The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What was before the big bang?  (Read 45447 times)

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #250 on: 27/09/2015 17:15:05 »
I wasn't aware that you had attacked my theory.  You made some calculations concerning free fall and pronounced me wrong about an idea that cannot be calculated by proper time in free fall.   I mention this fact and explain why, you tell me to go learn physics and then question my knowledge about an aspect of quantum mechanics, as if one has to be part of a secret society to know about such a concept, when in fact the info is readily available to anyone who can read and who is equipped with an internet connection.  I point this out to you, and now I am attacking you personally?

You 'are' a strange kettle of fish Jeff, to be sure!  ... It remains a mystery to me exactly where you are coming from, but really, if it's not informative... or funny... then it's just 'pants' in my opinion!
 

Offline unstman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #251 on: 27/09/2015 17:32:11 »
I would say the question goes into the same category as ' I can prove there is another Universe once you survive going through a blackhole '  without actually having any evidence to substantiate such a statement. What was before the Big Bang? Anything your mind wants to put there, as it is as of no real relevance to what there is now, and, in all honesty, I do not think the question can be answered.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #252 on: 27/09/2015 18:09:37 »
If you are not at infinity, which is impossible in itself, then you are always in freefall with respect to a mass. It may be of an infinitesimally small magnitude but it is still there. Why don't you get this? You are trying to reverse the accepted view of time dilation AND saying expansion of the universe is wrong. Show the evidence instead of assuming a passive-aggressive attitude.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #253 on: 27/09/2015 19:42:57 »
What part of observer independent do you miss-understand Jeff?

I want to measure the time dilation that (I am suggesting ) is occurring in the 'space' that one is free falling through in respect to mass.

When you understand this, then you will understand that the calculation that you put forward cannot apply as a measurement of what is occurring in the locational space that one is falling through, and is only describing what is occurring for oneself, free falling with respect to mass.

I am not here to 'prove' anything Jeff.  As I keep stating, I am here seeking mathematical help regarding my idea... An idea that I am perfectly well aware goes against the grain of accepted physics.  However, the idea adds up to the same observable universe, doing the same observed and proven physical things, only without introducing any additional unobserved qualities into the equation and giving a viable means of a cyclic universe that finds its energy for the initiation and end of each cycle within the system.  On this basis alone, this idea is worthy of consideration and can be tested in physical terms very simply, as I have indicated previously.

At no point have I stated that my theory is the 'correct theory', only that my theory is an interesting idea, which it is.  I only become bolshy with you when you speak to me as if I'm stupid Jeff.  To say so, I really don't understand what your problem is!
« Last Edit: 27/09/2015 19:49:17 by timey »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #254 on: 27/09/2015 21:51:01 »
Is the idea of free fall causing a problem?

Richard Wolfson uses the term free float rather than free fall, on the basis that although it is easy to identify “free fall” as falling in the case of a parachutist dropping from a plane, in that time before the parachute opens.  It is less easy to see it as falling in the case, for example, of a satellite orbiting the Earth, or the Earth orbiting the sun, and particularly difficult in the case of the moon.  (BTW: “supermoon" + eclipse tonight)

  It is equally difficult to identify the motion of stars around the centre of a galaxy, or the motion of the Universe as a whole, in the event that it should be rotating, as falling.  Wolfson uses the term “free-float”, which has the same meaning as free fall, but creates a more easily visualised image, especially on a large scale. 
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #255 on: 27/09/2015 22:05:34 »
Quote from: Vikki
I want to measure the time dilation that (I am suggesting) is occurring in the 'space' that one is free falling through in respect to mass.

Let’s see if I’m getting anywhere near grasping this. 

There is a mass “A” free falling through space.
You don’t want to measure the time dilation in the F of R of “A”.
You want to measure the time dilation in the surrounding space.
When you say “in respect to mass”, do you mean “A”, or some more generalised mass?
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #256 on: 27/09/2015 22:21:41 »
Is the idea of free fall causing a problem?

Lol Bill :) Erm, nope.  I just don't see empty space as being 'in' free fall, is all.

As I'm trying, when looking at the idea of slower time in space, to measure what the 'potential' time dilation for empty space, as per that empty spaces gravity field, is, I don't think that a measurement of a time scale for an object in free fall is going to be applicable.

The idea of free fall itself is entirely unproblematic.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #257 on: 27/09/2015 22:29:04 »
Quote from: Unstman
What was before the Big Bang? Anything your mind wants to put there, as it is as of no real relevance to what there is now, and, in all honesty, I do not think the question can be answered.

I think there are two questions that frequently become confused:
1. What was before the Big Bang?  I think you have the right answer to that.
2. Was there anything before the Big Bang?  This would seem to be very relevant to what there is now, because if the answer were “no”, there would be nothing now, which is not exactly the situation.
 

Offline unstman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #258 on: 27/09/2015 23:24:25 »
I asked the question ' If Dark Matter/Energy makes up 96% of what the Universe is, is it possible that Dark Matter/Energy existed before the Big Bang, and it was Dark Energy/Matter which acted as a catalyst for the Big Bang to take place in the first place?

