Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Futilitist, Oct 7, 2015.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Paddoboy;

    Ok, let us see about this statement. The figure comes from calculated Planck's Time, mathematical jargon, but thats later.

    Just yesterday only, someone made a statement about design (& measurement thereof) of exact proper time clocks. The open problem is this period from t = 0 to 10^-43 seconds referes to which frame, do we really know (or can we really speculate) about the flow rate of time just after big bang.....like when you push your maths from today to t = 0, which reference you take....Earth ? But won't the time dilation starts if your computer starts contracting towards t = 0 ? Anyway you won't know this, but think about it, how absurd it is to talk like 10^-43 seconds without really knowing what it represents.

    You will say that it was an explosion of space, fine then it was the explosion of time also in a sense how are we so sure about the flow rate of time then ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Oh really grow up sonny, you are so intent on your "victory" that you are like the proverbial 5 year old taking home his bat and ball when given out!
    again......
    All evidence points to a Big Bang origin but physics doesn't allow us to go to t=0. We can argue about what is plausible at that time as I did in my last book. But we can follow the Big Bang back to about a millionth of a millionth of a second after t=0 and speak with great authority.

    Lawrence M. Krauss
    Director, The Origins Project at ASU
    Foundation Professor
    School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department
    Arizona State University



    Krauss accepts the BB as the evident of universal/spacetime evolution....that's it, pure and simple, and no amount of emotional brow beating by you is going to change that fact.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Well I would rather someone with some expertise look at the statement, but irrespective. it is 100% dinky di correct.
    And of course I have already informed you when you were under your other handle, that the Planck epoch was just a mathematical concept for convenience.
    We could if we like just refer to the quantum level, because they are in essence both the same, just as I have referenced in the past when you were under your delusions about non existent of BH's.

    Ignoring most of your rant word salad, let's move onto the following......
    No I would not say that, and have never said that.....That explains your first big mistake in your general misunderstanding of present day cosmology.
    It was an evolution of space and time as we know them from that first instant of t+10-43 seconds.
    Henceforth from that instant more correctly known as spacetime
    "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".
    — Hermann Minkowski,
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    And I never said that Lawrence Krauss didn't accept the big bang theory, and no amount of putting words in my mouth is going to change that fact.

    If you wish to make an argument against something, you should wait for someone to actually say it.

    Lawrence Krauss accepts the big bang theory, yet he also said this:

    "The point is we don't have any evidence, absolutely that the universe began. The Big Bang is based on General Relativity which we know breaks down as a Quantum Theory. And, in fact, those presuppositions that there must be a singularity, or a beginning...there are many theories that, in fact, produce an eternal universe that contracts and expands forever and has been around forever, that is consistent with the known laws. We don't know the answer.
    And we are excited that we don't know the answer.
    Because we have something to learn."

    ~Lawrence Krauss

    I originally brought this up to highlight the fact that you appear to have a higher level of confidence in the big bang theory than Lawrence Krauss does! Or at least that you don't have, or are unwilling to express, the proper scientific level of uncertainty.

    If you put the two statements of Krauss back to back, it sounds like he is arguing with himself, unless, of course, you can accept the simple fact that Krauss believes both of his own statements to be true, or he wouldn't have made at least one of them. Yet you will only accept a statement from Krauss when he is expressing his certainty, but you will not accept a statement from Krauss when he is expressing his uncertainty. And that was my original point, so thanks for shinning a light on this problem of yours again. You just keep digging a deeper hole.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I agree with both statements from Krauss. You keep disingenuously trying to place me in opposition to one of Krauss' statements in order to create a false argument with me. By doing so, you are confirming my observation of your over certainty problem, and, at the same time, you are arguing with Lawrence Krauss!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And your inability to let my simple observation stand unchallenged shows that you don't care about the truth at all. You just want to win. And you will cheat in order to do it. Very lame.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No wonder you were inferred as a liar and manipulator in your economic doomsday thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I'm ignoring the majority of your misinterpretations and twisting of the truth, other than to say, any irrational claims you make will always be challenged.
    If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    Professor Krauss supports the BB as per his E-Mail, the same as the vast majority of cosmologists. In accepting the BB based on the overwhelming evidence, they also accept the non applicable regions of the theory which you are using to claim your silly unevidenced "temporal illusion" nonsense, which is nothing more than speculation.
    Until you accept that as speculation, you'll remain as confused as ever.[/QUOTE]
     
  9. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    That is not true. I was directly called a liar and a manipulator. But on this obviously fake science forum, that doesn't really mean very much now, does it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Or are you suggesting some kind of pattern?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Conspirare --- to breathe together

