Cause of the Big Bang

More likely you're backed into a corner. I've shown I've got plenty of time to work and do as I wish. I've shown that probabilities don't magically become exact when you get to some large number you picked. I've shown that despite your claim everything I say can be found easily online, you don't know most of it. I've shown you cannot point to a single example of you doing physics. I've shown you are wrong about physicists trying to brush things under the rug to support 'the status quo'.

So you're not tired of showing me wrong, you're tired of being shown wrong.

Tell me, at how many tests do probabilities become exact? If I keep tossing coins when does it become exactly 50/50 from that point on? 100 tosses? 1000? A million? A billion? You say it's happened by 2 trillion, is it exactly at 2 trillion or does it happen before? How do you know? Why does every statistic theorem say otherwise? Why is it when you compute what binomial statistics (ie the stats of events with 2 possible outcomes) says about the matter, it contradicts you?

And I'm still waiting for your calculations on how inflation cannot explain the light element distribution we observe, when every published paper on the matter says otherwise. Do you not have the calculations to back up your claims?

And why do you continue to avoid refuting the plethora of evidence I've provided I'm a PhD student. You keep claiming I can't do anything original but my job says otherwise.

So much for showing I'm wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh shut the fuck up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look, he's just out for what billy called, ''a pissing contest.''

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So here is the cause of the Big Bang; but of course if there was a cause of the Big Bang then we will have to rename Big Bang Theory. The new name will have to represent a cosmology that enables our big bang universe but which also explains the “before” and “beyond” the Big Bang.

But first, why do I think the Big Bang even had or needed a cause?

It is not so much that Big Bang Theory doesn't mention the cause, which it doesn't. It is more that the law of inertia requires a force to set the universe into motion. So I think the expansion that we observe needed a force. That force seems to have been applied to whatever composed our arena which is now the observable universe. It was a force that occurred before BBT picks up and goes into inflation and nucleosynthesis.

General Relativity Theory, a pillar of BBT, backtracks to a zero volume universe if you go back 13.7 billion years ago. And if you consider the mass and energy now displayed in the observable universe you have to realize that it would have all been contained in that zero volume of space. That means that GR implies a start point of zero volume and infinite density that is referred to as a singularity.

It is called a singularity because the math, and GR is a mathematical model, fails at the start point. That is why BBT starts the instant after that singularity would have come into our “look back”. The theory calls it an event horizon and we just can't look back to before that point in time using GR or BBT as described by Sean Carroll in this blog at Cosmic Variance.


Many possibilities have been explored. The most believable are models that deal with a universe before the big bang as one of decreasing entropy. Without some unforeseen changes, the entropy of our current known universe follows the arrow of time forward to complete entropy where there is no useful energy left and life and circumstances as we know them have long since dissolved into an infinite fineness, referred to as a de Sitter universe (Note: De Sitter, one of Einstein's associates, predicted dark matter and developed a solution to Einstein's field equations that assumed a universe with a positive expansion and only dark matter.)

One possibility mentioned by Carroll is Quantum Loop Gravity (LQG). The math of LQG, one of the reverse entropy models with math that describes a universe before the Big Bang, is able to avoid the singularity of General Relativity Theory by defining a finite universe at the instant of the big bang. This approach describes a big "bounce" that marks the end of a period of reverse entropy that preceded our expanding universe.

Critics argue that this bounce either seems too convenient or too inconvenient as interpreted from Sean Carroll's response to a blog at Bad Astronomy by Phil Plait. I include his quote below but first, the important thing about LQG is the math that accomplishes the astonishing feat of surviving the singularity produced by the math of GR. The disappointing thing about this reverse entropy model is the uncertainty about what such a prior universe might be like.

I didn't use the word uncertainty just to imply that we aren't sure, which of course we are not. I used the word uncertainty because it appears that the reason Carroll and I'm sure others have trouble with the reverse entropy cosmologies in general and LQG in particular is because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which has become a pillar of modern quantum mechanics.

Maybe it is necessary to explain the quantum realm; I see how it could block the road to reason beyond BBT.

