The vacuum state is associated with a zero-point energy, and this zero-point energy has measurable effects. In the laboratory, it may be detected as the Casimir effect. In physical cosmology, the energy of the cosmological vacuum appears as the cosmological constant. In fact, the energy of a cubic centimeter of empty space has been calculated figuratively to be one trillionth of an erg (or 0.6 eV).[8] An outstanding requirement imposed on a potential Theory of Everything is that the energy of the quantum vacuum state must explain the physically observed cosmological constant."
Unquote:

Quote:
"The presence of virtual particles can be rigorously based upon the non-commutation of the quantized electromagnetic fields. Non-commutation means that although the average values of the fields vanish in a quantum vacuum, their variances do not.[15] The term "vacuum fluctuations" refers to the variance of the field strength in the minimal energy state,[16] and is described picturesquely as evidence of "virtual particles".[17]

It is sometimes attempted to provide an intuitive picture of virtual particles based upon the Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty principle:

(with ΔE and Δt being the energy and time variations respectively; ΔE is the accuracy in the measurement of energy and Δt is the time taken in the measurement, and ħ is the Planck constant divided by 2π) arguing along the lines that the short lifetime of virtual particles allows the "borrowing" of large energies from the vacuum and thus permits particle generation for short times.[18]

Although the phenomenon of virtual particles is accepted, this interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty relation is not universal.[19][20] One issue is the use of an uncertainty relation limiting measurement accuracy as though a time uncertainty Δt determines a "budget" for borrowing energy ΔE. Another issue is the meaning of "time" in this relation, because energy and time (unlike position q and momentum p, for example) do not satisfy a canonical commutation relation (such as [q, p] = i ħ).[21] Various schemes have been advanced to construct an observable that has some kind of time interpretation, and yet does satisfy a canonical commutation relation with energy.[22][23] The very many approaches to the energy-time uncertainty principle are a long and continuing subject.[23]"
Unquote

Quote:
"A virtual particle does not necessarily appear to carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle. This is because it appears as "short-lived" and "transient", so that the uncertainty principle allows it to appear not to conserve energy and momentum. The longer a virtual particle appears to "live", the closer its characteristics come to those of an actual particle.
Virtual particles appear in many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. "
Unquote:

Quote:
"Many physicists believe that, because of its intrinsically perturbative character, the concept of virtual particles is often confusing and misleading, and is thus best avoided.[4][5]"
Unquote:

Physicists have been juggling these concepts around for years.  The suggestion I make has never been made before by anyone else.  It has not been considered.

GR describes time dilation perfectly. We can run GPS, mobile phones, set your clock by it.  There is no disputing this... But what sort of time dilation is GR describing?
I propose that GR is describing a mass near mass time dilation effect, and that proper locational gravitational time dilation has been completely overlooked as a result of GR's assertions.

I propose that locational gravitational time dilation is as widely variant in its scale as the strength of a gravity field is. (I can explain this further but for now if you will accept this experimentally as the premiss)

Any mathematical structure that is based on a time measurement in relation to a momentum or a length needs to take into account the rate time is occurring at for the subject matter being measured.

In the case of a "perfect" vacuum state, (this being a one time occurrence) time would be set at zero.  For 'whatever reason' it may have cause to occur, a quantum fluctuation (Casimir effect) would have to initiate time as it emerges.  Time is now set at notch 1.  It is occurring really very slowly indeed. Therefore giving rise to more potential for other quantum fluctuations to occur, producing virtual particles that will, in this rate of slow time, not be "fleeting"!

Quote:
"Quantum field theory   Edit
See also: Vacuum catastrophe
List of unsolved problems in physics
Why can't the zero-point energy of the vacuum be interpreted as a cosmological constant? What causes the discrepancies?
A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this assumption, arguments can be made in its favor.[14]

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of (it didn't print the maths here). As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[15]"
Unquote

Wouldn't this problem be helped by the fact of an early universe that occurred in much 'slower time'?

Wouldn't this problem be exaggerated by a mathematically flawed Planck scale?

Wouldn't the concept of quantum physics be adversely affected by a mathematically flawed Planck's h constant?

Taking this to the other extreme, we can now have a cause for the Hawking's temperature quandary.