    You are only the busboy, and you are talking to a master chef who is going to slice and dice you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    We are all well aware that Professor Krauss supports the BB and I have never disputed that fact. Yet you keep arguing with me as if I ever made such a claim. Please stop it. You are like some kind of demented robot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But more importantly, what is with this "as per his E-mail" bullshit? Give me a break! Lawrence Krauss has not been in touch with you, regarding anything that has been said in this thread, to make sure we know he is a supporter of the big bang theory. That is the dumbest story I have ever heard.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You don't really expect anyone to believe that, do you? Seriously?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Even if you realize that I will not let you put words in my mouth, you will remain as confused as ever. You are arguing with yourself. Again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The thread is titled:

    Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

    And the thread resides in 'Alternative Theories'. So obviously three dimensional time is a speculative idea. I get it. We all get it. You are boring.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This thread is to talk about the highly speculative, yet still quite interesting concept of three dimensional time. What are you here for?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No, I'm agreeing with Krauss and arguing with a troll who has been previously banned.
    Krauss accepts the BB as the overwhelmingly supported theory of Universal evolution, as generally interpreted.
    That Interpretation is simply the BB is not about the beginning...it is about the evolution of space and time [as we know them] from t+10-43 seconds.
    The beginning is obviously and logically inferred from that.

    Krauss then correctly argues that we have much to learn, meaning the how of the BB, the why of the BB, what made it evolve, what is making it accelerate, what is DM..........

    That's it in a nutshell!
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I agree with them.
    So why are you here? To educate all us mugs?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Good luck in your quest.

    Yes you have.
    You did make that claim, among many other stupid claims including not being able to differentiate between theory and hypothesis/speculation.
    Like all our trolls, I don't expect you to believe anything that interferes with your speculation nonsense. Nor do I care.
    In the meantime....
    All evidence points to a Big Bang origin but physics doesn't allow us to go to t=0. We can argue about what is plausible at that time as I did in my last book. But we can follow the Big Bang back to about a millionth of a millionth of a second after t=0 and speak with great authority.

    Lawrence M. Krauss
    Director, The Origins Project at ASU
    Foundation Professor
    School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department
    Arizona State University

    [/QUOTE]
    That's nice dear.
    To educate mugs.
    Oh, and again any alternative hypothesis put will still need to run the gauntlet.
     
  12. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    That's great.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Besides the obvious fact that it is speculative, what exactly do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    You are halfway there, if you have accepted that fact.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm not in the least concerned with your question, other than to be pleased I have at least educated you, to accepting that it is speculative in the extreme.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
    In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
  16. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Could the dipole anisotropy be due to gravitational waves in the multiverse? I think the Penrose lecture was from 2010. He was talking about some subtle techniques to tease the gravity waves out of the noise of observations available at the time. The newer data may be more obvious.
    Yes, me too. It is hard to cut through the noise sometimes, though. The trolls keep me busy.
    I don't much like the curvature of spacetime either. I think 4 dimensional spacetime is a descriptive model that is good for a lot of things, but it is not reality. Whatever is going on with time, reality still has 3 very useful dimensions of space, all the way back to any big bang.

    I like to visualize the possible expansion of the universe as spherical lump of raw raisin bread dough floating weightless in space. If we add some heat and begin to bake the spherical raisin bread, the dough will expand, but the raisins will not. The raisins represent galaxies. An observer on one raison deep in the dough would perceive the raisins around him to be uniformly moving away in all directions. But some raisins would be sitting on the surface. An observer on one of those raisins would have a very different perspective. That observer would only see raisins in half of the night sky. That observer would know which way was up and conversely which way was down toward the middle of the dough, or the origin of the big bang. In 4 dimensional spacetime we say that no observer should be able to point to the original starting point in space, but I just showed how, in 3 dimensional space, there could be some observers with a better view than others. So, a paradox.

    With respect to the raisin bread paradox, could the dipole anisotropy be due to our raisin's position in the dough relative to the original singularity?