It blocks the vary reasoning that we will need more than ever to work our way back into the reverse entropy models. It threatens to apply that same road block that BBT applied for several decades that kept science from breaking the Big Bang singularity barrier to reach reverse entropy models. It says that by breaking the singularity barrier we enter a universe that existed before our universe and concludes that because of the uncertainty principle applied to the bounce point of minimum entropy, we cannot be sure of anything about what such a prior universe might be like. Sounds the same as we heard from BBT, "Why talk about before the Big Bang since we can't know anything about it due to the event horizon", doesn't it?

In Quantum Wave Cosmology the cause of the Big Bang was the burst of a big crunch. Does that make QWC a reverse entropy model? Yes. But that does not mean that QWC is disappointing like the LQG model as described by Sean Carroll. I mentioned this comment above, "The real problem with all such models is that, from the point of view of the other side of the bounce, the entropy is decreasing as the universe collapses, which seems crazily finely-tuned. Either that, or the entropy is at a minimum at the bounce, for no especially good reason. Singularities are going to have to be resolved somehow, but reality is likely to be quite a bit more complicated than simple bounce models."

That is why Quantum Wave Cosmology exists. It solves the entropy problem without being fine tuned at all in the sense of what causes the collapse into a big crunch. And there is good reason why entropy at the bounce is at a minimum. QWC is not a simple bounce model, and not simply a reverse entropy model.

So this is where I scrap that particular application of the Uncertainty Principle. This is where I let reasonable and responsible speculation take over from it. This is where we go not "before" the Big Bang, not back into a "prior" universe, but out into the greater universe of Quantum Wave Cosmology within which our expanding universe is just a tiny and temporary arena in a greater universe, an infinite universe that has always existed.

 

The trouble with dealing with creationists, even scientific creationists is that the moment you get bored with proving them wrong, they claim it is a victory.

You're still a loser OmegaNumeric.

 

Real world evidence for inflation?

Real world evidence that you have done anything new?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Observational_status

I thought you said this stuff was easy to find online? So why haven't you found it?

Is it too much to ask for you to tell me at what point probabilities become exact? Is it 100 coin tosses? 1000? \(10^{6}\)? When?

As I said, I'll be publishing within the month. But if you want to discuss things, head over to the physics and maths forum. I keep offering to discuss things with you, you keep running away.

You have yet to debunk the evidence I provided to prove I'm a PhD student. You also have yet to show you can do any physics. For instance, you claimed inflation cannot account for the light elements in the universe. Where's your evidence?

You can keep saying that all you like. The fact remains you have yet to back up your claims. Must be sad being inferior in physics to such a loser like me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The first line of the wiki link says it is an idea. It is there to make the BB idea work. It is like saying that the Earth was created for mankind. So, any real world evidence?

When samples are large enough, inconsistencies should be ironed out. Pretty much like the chaos idea which is ying and yang on a small scale.

I have been to the physics and math forum and found lots of UNSUPPORTED IDEAS there. Space is full of 1D strings. Oh really? Evidence is.....well it sounds good.

Who's running away, burger boy? All I see is your dust and the yellow streak on your back turning red from the speed you are running away.

You have yet to prove you can do any physics. A 12 year old could parrot as you do.

Get someone to explain my answers to you, like Nick. Maybe he can make them simple enough?

Simple hydrogen atoms are moving apart too fast to form stars. If you say they are close enough to do so, then they are all close enough to and so will form a black hole. Since matter was supposedly created in the first millionth of a second, it is sheer nonsense to believe that expansion could continue.

Where's the evidence you have ever thought for yourself?

Again, ask Nick to explain some science to you. All you can do is quote the work of others so you are just having more delusions that you know some physics (other than as a parrot does).

Alpha wanna cracker?

 

Another question you RAN AWAY from. You have a whole universe of matter formed at 10^-6 second. At what point is it big enough to avoid collapsing into a black hole?

Clue. At supposedly 158 billion light years across, it is close to the point where it might collapse, despite dark energy.

 

Yet more unfounded paranoid delusions.

If I'm a mod there, why don't I ban StevenA, when my views of him are explained in the last paragraph here? He's even worse than you. You're clearly a liar, he's more insidious.

And if you kept proving me wrong, why can't you do it here, why do you keep avoiding my challenges to debunk my evidence I am who I say I am, why do you keep avoiding discussing physics, why are you unable to point to a single post of yours where you do actual physics, why do you keep demonstrating ignorance in things you whine about and why do you continue to tell such transparent lies?