Now, I 'may well' not be right (chuckle), but what I am suggesting presents a very simple idea as a solution to some long standing physics problems, and this idea 'is' based in logic.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #188 on: 18/09/2015 23:59:29 »
As I understand it, the vacuum state with no particles or forces (other than virtual particles) is what is often referred to as 'nothing' by physicists. Krauss has said that when he talks of a universe from 'nothing', this is what he means - empty or 'raw' spacetime. He doesn't mean nothing as in the complete absence of spacetime or anything else. Empty spacetime isn't the complete absence of anything; the quantum fields are all present, randomly oscillating around zero due to quantum uncertainty, but the Higgs field is non-zero (from Sean Carroll's 'The Particle at the End of the Universe').

It seems to me that suggesting that the complete absence of anything physical is itself physical, is analogous to claiming that not collecting stamps is a hobby and not pulling a rabbit out of a hat is a magic trick. Semantic legedermain.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #189 on: 19/09/2015 00:10:53 »
Clearly you have not taken on board the concept of reducing a vacuum state to absolute-ness.  ie: : A 'perfect' vacuum state...
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #190 on: 19/09/2015 00:13:32 »
Timey, it's going to take me a few hits to work through your last couple of posts, but one thing strikes me straight away.

Quote
A particle is produced by quantum fluctuations that emerge from nothing.

A quantum fluctuation is a transient variation in the level of energy at a given point.  It emerges from the vacuum energy, not from "nothing".
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #191 on: 19/09/2015 00:28:33 »
Clearly you have not taken on board the concept of reducing a vacuum state to absolute-ness.  ie: : A 'perfect' vacuum state...
You mean 'free space'? That's what I was talking about.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space...
[Vacuum]

At university we used to discuss crackpot inventions, like the 'Hackenthorpe Knife', which was so sharp it would slice through its own blade if left facing up, or the 'Hackenthorpe Vacuum', made by taking an ordinary vacuum and sucking all the vacuum out. They were absurdist student jokes. A box with literally 'nothing inside' would be completely flat, with nothing between its sides - i.e., the surfaces would be touching.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #192 on: 19/09/2015 00:36:43 »
So...dlorde.  You are disputing the Big Bang theory, everything did not emerge from a point, please elaborate!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #193 on: 19/09/2015 00:38:29 »
Timey, it's going to take me a few hits to work through your last couple of posts, but one thing strikes me straight away.

Quote
A particle is produced by quantum fluctuations that emerge from nothing.

A quantum fluctuation is a transient variation in the level of energy at a given point.  It emerges from the vacuum energy, not from "nothing".

Yes Bill.  If you remove all matter from a situation, you will be left with a vacuum state in which quantum fluctuations occur.  Remove the quantum fluctuations and you might be left with a 'perfect' vacuum state.

We can even describe this state as a zero geometry, zero content point.  But this state IS still something.  This  perfect vacuum state has the potential for quantum fluctuations to arise.  Why?  Because it is the perfect vacuum state and being as we are saying this is the beginning of our universe, it is subject to the second law.  A state of order must alway tend to disorder.  We know that if we remove all matter from a space that we will be left with a vacuum state that has quantum fluctuations.  Therefore to add matter back into a vacuum state we can see that it must require the vacuum state to have quantum fluctuations... Surely?  That would be logical, right?

Also, you are saying that a quantum fluctuation is 'transient'.  Agreed, but if the rate of time is occurring much more slowly than the time we are measuring it with, perhaps a quantum fluctuation is not quite so fleetingly transient as 'we' observe.  Not forgetting that any experiment in a lab would not reflect the rate time would be occurring at for a quantum fluctuation that was not occurring in the presence of any other related mass...
 

Offline Mordeth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #194 on: 19/09/2015 05:44:48 »
Quote from: timey
Mordeth, I am in fact a she...

My apologies.

Quote from: timey
But... In the meantime.   If you are both proposing that there cannot be a reality of nothing, then what exactly are you proposing did come before the moment of creation/Big Bang?

I am not proposing anything.  I have said no less than 20 times that I do not know, nor does science. All we can do is guess. 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #195 on: 19/09/2015 10:08:19 »
Quote from: timey
Mordeth, I am in fact a she...
My apologies.

No problem, the user name is not indicative of gender.  I perhaps should have called myself Mrs.timey.

Quote from: timey
But... In the meantime.   If you are both proposing that there cannot be a reality of nothing, then what exactly are you proposing did come before the moment of creation/Big Bang?