It could also be, possibly, interpreted as the basis for multi-Universes to exist, but with different physical properties or even the same, but they never meet. I was watching an Horizon programme where the creation, if memory serves me well, of matter was the result of 2 Universes colliding for a brief moment in time?   
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #259 on: 27/09/2015 23:44:15 »
OK timey. You are also saying that galaxies are not as far away as we think. Correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore the universe is not as old as we think. Am I summing it up correctly? That is what this implies. So by how much are we out on the age of the universe? Currently the age of the universe is thought to lie somewhere between 13 and 14 billion years. I think you need to put a definite figure on this so that it can be checked mathematically. That shouldn't be difficult. Even just a guesstimate will do.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #260 on: 27/09/2015 23:46:38 »
Quote from: Unstman
It could also be, possibly, interpreted as the basis for multi-Universes to exist, but with different physical properties or even the same, but they never meet. I was watching an Horizon programme where the creation, if memory serves me well, of matter was the result of 2 Universes colliding for a brief moment in time?

Horizon comes up with some interesting stuff, but slips easily into “fairytale physics”.  I suppose the idea of the Big Bang being the result of a collision between two universes is not so far removed from the idea of two branes colliding; but where do fairytales end and physics begin? 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #261 on: 27/09/2015 23:48:21 »
You are also saying that time slows down but you travel further. So that as time slows velocity increases. So without any impetus vast distances can be crossed with ease. That is what you said. So we can have free energy from nowhere in deep space.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #262 on: 28/09/2015 00:08:25 »
OK timey since you posted a link to complex conjugates then tell me what is significant about a number that is its own complex conjugate. Look it up if necessary.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #263 on: 28/09/2015 00:46:19 »
You could be on to a loser there Jeffrey,  :)

As a non-mathematician the answer meant nothing to me - in fact it seemed self contradictory - but I found an answer in less than two mins.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #264 on: 28/09/2015 00:51:00 »
Yes but timey might actually learn something mathematical.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #265 on: 28/09/2015 01:21:38 »
OK timey. You are also saying that galaxies are not as far away as we think. Correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore the universe is not as old as we think. Am I summing it up correctly? That is what this implies. So by how much are we out on the age of the universe? Currently the age of the universe is thought to lie somewhere between 13 and 14 billion years. I think you need to put a definite figure on this so that it can be checked mathematically. That shouldn't be difficult. Even just a guesstimate will do.

If the universe started in slow time then the universe as measured by years in our quicker time, would be inadequately measured.  The universe would be a lot 'older' than we think.

To calculate by how much older the universe is it would be necessary to know by what ratio time increases in relation to an increasing gravity field.  This being the aspect of mathematics that I have come to this forum for help with.  Therefore your demanding some mathematical guesstimate of an age for the universe is both unfair and unrealistic.

You are also saying that time slows down but you travel further. So that as time slows velocity increases. So without any impetus vast distances can be crossed with ease. That is what you said. So we can have free energy from nowhere in deep space.

Nope.  If time is going slower, velocity does not change under these circumstances, if you didn't know you were travelling through slower time you would think that the distance travelled is longer when it isn't.
I'm saying that the slowing effects of SR time dilation with respect to rate of motion can be controlled via speed of motion when travelling through slower time.

OK timey since you posted a link to complex conjugates then tell me what is significant about a number that is its own complex conjugate. Look it up if necessary.

I really do 'not' appreciate your tone here ... I have repeatedly told you that I do not do maths.  My education ended abruptly at age 11, my maths ed finished at long division.  It's not like I just flunked it Jeff.  If I'd had any training in algebra, I've no doubt I'd be damn good at it.  I didn't, and so  I'm here for help!!!  (Not riddles thank you)  I don't know the answer to your question... However from reading the blurb, it does occur to me that 'nothing' in relation to 'everything' could almost be considered as a pair of complex conjugates!

Yes but timey might actually learn something mathematical.

Yes but... the maths timey wants to know about are specific and specified, and do not incorporate my answering you regarding non-related complex conjugate questions in order to prove myself to you... ;)
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #266 on: 28/09/2015 04:22:51 »
4.20am here. Just been watching the eclipse.  Worth staying up for.

Vikki, please don't let #257 slip away unanswered; I'm really trying to get my head round this.
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #267 on: 28/09/2015 10:43:46 »
Quote from: Vikki
I want to measure the time dilation that (I am suggesting) is occurring in the 'space' that one is free falling through in respect to mass.

Let’s see if I’m getting anywhere near grasping this. 

There is a mass “A” free falling through space.
You don’t want to measure the time dilation in the F of R of “A”.
You want to measure the time dilation in the surrounding space.
When you say “in respect to mass”, do you mean “A”, or some more generalised mass?

Jeff was talking about a measurement for free fall in relation to mass.  I assumed he meant a planetary body of mass.  I want to measure the time dilation for the space the object is falling through, in respect to the gravity field of the planetary body of mass that the object is falling towards, and not the time dilation measured 'for' the object that is in free fall.

