"Big Bang: How the Universe was created"

For anyone that is too 'busy' to click on a Link 'to review any information'...I Post the following "abstracts":

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.1347v1.pdf
...

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.1347v1.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spacetime most certainly did exist before Inflation, I have been saying that for ages, just as brucep has.
Space time is what evolved from the BB.....everything else came later including Inflation.

Here's a time line from the BB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a great video, excellent history lesson, and food for thought for us cosmology hobbiests. Like you suggested, I started at 22:25, listened to 1:00:00, and then went back and started from the beginning. Am now listening to the last half hour. Thanks for posting it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Inflation theory doesn't predict 'the universe came from nothing'. It predicts that the total energy of the universe could possibly be 0. The reason is the energy of the gravitational field is negative -. As the inflation event progresses [and the continuing expansion of the universe after inflation] the gravitational field is created. The energy stored in the gravitational field is negative and unlimited. This is something Alan Guth says in the first chapter of his book 'The Ultimate Free Lunch'.

"It is therefore conceivable that the total energy of the universe is zero. The immense energy that we observe in the form of matter can be canceled by a negative contribution, of equal magnitude, coming from the gravitational field. There is no limit to the magnitude of energy in the gravitational field, and hence no limit to the amount of matter/energy that it can cancel." Energy conservation is a big deal in physics and the universe. Based on the derivation of inflation theory Alan Guth starts with a soliton with the ~ mass of a garden pea. Which gets cancelled out as the inflation event begins. My guess would be that Guth and Linde will get the Nobel [at some point] if BICEP2 verifies the primordial gravitational wave signature in the CMBR.

The Inflationary Universe is a great historical account of the science of cosmology. An even greater account of a theoretical 'idea' and its beginnings. Guth started out in particle physics and is an expert on quantum field theory. He combined quantum field theory with the cosmological metric to see what would happen to the soliton gravitational field if the cosmological constant term in the metric was >>> dominant. Linde was doing this same thing on the other side of the iron curtain. It's interesting to think how this happened. I blame it on Guth and Lindes common link. Scholarship associated with the physics.

 

I didn't realize that. I should probably read more posts and more of the ones I do read. I do realize the 'infatuation thingy'. To bad we couldn't go surfing together. We'd probably be run off the lineup for being infatuated with science in the wrong venue.

 

These are the pdf not the abstract. You link the pdf off the abstract. Other links are provided on the abstract page such as a list of citations. This is why folks who read this stuff want the abstract. For the citations. More papers on the subject covered in the pdf.

 

Ok, granted, what you say about Inflationary theory may be accurate and historically true, and the concept that the universe nets out to zero is not absurd or imbecile.

However, I have never seen any scientific paper or theory that tells us unconditionally that the universe came from nothing, that also includes a definition of nothingness that seems to hold up convincingly. Paddoboy supplied a paper and a link that was vague and non-committal about what "nothingness" really means, and I think he was quick to clarify that he is not invoking a beginning out of nothingness.

It seems to me that any effort to define "nothingness" will fail to convey the full meaning. Never-the-less we try. Here is my attempt:

Nothingness means literal nothingness.
You can't get something from nothing, period. The universe did not come from nothingness. Need I say more?

I know that is a poor effort, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone objects to that definition. If so, give us your definition. (Leaving the definition blank is not allowed, lol.)

The intention here is to dispute the explanation for the existence of the universe that invokes "something from nothing". As near as I can tell from the responses in this thread, no one subscribes unconditionally to that explanation. I see "we don't know" or "we can't know" implied here, and in other threads and forums, but I never recall anyone committing unconditionally to a beginning out of nothing that includes their definition of nothingness. If I am wrong please correct me, give us a link, or tell us why you think it is possible for something to come from nothing, and provide the definition of nothingness you would use.

Otherwise, that leaves us with "God did it", or "Always existed", and as Paddoboy correctly pointed out, the scientific method excludes anything Supernatural.

 

You want reassurance? Science proves nothing unconditionally.

 

True, I shouldn't have qualified that statement. How about, "I have never seen a scientific paper that tells us the universe came from nothingness that includes a convincing definition of nothingness. Better?

 

So you're arguing from incredulity.

 

Yes.

 

Get a clue quantum_wave. The' Ultimate Free Lunch' and a 'universe from nothing' are analogies for what I just explained to you. You can't do physics with analogy. So stuff like invoking 'something from nothing' isn't doing physics and is irrelevant to any real discussion on the physics. I made it as simple as I could.

 

No, it isn't better. Convincing definitions of nothingness are irrelevant. Maybe not to you since you're looking for one.

 

How awesome was that? I especially liked the exchange between Steinhardt and Kovac and Linde's anecdotes. I guess they do the same thing that we do here, but at a higher level. By throwing scientific formalisms and experiment results interpretations at each other LOL. You're welcome

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your statement that :"I should probably read more posts and more of the ones I do read.", is interesting. Especially after previously Posting :

But then again, it is possible that some Tro...err, Member's ersatz scientific methods could include hypocrisy, infatuation and casting aspersions of their own self-possessed inabilities and delusions at other Members.