I am not proposing anything.  I have said no less than 20 times that I do not know, nor does science. All we can do is guess.

I am not in disagreement with you Mordeth.  Any inroads that I am 'attempting' to make here into 'unknown' territories, are based on guesswork.  However this guesswork is 'informed' guesswork that is based in logic and my line of inquiry introduces a 'new concept' to the equation.

As Alan Calvard said earlier this thread:
"The test of a "pre big bang theory" will be that it predicts something like the observable universe and is consistent with whatever happens tomorrow."

IF what I am suggesting concerning time and its emergence in the initial moment of creation, from not occurring at-all - to occurring at an extremely slow rate that increases its speed as more mass is introduced into the universe... IF this scenario is viable, then this pre-creation theory IS testable in our universe today!  And would also be predictive of what our universe can expect of its tomorrow's!
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #196 on: 19/09/2015 23:10:41 »
Quote from: Timey
Therefore to add matter back into a vacuum state we can see that it must require the vacuum state to have quantum fluctuations... Surely?  That would be logical, right?


I would agree with that, as long as you are not saying that this vacuum, which has energy and fluctuations, is nothing.  Unless you are using "nothing" in the way that (e.g.) Krauss uses it, in which case, by his own admission it is not nothing.   
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #197 on: 20/09/2015 00:09:54 »
Since we are dealing with distinctly non-mainstream ideas; the problem of infinite regression in relation to the Universe is not so difficult to overcome, without getting into theology.  The trouble is that the concept requires fully accepting that infinity is not a number, and eternity is not time.  It is not difficult to get scientific people to accept this, but if you try to go a step further and ask them to agree that there can be no change in infinity, and that there cannot be an infinite succession, and you hit a brick wall.   

It is important to stress that I am not attempting to be dogmatic here, I am not even saying that this is what I believe, I am merely putting forward some of the ideas that have come into my head in the course of thinking about the possible origin of the Universe, and in particular about infinity.  I gladly accept that the ideas are there to be knocked down, and in fact welcome that as part of my own learning process. 

    I invite you to consider the possibility that the cosmos is infinite. (Whenever I use the word “infinite” I include “eternal” within the term).  I am, here, picking up the idea, that appears in some scientific circles, that the four dimensions of spacetime that we experience are only a shadow of a higher-dimensional reality that is beyond our reach.  I am suggesting that the cosmos has infinite dimensions, or perhaps just one infinite dimension, which we cannot experience.  Like zero, whatever you divide, or multiply infinity by, it remains unchanged.  However, unlike zero, infinity should remain unchanged if you try to add something to it, or subtract something from it, because, if it is truly infinite, whatever you “add” will already be part of it, and whatever you try to subtract will still remain part of it, otherwise, it would no longer be infinite.  Even when trying to explain this idea, we run into problems with terminology.  Strictly, I should not talk about “parts” of infinity; surely, it has no parts; that is of the essence of infinity.  Leaving aside the mathematical “infinities” that almost inevitably find their way into this kind of discussion; it feels as though no part of a true infinity should be thought of as being finite, because a true infinity cannot be sub-divided.  In eternity, time should receive the same treatment, it too is eternal; of course this is also a contradiction in terms; what I should really say is that time, as we understand it does not exist.  There is no passage of time, in the cosmos, nor do we, in our Universe, pass through time.  We live in an eternal, unchanging now, of which we can experience only a shadow. 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #198 on: 20/09/2015 00:14:56 »
What happens if the expression is infinity minus infinity or infinity divided by infinity?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #199 on: 20/09/2015 00:43:07 »
Quote from: Timey
Therefore to add matter back into a vacuum state we can see that it must require the vacuum state to have quantum fluctuations... Surely?  That would be logical, right?


I would agree with that, as long as you are not saying that this vacuum, which has energy and fluctuations, is nothing.  Unless you are using "nothing" in the way that (e.g.) Krauss uses it, in which case, by his own admission it is not nothing.

Ok Bill

Now take the vacuum state with its quantum fluctuations and remove them.  What are we left with?  Empty space.  Then take away the geometry of space.  We have a point.  Now take away time.  What we are now left with is something that has nothing of our universe in it.

This is the 'nothing' that I refer to.  It exists as 'something' only because we have subtracted everything from it.

Now all that we need to do is work out which order these parameters that we have removed are to be added back, in order for our universe to evolve.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #199 on: 20/09/2015 00:43:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums