The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What was before the big bang?  (Read 45172 times)

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #225 on: 25/09/2015 21:36:27 »
One thing that appears to left out of discussions of GR and black holes is gravity is more than GR, since gravity will also generate pressure which can cause phase changes of matter. For example, in the core of the sun, the pressure due to gravity, helps to induce fusion, which releases high frequency energy. As such, although the core of the sun is at the bottom of the space-time well and time runs slower due to GR, the fastest physical expressions of time also appear; gamma frequencies become the ticks of the local matter/energy clock. GR deals with space-time but pressure deals with the frequency of matter/energy; matter-time. 

If you compare space/distance to pressure, in the core of the sun the space of space-time is most contracted, while physical space between matter is also most contracted due to pressure. These go in the same direction. But time of space-time goes in the opposite direction of matter-time.

In a black hole, GR may be approaching the zero limit of space-time, while  the space due to pressure may be tiny, but matter-time is extremely fast. The matter clock is ticking as fast as it can go.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #226 on: 25/09/2015 21:37:08 »
 I’ve been trying to get my head round what it would mean to slow time.  Would it be possible for time to slow without slowing the changes it was measuring?  Is time something that can change independently?

If I have two motors and run them both at 2,000 rpm; there would seem to be two ways in which I could double the rpm.

1. I could accelerate one motor to 4,000 rpm.

2. I could redefine time.  A second is defined as 9,192,631,770 (let’s call this 9.2x10^9) transitions of a caesium atom.  If, for the second motor only, I redefine a second as 1.84x10^10 transitions, I have both motors running at 4,000 rpm.  What have I achieved?   

OK, I can’t do that, but suppose the “gnomes” who make these decisions had defined a second as 1.84x10^10 transitions, or as 9,192,631,771 transitions; that would make a difference to how we use time for measuring change; but would it make any difference to time as such? 
 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #227 on: 25/09/2015 22:36:59 »
Ok Bill

If you have 2 cars, both cars are travelling at 40 mph.  (This being mph earth hours.)  The first car is experiencing 'earth' time.  The second car is experiencing the slower rate of time.

Both cars travel for 10 miles.

The second car will feel like it has travelled a longer distance.
« Last Edit: 25/09/2015 22:42:08 by timey »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #228 on: 25/09/2015 23:53:59 »
  Surely neither car will experience time as being anything other than “normal”.

Alice goes on a space flight during which she experiences one year.  When she is reunited with Bob, he has experienced ten years.  I.e. Alice has experienced slower time than has Bob.  If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #229 on: 26/09/2015 02:38:38 »
Then you are wrong timey.I have done the maths.

Consider this. Proper time can be given by:

05ea0cfe527a648de01b4418178ac3bc.gif where s is the distance of 1 metre. This is the proper time of free fall. If we calculate g at various radial distances from the surface of the earth we can plot this progression. The graph is attached. This is linear with an unchanging gradient. If you were right the plot would be a curve.
« Last Edit: 26/09/2015 02:54:32 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #230 on: 26/09/2015 10:30:38 »
  Surely neither car will experience time as being anything other than “normal”.

Alice goes on a space flight during which she experiences one year.  When she is reunited with Bob, he has experienced ten years.  I.e. Alice has experienced slower time than has Bob.  If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?

Yes, in the context of 'experiencing' time Bill, you are correct.  Both cars will experience the time passed as being the same from their own point of view. But the reality of how much 'distance' has been travelled will actually be different in the same time scale.

Both Alice and Bob go off on a space trip at 4000 mph, 'earth' hours.  Bob's time is occurring 10% slower than Alice's.  They both travel for 1 hour.

Alice has covered 4000 miles.
Bob has only covered 3600 miles.

(Clearly I am suggesting that time will get marginally slower and slower in weaker and weaker gravity fields, so this analogy is just to show 'a' slow time in relation to distance - and is not synonymous of how I'm suggesting slow time works in space.)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #231 on: 26/09/2015 11:32:08 »
Then you are wrong timey.I have done the maths.

Consider this. Proper time can be given by:

05ea0cfe527a648de01b4418178ac3bc.gif where s is the distance of 1 metre. This is the proper time of free fall. If we calculate g at various radial distances from the surface of the earth we can plot this progression. The graph is attached. This is linear with an unchanging gradient. If you were right the plot would be a curve.

Jeff, I'm not sure that a description of proper time in free fall can apply.

The terminology 'free fall' indicates that we are measuring the time for 'mass' that is in free fall 'through' space.  This constitutes a mass near mass phenomenon.  All GR considerations will apply under these circumstances.