One of the things I read in : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=6 , was : "Do not expect members to do your homework for you."
But then again, it is also possible that, as you have stated previously, some Members are "To busy blowing smoke...".
If that is true, then "blowing smoke" could conceivably fill the time that those Members could possibly put to better use for doing their own research or "homework".

 

Have you ever given thought to word Potential as a non-physical "presence" and what it's philosophical implications are?

Consider this defiition from below: 6) a latent excellence which may or may not become reality. This is one of the most profound concepts I can imagine, before entering the world of spirituality.

There is always the possibility of a meta-physical plenum which is unobservable to us but is causal to what happens in our universe.

IMO, such a metaphysical force or function may well be hidden in the word "potential". A potential may be present without ever being observed or become manifest.

But it struck me that from its definition one might deduce that "while not all potential becomes reality, all reality was, is, and will be preceded by Potential, including the BB and Inflation". Now, if that is not thought provoking , I don't know what would be.

A simple example: a motorcar has the ability (potential) to go @ 100 mph. However it is always driven in 35 mile citylimits. Thus 65 % of its potential speed remains dormant, but remains as a property of the car. An unobserved metaphysical ability.

I am sure much more sophisticated examples can be devised to prove Potential as a "latent" (metahysical) property which may or may not become apparent. E = Mc^2 is an expression of potential under certain conditions. That does not mean everything blows up. It is a latent "excellence".

IMHO, the collapse and consequent expansion is intimately involved with the concept of potential. The potential for this event must have existed before it was expressed in reality.

wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential

and

po-ten-tial [adjective]
1. possible, as opposed to actual:
"the potential uses of nuclear energy."
2. capable of being or becoming: "a potential danger to safety."
3. Grammar. expressing possibility: "the potential subjunctive in Latin; the potential use ofcan inI can go. "

4 Archaic. potent .

[noun]
5. possibility; potentiality: "an investment that has little growth potential."
6. a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.

7. Grammar.
a) a potential aspect, mood, construction, case, etc.
b) a form in the potential.

8. Electricity, electric potential (def 1).

9. Mathematics, Physics. a type of function from which the intensity of a field may be derived, usually by differentiation.[/quote] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potentials

It is a term understood by all from everyday life to nano technology. Yet, until potential becomes manifest it is a "latency" waiting for the right conditions.

But the most important asset of Potential is that it is a "common denomitator" of ALL things. To me, that means something.

 

Yes, using "potential" in that way is thoughtful. Looking at the metaphysical aspect of how you use the term, though I don't dispute that such a potential could be part of a philosophical discussion elsewhere, in the context of my call for a definition of "nothingness", your stated concept of "potential" would be, as you said, "something", even if not physically manifest.

 

I prefer the theory that the universe stemmed from a speed of light reference. The speed of light reference is different from the reference of a photon of energy, since light is composed of wavelength and frequency, which change with space-time reference. Only the speed of light remains the same in all references. Therefore the photon is not in a pure speed of light reference, since part of it is subject to changes within finite reference. A pure speed of light reference is not limited to finite reference, but is separate from it; same in all references.

At the speed of light, space-time contracts to a point. As a visual, picture space-time as a fabric. As space-time contracts, we essentially zoom into the fabric, until at the speed of light space-time contracts to a point. This is analogous to a single junction between one fiber of space and one fiber of time. Beyond that junction point, within the C-reference, the space and time fibers are not connected, but exist separated from each other.

If you have space without the limitation of time, one can move anywhere and everywhere, in zero time, therefore becoming omnipresent. If you can move in time, without space and distance requirements, one can see the past, present and future at any point, and become omniscient. The ancients already had this figured out they just didn't know the proper jargon and secret handshake of the modern science club. I am here to translate.

To form the singularity for the finite universe, all you need to do is cross one fiber of space with one fiber of time to form a space-time junction point within C; singularity. This specific junction of omnipresent and omniscience places limiting constraints, since now time and space need to work in a cooperative way that differs from what is possible in C.

The expansion of the universe is analogous to more and more space and time fibers becoming woven together (creating space-time), thereby placing limits on the connections between time and space. This fabric makes it harder to be entirely omnipresent and omniscient within the finite universe. There is lack of synchronicity, while random events begin to enter an omniscience cause and effect.

This paradox is connected to a lingering connection to the C-reference. If we zoom into the fabric of widening space-time, between the junction points in the weave, there are short spans of pure time and pure space fibers. The result is two superimposed realms, with the C reference defining the past, present and future within all places at the same time; speed of light is the same in all references.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Awesome gobbledygook. Which dressings are available with that salad?

 

All I did was extrapolate the concept of space-time into separated concepts of space and time. A synchronized particle pair is an example of being connected in time but without the normal space-time limitations within distance, that should require a time delay. The fabric was used to help visualize for math.

The advantage of this approach is I can look before the BB and provide the potentials for its creation. From a position of time without space and space without time, you can turn a vacuum of energy, into a finite focused event when space and time combine. It is a good mental exercise figuring this out.