How did time flow at the moment of creation BB

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Alan McDougall, Jul 7, 2012.

  1. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    How can you state this as if it were fact, the best minds in astronomy and astrophysics all seem to agree that the big bang is the best present answer to our expanding universe and how it came to be?

    I know it is a theory but the best theory at the moment in my opinion!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I can say it because what I linked for you is true. Read it and you should be able to figure that out. Inflation begins the expansion of the universe and when inflation ends the classical Big Bang Theory takes over. That's what the best minds know. They go hand in hand together with inflation solving all the 'holidays' [ridiculous predictions like the universe should have collapsed about [n_ billion years ago] in big bang theory. I linked that so you could learn something about modern cosmology. No sweat I won't bother next time you ask a question.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    I repeat the best present theory for the origin of the universe is the BB, I read your Link and agree that there is most likely much more to the origin of the universe than we know, epecially how it relates to infinity and eternity

    Read my link and stop being so testy!


    http://discovermagazine.com/2008/ap...p-the-big-bang/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

    Incredible Bulk Theory

    The prospects for making sense of the Big Bang began to improve in the 1990s as physicists refined their ideas in string theory, a promising approach for reconciling the relativity and quantum views. Nobody knows yet whether string theory matches up with the real world—the Large Hadron Collider, a particle smasher coming on line later this year, may provide some clues—but it has already inspired stunning ideas about how the universe is constructed.

    Most notably, current versions of string theory posit seven hidden dimensions of space in addition to the three we experience.

    Strange and wonderful things can happen in those extra dimensions: That is what inspired Steinhardt (of Princeton University) and Turok (of Cambridge University) to set up their fateful conference in 1999. “We organized the conference because we both felt that the standard Big Bang model was failing to explain things,” Turok says. “We wanted to bring people together to talk about what string theory could do for cosmology.”

    The key concept turned out to be a “brane,” a three-dimensional world embedded in a higher-dimensional space (the term, in the language of string theory, is just short for membrane). “People had just started talking about branes when we set up the conference,” Steinhardt recalls. “Together Neil and I went to a talk where the speaker was describing them as static objects. Afterward we both asked the same question: What happens if the branes can move? What happens if they collide?”

    A remarkable picture began to take shape in the two physicists’ minds. A sheet of paper blowing in the wind is a kind of two-dimensional membrane tumbling through our three-dimensional world. For Steinhardt and Turok, our entire universe is just one sheet, or 3-D brane, moving through a four-dimensional background called “the bulk.” Our brane is not the only one; there are others moving through the bulk as well. Just as two sheets of paper could be blown together in a storm, different 3-D branes could collide within the bulk.

    The equations of string theory indicated that each 3-D brane would exert powerful forces on others nearby in the bulk. Vast quantities of energy lie bound up in those forces. A collision between two branes could unleash those energies. From the inside, the result would look like a tremendous explosion. Even more intriguing, the theoretical characteristics of that explosion closely matched the observed properties of the Big Bang—including the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the universe’s fiercely hot early days. “That was amazing for us because it meant colliding branes could explain one of the key pieces of evidence people use to support the Big Bang,” Steinhardt says.

    Eternity and the perpetually cycling universes

    Three years later came a second epiphany: Steinhardt and Turok found their story did not end after the collision. “We weren’t looking for cycles,” Steinhardt says, “but the model naturally produces them.” After a collision, energy gives rise to matter in the brane worlds. The matter then evolves into the kind of universe we know: galaxies, stars, planets, the works. Space within the branes expands, and at first the distance between the branes (in the bulk) grows too.

    When the brane worlds expand so much that their space is nearly empty, however, attractive forces between the branes draw the world-sheets together again. A new collision occurs, and a new cycle of creation begins. In this model, each round of existence—each cycle from one collision to the next—stretches about a trillion years. By that reckoning, our universe is still in its infancy, being only 0.1 percent of the way through the current cycle.

    The cyclic universe directly solves the problem of before. With an infinity of Big Bangs, time stretches into forever in both directions. “The Big Bang was not the beginning of space and time,” Steinhardt says. “There was a before, and before matters because it leaves an imprint on what happens in the next cycle.”