I am measuring what time is doing in the 'space' that mass is free falling through, not the 'time' for the 'mass' that is free falling through this 'space'.

Essentially this means that I am creating an observer independent reference frame for time that can be calculated in respect to the gravity field. (Hence the suggestion of a time matrix being added to the time aspect of the space time matrix)

In proper terms, both Alice and Bobs space craft will be subject to mass near mass phenomenon time dilation as they leave earth as per GR.  This effect will escalate up to a point, but as the craft move away from the influence of earths gravity field and travel into deep space, this minute escalation in the crafts rate of time will reverse and they will become subject to slower and slower rates of time.

Ok, so neither Alice or Bob realise that time goes slower and slower as one moves out into deep space.  They both have exactly 40 000 miles to travel and they are both travelling at 4000 mph 'earth hours'.  Neck and neck, its a race to the finish line. Bob experiences engine trouble and his craft is now only travelling at 2000 mph.

During the journey the rate of time in deep space decreases steadily up to the point of our imaginary ribbon finish line by 50%.  The equivalence principle now states that the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of the length of a second and mass cannot exceed the speed of light.  In fact, as Alice's speed of 4000 mph 'earth hours' moves into slower time, this speed is becoming a higher percentage in relation to the decreasing upper speed limit of the speed of light 'allowed' by this slower rate of time.  Alice's journey is now experiencing a greater degree of SR time slowing effects.

Bob was tempted to turn around and go home.  What chance did he have of winning the race now?  But being the good sport that he is and not wanting to leave Alice in a 1 horse race, he continues.  Maybe Alice might encounter engine troubles too!

Bob's speed of 2000 mph 'earth hours' does not amount to as much of a percentage of the upper speed limit afforded by the slower rates of time he is travelling through.  The SR effects are not time slowing his journey as much as they are time slowing Alice's.

Under this remit Jeff, can Bob get to the set finish line of distance 'before' Alice?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #232 on: 26/09/2015 13:09:22 »

Both Alice and Bob go off on a space trip at 4000 mph, 'earth' hours. 
4000 mph relative to what?
Quote
Bob's time is occurring 10% slower than Alice's.  They both travel for 1 hour.
measured on whose clock?


[/quote]
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #233 on: 26/09/2015 14:06:54 »

Both Alice and Bob go off on a space trip at 4000 mph, 'earth' hours. 
4000 mph relative to what?
Quote
Bob's time is occurring 10% slower than Alice's.  They both travel for 1 hour.
measured on whose clock?

Ok Alan.  On the basis that this particular consideration was just to give Bill a feel for slow time in relation to distance travelled and not depicting a suggested reality.

The answer to your questions are 4000 mph 'earth hours' relative to the distance travelled...

Bobs clock would be ticking slower than Alice's, measured relative to the strength of his locational gravity field, in relation to his own associated mass, and regulated by his speed of travel.

These questions are much more 'fun' when answered in relation to the considerations in Post 233, which I am suggesting do constitute a 'potential' reality.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #234 on: 26/09/2015 16:32:26 »
That unchanging gradient will go all the way to infinity due to the inverse square nature of gravity. It is now up to YOU to show mathematically that this is wrong. No more word play.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #235 on: 26/09/2015 18:33:56 »
Why would I need to prove that gradient to be wrong in order to prove that time stops in a zero gravity field?

Check list:
1) The gradient that you have calculated is for an object in free fall, am I right?
2) This gradient follows the inverse square law, right?
3) You have calculated this gradient according to a method associated with 'proper time' and this method is synonymous to GR, right?

If you can answer these questions, I still won't be able to do the maths to determine how the gradient of my locational gravitational time dilation is linked to the gradient of a gravity field that is subject to the inverse square law, but I think I 'could' make a very good attempt at explaining the method by which 'you' could do it Jeff. :D
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #236 on: 26/09/2015 18:46:14 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #237 on: 26/09/2015 20:15:43 »
Vikki, are you sure you are not a scientist?  "This is the answer to your question; whatever your question might have been" is a common response from scientists.  :)

The question was: 

Quote
If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?

This is something I found quite helpful; even the equations were not too frightening. 

http://home.earthlink.net/~owl232/twinparadox.pdf)

 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #238 on: 26/09/2015 20:41:33 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.

Well actually Jeff, I had no idea what you meant by a cut off point.  If you could elaborate perhaps I might understand.  It had no relation to what I meant, (which is what you were asking about) or not as I understand it anyway... although I can accept that I haven't perhaps understood it, and therefore am open to doing so.