Nice hypocrisy. You ran away from my request you back up your claims about inflation being unable to explain light elements. You ran away from my challenge to discuss my work. You run away from any request you post a link to a post of yours where you do physics.

I've provided evidence to back up my claims. You just post denial. Go on, prove me wrong.

 

It's an idea with evidence. Just like gravity is an idea. A theory is a model which has experimental validation. Gravity, evolution, the big bang.

Or are you going to go down the creationist path of not understanding basic terminology and concepts in science?

That's the law of large numbers I mentioned. That doesn't mean probabilities become exact at some finite number of samples, which is what you claimed.

You're changing your story because you know you're wrong and you cannot bend what you said. Probabilities become exact in the limit of your number of samples going to infinity. At any finite number of samples you have a non-zero probability of your sampling mean being different from your theoretical mean.

You said it would be exact. I asked you to tell me at what number of samples it would become exact. You avoided answering that direct question. And yet you complain I run from things!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How am I running? I asked you a question, you quoted it but didn't answer it. Why? Because you know that if you answered it you'd have to admit you're wrong.

Every step of the way I provide back up to my claims. You provide "Because I say so" and hypocrisy.

So I just got a degree and a masters and onto a PhD because I can't do physics?

If it's so easy to do what I can do, it shouldn't take you long to do a few questions I had as homework years ago. Come on, let's see you put your physics where your mouth is.

Here is a link to the lecture notes I had for quantum field theory. At the bottom are the homework sheets for the course. I'll give you 24 hours to do say ..... 3 of them. If a 12 year old can use lecture notes to do the questions, you shouldn't have any problems.

Mind you, you are implying that given lecture notes anyone can pass any exam in anything without effort. Can I assume you got the top first in your university? Do you?

Calculations? All I see if "Because I say so". You need to back up your claims, not just repeat them.

You do understand how science is about justifying claims, right? You didn't believe me about being a PhD student so I provided evidence. I don't believe your claims, so now it's your turn.

For what must be the 4th or 5th time, head over to the maths and physics forum and we can talk about my work. And as I've said, I'll be publishing my work in this coming month.

But noone else here believes you either...

 

AlphaNumeric. Gravity, yes. Evolution, yes. Big bang is just guesswork as is many of it's tenets.

Science is supposed to be factual and not guesswork.

Again you babble about numbers and run away from any answer I give. what's new?

I have asked a number of questions here which you totally ignored. Keep running.

Still babbling about working for a PhD in the hopes that it might make anything you say worth reading.

You are happy to believe in strings without any real world evidence. Double standards.

From what I saw of the maths and physics forum, lots of guesswork but no evidence.

No one believes me either? You admit they do not believe you?

 

Steven A2 is a new poster. You can hardly give him 5 warnings because he has seen through you and exposed your lack of knowledge like so many others before him. People will guess if you do it too many times.

You are blathering again, AN. After you won an argument against me, solved the world's food and fuel problems, what did you do next?

I thought you would be at Beijing in the Olympics. Show you an argument where you are proved wrong yet again and another gold for Britain in the running events!

 

Your answer is......running away.

 

It explains a lot of facts. Just like QM or relativity or electromagnetism or Newtonian physics or fluid mechanics or statistical physics do.

How have I run away? I addressed your 'answer', explained why it's wrong and asked you to explain the implications of your claims. Which you
run away from.

Why do you tell lies which are clear to anyone reading the thread?

Which ones?

I've asked you to provide evidence for your claims. Where is it? Why are you happy to complain I don't address your questions when you ignore mine?

It proves I can do physics because the people who do physics have seen I am able to do physics well enough to be given some qualifications in it.

Where's your evidence you can do physics? Tell me, did you do a physics degree? A direct question you have previously ignored : : Where have you demonstrated you grasp mainstream physics on a working level? Please provide a link to such a post of yours.

Another direct question you have previously ignored : How is it double standards for people in physics to work on theories which predict things? I have given you examples in the past (and present) of people believing in predictions of their theories. Antimatter, time dilation, red shifting, the third family in the SM, photon-photon scattering. Heck, even the behaviour of Halley's comet! Are you saying was unscientific of those people to develop theories which predicted previously unseen phenomena?