Eclipse of the moon?  It was a very clear night last night where I am in UK, so it would have been well viewed from here, but it was after 4 in the morning when you posted.  My curiosity is aroused!  :)  Where in the world are 'you' Bill?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #268 on: 28/09/2015 14:56:15 »
Quote from: Vikki
Where in the world are 'you' Bill?

UK. I'm a Cornishman, stuck in Essex.  :(
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #269 on: 28/09/2015 15:36:33 »
Quote from: Vikki
Jeff was talking about a measurement for free fall in relation to mass.  I assumed he meant a planetary body of mass.  I want to measure the time dilation for the space the object is falling through, in respect to the gravity field of the planetary body of mass that the object is falling towards, and not the time dilation measured 'for' the object that is in free fall.

If the free falling mass is a planet orbiting its star, it will be subject to time dilation due to its speed relative to the star.  You are not looking for that?

It will also be subject to time dilation due to the gravity of the star.  You are not looking for that?

The space through the planet is travelling will be subject to time dilation due to the gravity of the star.  This is what you are interested in?

So, is the question you are asking something like this: If a clock is placed in deep space where gravitational influences are minimal; and what forces there are will probably be balanced; how will that clock’s record of the rate of the passage of time compare with that of a clock placed in the gravitational field of the star which your planet is orbiting?
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #270 on: 28/09/2015 16:30:02 »
A Cornish man in Essex aye... You were up late!

We'll yes, clearly the rate of time in accordance with the gravity field for a planet, or star, and the planet in relation to the star, and the speed that both planet and star are travelling through space at, are of great interest... The fact that the rate of time for the space that the planet and star are moving into, and out of, will change as the gravity field moves... is also of interest.

But the question is... With time stopped in a 0 gravity field, how can we link the changes in the rate of time to the changes in the gravity field?  ... ie: By how much does the rate of time change per change in the strength of a gravity field under the remit of time stopped in a 0 gravity field?

I believe that the answer to this question lies in calculating the mass of a black hole against the temperature that we would normally expect to find in e=mc2.  We log by what percentage there is a difference, and take this as the percentage by which the black holes time is running faster.  We then look at the temperature that we observe of a black hole and how that temperature drops inversely proportional to additional mass.  We then calculate by how much of a percentage the temperature should be rising with additional mass in relation to by what percentage the black holes temperature appears to drop.   On the basis that one already has earths length of second and earths mass as parameters, it should be possible to work out by how much an increasing gravity field steadily increases the rate of time from these considerations.

As soon as you put a clock anywhere, it has associated mass.  If that mass is under the influence of a greater mass, it will experience a GR related time dilation.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #271 on: 28/09/2015 19:41:05 »
Thanks for that Vikki.  One of the problems with a thread like this that progresses quite swiftly is that things can get left behind.  For this reason, I am going to go back to some points from your post #222 before looking at later stuff.

I need to look more closely at the idea that time stops in zero gravity.  Does this apply to any zero gravity situation?  For example: The gravity at the international space station is about 89% what it is on earth. However the special path the ISS takes makes conditions there almost zero gravity.  Is time 1% slower than on Earth, or is it almost at a standstill?
 

Online timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #272 on: 28/09/2015 20:39:50 »
Ok Bill, the ISS is running under specific conditions, we'll get to that but first...

In a next to nothing gravity field you mention time being 1% slower.  This gives the wrong impression.  If all of the mass of the universe were in one clump, then we could say that time was running at 100% of that universes potential.  At 1% in a near 0 gravity field, time would be running 99% slower than its full potential.  Quite how the range of the rate of time spreads over the gravity fields in between is the question.

The ISS's rate of time is relative to the locational gravity field in respect to its own associated mass in relation to the mass of earth and regulated by the rate of its momentum.  It's zero gravity condition is relative to its situation of free fall, being as its momentum is at escape velocity, and in 'orbit' around the earth.
 

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 #273 on: 28/09/2015 21:07:40 »
.. The gravity at the international space station is about 89% what it is on earth. However the special path the ISS takes makes conditions there almost zero gravity.
Objects in orbit aren't in zero gravity, they're in free fall - falling under the influence of non-zero gravity. The ISS crew are in the Earth's gravitational field, but don't feel that gravity because their surroundings (the ISS) are also falling at the same rate. The same applies to the occupants of a free-falling lift (elevator).
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #274 on: 28/09/2015 21:26:30 »
Quote from: Vikki
  It's zero gravity condition is relative to its situation of free fall, being as its momentum is at escape velocity, and in 'orbit' around the earth.

What is your understanding of "escape velocity".  Mine is that it is the speed and direction I would have to give to a projectile at the Earth's surface, if I wanted it to "escape" into space without any further power or expenditure of energy, after launch.   I can't equate this with your saying that the momentum of the ISS is at escape velocity.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What was before the big bang?
« Reply #274 on: 28/09/2015 21:26:30 »

 

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