I do not understand why you would think that my ideas incorporate being free from the influence of gravity.  Time is time.  Gravity is gravity.  They are linked via gravitational time dilation.  We know this already.  I am just suggesting that how we think they are linked is perhaps wrong.  That this observation we make of time dilation is occurring for different reasons than we think.  That actual 'locational' time dilation is a much wider variant on a scale that echoes the strength of a gravity field, and is linked to the strength of a gravity field, but please realise that this locational gravitational time dilation does 'not' change the rate of time as per the inverse square law as gravity changes in strength as per radius.  This being very obviously 'not' a possibility when considering the behaviour of temperature in the black hole. (this being under the remit of time stopped in a 0 gravity field.)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #239 on: 26/09/2015 20:48:05 »
Vikki, are you sure you are not a scientist?  "This is the answer to your question; whatever your question might have been" is a common response from scientists.  :)

The question was: 

Quote
If more things can happen in slower time, wouldn’t Alice  have consumed more supplies than Bob?

This is something I found quite helpful; even the equations were not too frightening. 

http://home.earthlink.net/~owl232/twinparadox.pdf)

Actually Bill, I didn't really think it an important factor to the discussion.  Everyone has talked the *rse off the twin paradox.  Why would we wish to go down that road?

The pertinent part of this discussion, regarding slower time due to locational gravitational time dilation, lies in the factor of distance travelled!

If you travel the same distance in slower time it will take you longer.  If you didn't know you were travelling in slower time you would think you had travelled a longer distance.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #240 on: 27/09/2015 00:05:43 »
Quote from: Vikki
Actually Bill, I didn't really think it an important factor to the discussion.  Everyone has talked the *rse off the twin paradox.  Why would we wish to go down that road?

Perhaps because it is relevant to whether or not more things can happen if time is slower. 
I carefully avoided suggesting that Alice and Bob were twins.  :)

Quote from: Vikki
The pertinent part of this discussion, regarding slower time due to locational gravitational time dilation, lies in the factor of distance travelled!
Is that distance travelled per unit time?

Quote from: Vikki
I am suggesting that 'locational' gravitational time dilation, as opposed to the mass near mass time dilation effect that GR describes, is as widely variant in the rate time occurs at, as a gravity field is in strength.

I’m still not clear on the distinction between “locational gravity” and “mass near mass gravity”.


Quote from: Vikki
If you travel the same distance in slower time it will take you longer.

Now you've really lost me.  I thought you could achieve more in slower time.   
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #241 on: 27/09/2015 00:14:29 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.

Well actually Jeff, I had no idea what you meant by a cut off point.  If you could elaborate perhaps I might understand.  It had no relation to what I meant, (which is what you were asking about) or not as I understand it anyway... although I can accept that I haven't perhaps understood it, and therefore am open to doing so.

I do not understand why you would think that my ideas incorporate being free from the influence of gravity.  Time is time.  Gravity is gravity.  They are linked via gravitational time dilation.  We know this already.  I am just suggesting that how we think they are linked is perhaps wrong.  That this observation we make of time dilation is occurring for different reasons than we think.  That actual 'locational' time dilation is a much wider variant on a scale that echoes the strength of a gravity field, and is linked to the strength of a gravity field, but please realise that this locational gravitational time dilation does 'not' change the rate of time as per the inverse square law as gravity changes in strength as per radius.  This being very obviously 'not' a possibility when considering the behaviour of temperature in the black hole. (this being under the remit of time stopped in a 0 gravity field.)

That is just a lot of words put together in a misleading fashion to confuse the issue. When describing theories science should be precise and unambiguous. Everyone should be able to read and understand what is meant. You dodge around the issues. You need to learn physics. By that I mean the mathematics as well as the vague concepts that you seem to have acquired. I am quite fond of puzzles. Science is full of them. They usually arise from unexpected results of observations. They are not just conjured up in the minds of scientists. Explaining them then leads to new theories. You are trying to rewrite physics to suit your ideas. Not a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #242 on: 27/09/2015 00:51:26 »
Quote from: Vikki
Actually Bill, I didn't really think it an important factor to the discussion.  Everyone has talked the *rse off the twin paradox.  Why would we wish to go down that road?

Perhaps because it is relevant to whether or not more things can happen if time is slower. 
I carefully avoided suggesting that Alice and Bob were twins.  :)

Of course more things can happen if time goes slower.  The twin paradox is more concerning SR effects of slowing due to speed of travel. Edit: humour noted :)

Quote from: Vikki
The pertinent part of this discussion, regarding slower time due to locational gravitational time dilation, lies in the factor of distance travelled!
Is that distance travelled per unit time?