    Why do think light, which is supposedly massless, travels only a tiny bit faster than a neutrino that we know has a mass? In your view, could light possibly have mass? Or do you think it loses energy in some quantum way?
    Thanks for the comments, quantum_wave. I have enjoyed comparing our not so different views on, and approaches to, cosmology.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Your record on that score says it all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Spacetime curvature as well as the lense Thirring effect has been measured.
    All the way back to any BB? There was only one according to the evidence, 13.83 billion years ago.
    No that's incorrect in that analogies like the raisin loaf and the blowing up a balloon with dots on the surface analogy all have limitations. With the raisin loaf while the raisins are galaxies, the loaf itself is spacetime, showing that it is not really the galaxies moving away, more that the loaf [spacetime] is expanding.
    The balloon analogy is limited in the fact that the two dimensional balloon surface, represents 4 dimensional spacetime, with no reference to inside the balloon or above the skin.
    One needs to be careful with analogies.
    Light has no rest mass but it does have momentum...100% certain. If that were not so, it would not travel at "c", the very definition of a massless particle.
    If you are just speculating no harm done, but please don't fall into the trap that others have, thinking that you as a rank lay person can come to a science forum and rewrite cosmology! It can't be done.Me? I see as far as I do by standing on the shoulders of giants.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Thanks for the considerate comments and questions. In regard questions about my layman level speculations and hypotheses, which I gratuitously refer to as the Infinitine Spongy Universe model (ISU), I encourage topic related questions and comments. Most of the macro level material is in this video/thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-narrated-isu-youtube-macro-overview.144682/ and the current ISU thread is this one: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fleshing-out-wave-particle-duality-in-the-isu.152195/. On my threads I invite discussion of other related ideas and models, so feel free to mention them there for discussion. I don't generally respond to off topic egotistic self-righteous antagonism.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2015
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I do my best to respond to all posts addressed to me, antagonistic or not.
    Is that a fault? Maybe, I'm not sure, but probably the reason I do tend to get into a few scraps. I believe bullies need to be stood up to. I also have never put anyone on ignore, again whether that be a correct approach, I'm not 100% sure.
    On your ISU model, I actually congratulate you for the excellent manner you have laid it out and approached it, and also in the fact that you do recognise that it is speculative. That's all my argument is.

    OK, in saying that my speculative scenario [as previously mentioned] is that our BB is the arse end of a White Hole in another spacetime, and that BH singularities likewise lead via wormholes and ERB's to other outpourings of spacetime and other Universes.
    That's it in a nutshell.
    An observation at this stage. If we suppose that your ISU is correct, or for that matter my BH/WH model, both models still contain within their parameters the present accepted BB model. All your model does and all my model does, is extend beyond what we observe now[ the conditions necessary for a scientific theory] to arena that as yet we do not know anything about.
    A future QGT may reveal all, or it may just push further back what we now see as a Singularity.
     
    quantum_wave likes this.
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Nice post.
    That may be true on the surface, but my view of preconditions to the big bangs, the defeat of entropy, and the "sameness" of arenas vs. the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, and other models, where the physics change over time or in different "bubbles", may be incompatible. It wouldn't take long for our individual ideas to reach incompatibility. I already said I don't invoke space time, but instead invoke the hypothetical "medium of space" and fluctuating gravitational wave energy density that governs the local velocity of light and gravity, depending on the wave energy density in the local environment. Yikes, lol. Now in a vacuum, the velocity is c.

    We would have to hash out the differences, and that often becomes problematic as far as what each party will consider and how it fits with their view.

    I wonder if Futilitist would want all that discussion to be here on his thread.
    Quantum gravity and the mechanics of it, in my layman view, are part of the explanation for for the cause of particle and object motion at the quantum level, and of the collapse/bang of each Big Crunch at the macro level, so the goings on at the micro level scales up to what goes on at the macro level; another example of the "sameness" doctrine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    All in all, my hobby is to grow my model, and I do so partly by discussing other people's ideas. Unfortunately, finding agreement is not usually an outcome.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    And seriously, I urge you to continue with that hobby....Cosmology/Astronomy are truly awesome fascinating aspects of science.
    To even be able to speculate as you and I are doing [and Futilistic] based on what we already know and extending beyond, is, well, it's awesome.

    With my own speculative BH/WH model. I once had a GR professionally qualified expert tell me that WH's were impossible, but I forget his reasoning on the matter....it was more than a decade ago.
    In essence the BH/WH model could possible be inferred as similar to "Steady State" hypothesis.
     
  22. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Oh, no worries. Please do hash out your differences here. I am interested in the discussion you two are having. Carry on.



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    To me, the evidence for an expanding observable universe with accelerating expansion is sufficient. I refer to it as the raw redshift data including recent measurements that show acceleration. Futilitist doesn't necessarily see it that way, and would like to have a good reason to explain away the expansion and go to a steady state, but alas, he doesn't have it yet. Paddoboy is in agreement with the expansion, and accelerating expansion, which we can say is attributed to dark energy, but like me, doesn't rule out a steady state on a large scale.

    If you guys could comment on that much, we might be off to a start.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2015

Share This Page