Then why don't you join in and start providing evidence for your claims? I keep asking you to provide evidence for your claim that inflation cannot explain light elements but that's another direct question you have previously ignored..

Besides, maths isn't about guess work. You do understand how it works, right?

People do believe me. Hence why I have so many unique positive feedbacks on PhysOrg. Hence why I'm paid by professors to teach quantum mechanics to undergraduates. Hence why I'm associated with Cambridge University's online teaching group for maths and physics. Hence why I have a degree and masters.

Feel free to start a poll asking who people thing says more viable maths and physics, you or me. I have nothing to fear. Particularly in maths, you don't post anything to do with maths. Nor quantitative physics.

Now I've asked you three direct questions, which I've asked you previously. Are you going to answer them or are you going to continue with your hypocrisy?

It's StevenA's new account. He openly says he's got a new account because, apparently, he's lost his email account for his main one.

And why haven't I banned waste of bandwidths like Ubonatuva, DavidD, Precursor, Farsight and Sylwester? I wonder how they, like you, can function in society with all their delusions and beliefs in their divine knowledge.

This is your typical excuse to avoid addressing anything I said. For instance, you claimed in another thread that people were jumping ship from String theory. I listed well known string theorists who are still in the research area and you said this. You ignored my question "So who has jumped ship?" and you ignored my evidence you were wrong.

I've given you an answer many times. It's not my fault you don't understand it. The answer is :

It was always expanding fast enough that the material in small enough regions to otherwise collapse into a black hole was expanding fast enough not to be in casual contact. It would only collapse is gravity could pull the material together in a collapse. If gravity couldn't connect the material then it wouldn't collapse.

You seem to have problems understanding this, despite having asked it many times and me having explained it many times. Shall I type slower so you can keep up? Try asking your buddy Nick, though I'm certain he doesn't understand either. Now what about that don't you grasp, because I'm happy to explain it if you make the effort to understand. I have nothing to hide.

Just like I have nothing to hidfe about discussing my research with you but you're unwilling to take up my offer. And then you complain I am not talking about my research, despite it being your fault!

 

You typing slower doesnt change the speed he reads.:bugeye:

 

AlpghaNumeric. Creation explains how everything got here but that does not mean it is correct.

You have shown that you do not understand odds and large numbers. Lies are probably the nearest you have ever come to originality.

Ignored: Matter created within the first millionth of a second of the big bang. You have failed to explain why it did not collapse into a black hole. Where you running off to? I just pointed out one of the questions you did not answer?

You just quote accepted physics. As I have pointed out with you for years now, you have nothing original and a smart kid with a search engine could do just as well. A PhD STUDENT should be able to do something original, from what they have learned. You cannot.

You have discovered how to use the colour red. Who says you are wasting your time on this forum? Did you know there are other colours besides red? All the same colours as your crayons.

You just deny all my posts like the good little creationist you are, so a waste of time trying to prove anything to you since you will just deny it. Or run away.

I ask you for evidence of strings and you tell me it's something I have ignored. Does it get any worse than this?

Predictions are known for what they are afterwards, after something is discovered. Talk of fairies and they do not appear and that is not predictions. No evidence of strings. Fairy tales for grown ups.

You ask me for evidence but can provide none yourself. Double standards!

Creationists use maths to prove that life cannot have come from inanimate chemicals. Maths means nothing unless it can show a provable result and with strings, it cannot.

Physorg is full of nasty little crawlers where each of you give each other positives in return for positives back and bullies like yourself give out negatives. People even use aliases to give themselves positives (your refusal to do this with your Euler identity while laudable was a bit of a giveaway).

Since all teachers have to do is repeat the accepted norm, you are ideally suited for the job. AN wanna cracker?

I prefer theory rather than mathsworld. Theory is new stuff. Why are you running away?

What you post is what others have taught you. Nothing new. Most of it can be found quickly with a search engine, which makes you irrelevant on forums.

Your 3 questions are delusions, but what else from such a meagre mind? When you have an ability to understand instead of just parrot, then you will know why you are wrong.

I don't know anything about physorg since you had me banned from there for disagreeing with you so cannot comment on others.