Overall distance travelled, per speed, per unit time.

I’m still not clear on the distinction between “locational gravity” and “mass near mass gravity”.

Imagine a clock placed in a location at a radius in elevation to earth.  That clock will tell you what time is doing in relation to that clock.  Now take the clock out of the equation and tell me what time dilation is doing in the location that the clock was in.

I am suggesting that the time dilation registered by the clock in that location is caused by the clock and it's related mass in relation to earth's mass.
I am suggesting that if we take away the clock and it's related mass from the location, the time dilation at this location will be subject to the gravity field of that radius.
I am suggesting that locational gravitational time dilation is set with time stopped in a 0 gravity field.

Quote from: Vikki
If you travel the same distance in slower time it will take you longer.

Now you've really lost me.  I thought you could achieve more in slower time.

It's a simple equation.  Mph.  If the hour is a longer hour, it will take longer to travel a mile.  We could drop the speed factor in relation to the equation to the same effect.  A slower speed of motion or a slower speed of hour will result in it taking longer to travel a mile.

Now then.  If you didn't know you were travelling through slower time, and you have observed that your speed has remained constant, you will then believe that you have travelled a further distance than a mile.
« Last Edit: 27/09/2015 01:56:46 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #243 on: 27/09/2015 01:02:41 »
I already know it is wrong. You are never free from the influence of gravity. What I did suggest is a cutoff energy which you objected to because it too went against you ideas.

Well actually Jeff, I had no idea what you meant by a cut off point.  If you could elaborate perhaps I might understand.  It had no relation to what I meant, (which is what you were asking about) or not as I understand it anyway... although I can accept that I haven't perhaps understood it, and therefore am open to doing so.

I do not understand why you would think that my ideas incorporate being free from the influence of gravity.  Time is time.  Gravity is gravity.  They are linked via gravitational time dilation.  We know this already.  I am just suggesting that how we think they are linked is perhaps wrong.  That this observation we make of time dilation is occurring for different reasons than we think.  That actual 'locational' time dilation is a much wider variant on a scale that echoes the strength of a gravity field, and is linked to the strength of a gravity field, but please realise that this locational gravitational time dilation does 'not' change the rate of time as per the inverse square law as gravity changes in strength as per radius.  This being very obviously 'not' a possibility when considering the behaviour of temperature in the black hole. (this being under the remit of time stopped in a 0 gravity field.)

That is just a lot of words put together in a misleading fashion to confuse the issue. When describing theories science should be precise and unambiguous. Everyone should be able to read and understand what is meant. You dodge around the issues. You need to learn physics. By that I mean the mathematics as well as the vague concepts that you seem to have acquired. I am quite fond of puzzles. Science is full of them. They usually arise from unexpected results of observations. They are not just conjured up in the minds of scientists. Explaining them then leads to new theories. You are trying to rewrite physics to suit your ideas. Not a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.

LOL!!!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #244 on: 27/09/2015 02:11:07 »
Concise response and summing up your viewpoint admirably.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #245 on: 27/09/2015 02:22:15 »
...and there speaks the man who was telling lightarrow only 4 or so weeks ago how he had just come to grips with the double light slit experiment and was moving on to complex conjugates, was it?  My photographic memory fails me slightly.

Oh, yes... and I nearly fell off my chair!

Can I think of one time when you have even attempted to answer 'any' question I have posed to you in response to your responses to my posts.

No... no I can't!  I rest my case...  Lol indeed!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #246 on: 27/09/2015 02:46:10 »
Do you even know what a complex conjugate is?
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #247 on: 27/09/2015 09:34:10 »
Local collapse of planets is a natural phenomena and happens continuously... At some point resulting sun explodes due to extreme gravity...
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #248 on: 27/09/2015 11:07:01 »
Do you even know what a complex conjugate is?

It surprises me Jeff, that in this day and age you would ask anyone who can clearly read, and who is obviously connected to the internet, a question consisting of the words "do you even know what a ? ...is?"

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

http://www.mathwords.com/c/complex_conjugate.htm

http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/sigma%20complex%20number%20leaflets/sigma-complex6-2009-1.pdf

Need I continue?

Now Jeff, do you even know what this post is?  I'll give you a clue.... Common sense?  Or sarcasm?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #249 on: 27/09/2015 16:32:10 »
So I attack your theory and you attack me personally. It says a lot about you. If you could defend your theory I suppose you would. Wouldn't you?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #249 on: 27/09/2015 16:32:10 »

 

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