    Not everyone is pleased by this departure from the usual cosmological thinking. Some researchers consider Steinhardt and Turok’s ideas misguided or even dangerous. “I had one well-respected scientist tell me we should stop because we were undermining public confidence in the Big Bang,” Turok says. But part of the appeal of the cyclic universe is that it is not just a beautiful idea—it is a testable one.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    They would have to peer through the 380,000 year shroud by finding gravitational waves of a certain kind, to rule out inflation.

    Also, past-eternal is not for sure, as how would it already be complete?
     
  8. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Made a few corrections to silly spelling mistakes by me, but hey!! unlike the Pope I am Fallible!!


    I agree with you we know the universe is expanding, of course we don’t know if it has always expanded. It is reasonable for me to think if something moves passed you or in the case of the universe constantly expands throughout, it is reasonable even logical to suppose it had a beginning and at the moment the best guess is the Big Bang Singularity

    Or maybe?

    The Big Bang has not answered the question of "infinite eternity ", thus we are left with two opinions in this Theory, "There was Nothing before the Singularity came into existence" or the singularity is eternal and unique and the universe cycles eternally between inflation and deflation causing an Infinity of Big Bangs lasting an eternity

    Another possible model for infinity is that in infinity of multi-universe exist. For this to work, the absolute smallest indivisible particle in our universe’s quantum world, might make up separate tiny infinitesimal universes in the own right our universe might just be but a quantum particle in a much larger universe.

    Our universe could be likewise be but tiny quantum building bricks of much larger universes. Never consolidating into one single final mega- universe, because there is always a next level up or a next level down. Therefore, it goes thus, our universe might just be the smallest component or fundamental particle in much larger universe, that universe might be universe a fundamental component to the next larger universe and so on and so on infinitely. Alternately, the same model moves infinitely down to next smaller and next smaller infinitely.

    My points are have we really come across the ultimate indivisible fundamental particle?

    Is our universe the only universe in all of existence?

    Of course, this is only speculation and conjecture by my restless mind. Who knows it just might be true?

    Thus nature is eternal and infinite and needs no god!
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2012
  9. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028

    **** Big News ****​

    Yes, Stuff Forever admits of no creation, and thus no Creator, and From Nothing is not God, but the opposite; so, in conjunction, these two options disprove 'God', since they are the only options, one of which must be true, which is a great accomplishment; so, all God threads and God ideas are now shown to be wrong, as of July 8, 2012, right here on SciForums.

    I explained Steinhardt's and Turok's idea in my 'Wick and The Cricket' book. I'll see it if I can post some of it somehow,
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2012
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The classical Big Bang Theory without inflation makes ridiculous predictions about some important things. Coupled with inflation it's great. I'm pretty sure you didn't read the links but no skin off my buttocks. There's empirical evidence that confirms the testable predictions of Guth's Eternal Inflation. I'm fairly familiar with Ekpyrotic Theory and know it's considered in the ballpark. The gravitational radiation thing and the cyclical thing is a problem. WMAP results show the spatial geometry is flat not closed as the cyclical thing suggests. If it turns out the theories are equivalent then it would be good for string theory and cosmology. Either way they both would go hand in hand with the Classical Big Bang Theory. Without either the Classical Big Bang theory still makes ridiculous predictions.
     
  12. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    Did they consider what string theory would look like if nothing happened when the branes collide or maybe just an exchange in matter? Or would this prove to be impossible in string theory?
     
  13. TAG Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Oh, that one. It states, quite clearly: "...or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity."

    In fact, that experiment is what convinced me that observed effects are not always the cause of things; at times they can mislead us. Please note also the reference to "precision tests" of GR.

    The test above "proved" that time passes at different rates for two or more discrete objects at different places ia gravity field, but it did not "prove" it is gravity that directly caused the difference in rates. Gravity acts at any specific point according to the size and distance of objects in it. The experiment precisely and deliberately placed the clocks where the distance between them, and thus from the planet, varied such that the strength of the force imposed on one was much more than on the other. That fact caused different speeds between the two clocks as the earth moved around, and the time rate for each was then different.
     
  14. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    If Gravity did not cause, the variances between the two precision atomic clocks, then please sir tell me what did?.

    Are you saying it is the rotation of the earth that caused the clocks to vary?
     

Share This Page