I don't know where to start with such a poor mind. I have SAID that some people left string theory because they realised it was a scientific dead end. First up on my search engine turned up a Guardian article (now on psudoscience which is where strings belong) which backed this up, showing that I am correct. You listed people still in the field. At no time have I said that 100% of people have left the field and I have recognised that work is still being done in the field. You are still in denial that anyone has left that scientific dead end of a field, or did all the newspapers lie? You have provided NO evidence that I am wrong and a simple use of a search engine will provide evidence that you are lying yet again.

Creationists have given me answers too and I don't understand them either. Nonsense has that effect on me.

Expanding in small regions? What utter rubbish! If a creationist came out with such JUNK first, scientists would have laughed at him. There is no bias in a BB, so matter and expansion would naturally be uniform.

Explain how the BB occurs without using a hypersphere. Then give me evidence for a hypersphere. Why are you running away? I see. Another question you can't answer.

The typing slower joke was old four decades ago when I first heard it but then again, I don't expect you to come out with anything new. That is like expecting a parrot to write a new Shakespeare play. You have explained nothing and your poor posts can hide nothing. They reveal all about you.

 

You ignored my questions about at what point probabilities become exact. You claim it happens at less than 2 trillion samples. So when is it?

I linked you to 'The law of very large numbers', which explains that sampling probabilities tend to the actual probability as the sample number goes to infinity. You have contradicted yourself by saying that at 2 trillion probabilities are exact and changing your claim to "As you do more samples the odds even out". The former is wrong, the latter is what the law of very large numbers states.

So the lies are yours.

I point you to my last post where I said "It was always expanding fast enough that the material in small enough regions to otherwise collapse into a black hole was expanding fast enough not to be in casual contact. It would only collapse is gravity could pull the material together in a collapse. If gravity couldn't connect the material then it wouldn't collapse."

Why do you tell such transparent lies?

What I have to keep correcting you on isn't an attempt to provide you with original research.

How many times have I offered to discuss my research with you? Why do you refuse to discuss it with me?

It's a way of highlighting direct questions. You claim I ignore your questions but you ignore each question I ask, so now I highlight them to make it obvious to everyone what you're ignoring.

No, I directly replied to that question with "There isn't any". You lie yet again.

I make a claim about inflation, I provide evidence. You make a claim about inflation, you cannot. There's the double standards. I've never claimed there was evidence for strings. Point me to a post where I have said otherwise.

I've offered to discuss my work with you many times. You don't want to discuss it.

And if what I post is irrelevant, why do you keep showing you don't know it?

Evidence I banned you?

I provided evidence that the people who built string theory are still there. You provided a newspaper article which doesn't name anyone. Newspapers aren't very reliable. How many times have they posted things like "The BB explains the universe!", which you disagree with. Or "String theory, the theory of everything!", which you disagree with. You are using a reference source where you pick and choose what to accept.

So it's wrong because you don't understand it, don't try to understand it and don't want to understand it? How open minded of you.

Wait, so I'm supposed to explain why the BB doesn't need a hypersphere then explain why there's evidence against my answer? Do you even read your own questions?!

Do you understand that there's more than one 4 dimensional closed shape? 4-spheres are just the simplest example. To give you an easy to understand example, consider 2 dimensional objects. There's a 2-sphere, which is the surface of a ball. There's what is known as a simply connected Riemannian surface. Then there's a torus, a doughnut shape, which has a hole in it. Then there's a doughnut with 2 holes. 3 holes, 4 holes. So in 2 dimensions, there's infinitely many closed (closed meaning it's of finite size with no edge) objects. In 3 dimensions there's even more. In 4 dimensions there's even more again. There's a lot of differential geometry research about such things. The simplest examples are 4-tori, which are tori in 4 dimensions, the direct product of 4 circles (just like a doughnut is the direct product of 2 circles). I happen to do research into 6 dimensional tori. And a HUGE quantity of research goes into other 6 dimensional closed objects in string theory, the Calabi Yau shapes. 4 dimensional Calabi Yaus are known as K3 spaces.

So the universe can be build on any of those 4 dimensional shapes.

They reveal I have nothing to hide, I am well read, I offer to discuss my work with you and I can do quantitative physics. Your posts reveal you're a liar, delusional, ignorant and too scared to discuss my work with me and then whine about how there's no discussion of my work.

Tell you what, I'll write up a bit of my work for people to understand and then I'll post it in the physics and maths discussion. You can join if you want. When I did it on PhysOrg, none of the cranks could discuss it with me, it was too complicated and they all ran from actual research. I bet you do the same or just post "It's string theory so it's wrong".

 

AlphaNumeric. To quote an example (wiki), 1000 flips produces 520 heads. 10,000 flips produce 5,096 heads so from 52% to under 51% (the wiki idiot claimed that 51% is larger than 52%). If you want to prove it and attest it to a lawyer that you flipped a coin two trillion times and it did not come out to exactly one trillion heads and one trillion tails, I will pay you £1,000. Easy money to prove me wrong. Or you can continue lying.

You did not answer my question but gave a response only an idiot would believe. Material expanding in regions of space? Even if this fairy tale nonsense were true, the whole lot is limited by light speed, as in the Hubble constant for the whole universe, so how big was the universe after the first millionth of a second? Answer it instead of running away.

Why should I care about your research where you have parroted the works of others, AlphaUnoriginal?

If red is for highlighting, then I could highlight my whole post to show where you have deliberately ignored things, lied and ran away. What a loser you are.

When I asked you in the example you gave, you ignored it and wittered on about a FEW people still working in the field, so ignored my answer. So a distortion to cover up a lie.

There is no evidence for inflation. It is an unproven explanation for an effect so you have provided no evidence. You admit there is no evidence for strings, so you cannot have provided any evidence for strings as you claim. Caught in another lie.

I have seen your posts here, how they 100% lack any spark of originality. Reading your work would be like reading an internet site on the subject concerned since I have never known you to post anything original. So a waste of time.

I have claimed that your posts are irrelevant and you now claim I do not know it (that they are irrelevant). Another new low.

Of course it was just coincidence that after several months there without a single warning, I start debating against you and showing you wrong in front of your mates and suddenly I get 3 uncalled for warnings in the space of 2 weeks. Just pure chance.

Of course the people who started string theory are still working on it as the people who started cold fusion are probably still working on that. They have money coming in to pay the bills so what do they care whether strings are right or wrong? Meanwhile, lots of others have left, believing it is a scientific dead end and that they have wasted their careers on it. Maybe they just have more morals than the creators of strings?

You don't understand how Santa Claus can exist? You don't try to understand and you don't want to understand to use your pompous words. Why should I believe in such blatant nonsense? The BB is science building another Piltdown Man.

Where are the abnormalities in all the different possible 4 physical dimensional shapes you claim the universe may be? How would a 4 physical dimensional hole affect the universe? You could not see across the hole so the universe would not be the same in all directions. How would it be affected by expansion? You are just C&P-ing ideas in the hope that they may fit. The 4D shape must be the same everywhere and cannot have holes in it, corners to it, etc.

What is to discuss about your work? You work in a field you admit you have no evidence for. Like scientists who are paid to lie for creationist organisations, you don't care where the money comes from, even though it has no goal since strings are a scientific dead end. As well as continuously lying, you have no morals. You call me ignorant but are unable to give any answer that cannot be found on an internet site or just doing a bit of maths. You just have a good memory but are a total idiot otherwise, as you continually prove. I called you delusional, so straight away you snatch the phrase and use it against me because you are incapable of thinking of anything new.

It is. You admit there is no evidence for it. You are just using maths to build castles on clouds and show us how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

Still a loser. :bawl:

 

In that example, the smaller number of coin tosses [1000] produced an unequal number of heads and tails, with there being 40 more heads than tails [520 heads versus 480 tails; total= 1,000], but the greater discrepancy from 50/50.

The larger number of coin tosses [10,000] produced an unequal number of heads and tails, with there being 192 more heads than tails [5,096 heads versus 4,904 tails; total= 10,000], but the lesser discrepancy from 50/50.

One would conclude that that trend would continue as the number of tosses increased, so that the greater the total number of tosses, the greater the discrepancy between exactly equal numbers of heads and tails, even as the ratio of heads to tails approaches closer to exactly 50/50 [50% vs. 50%].