Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

[Futilitist]

Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

Though time appears to have a beginning 13.7 billion years ago, that beginning is arguably a temporal illusion, an artifact of limiting time to a single dimension. It could be argued that modern cosmology is a collection of artifacts resulting from limiting time to a single dimension.

Epicycles

Ptolemy's ancient geocentric model of the universe used complicated mechanisms, known as epicycles to explain the bizarre retrograde motion of the planets.

Later, Copernicus noticed that this apparent retrograde motion was actually an artifact in our perspective due to our earth based vantage point.

Once the imagination of Copernicus was able to see outside of the geocentric model, what appeared to be bizarre retrograde motion was nothing more than uniform circular motion that did not need complicated mechanisms, such as epicycles, to explain the retrograde away.

Similarly, the current cosmological model of the universe, which has only one time dimension commencing with the big bang, needs mysterious dark matter to hold it together, and consists primarily of some mysterious dark energy, which, inexplicably, is accelerating the universe apart. Are these just modern day versions of epicycles?

Three Dimensional Time

Applying three dimensional time and temporal mechanics to cosmology and astronomy can be used to show that the universe is not necessarily expanding, and that dark matter and dark energy are artifacts of applying only one dimension of time to physics.

If we apply the new equivalence principle to dark matter and dark energy, it becomes apparent that when we look at extremely distant objects or extremely massive objects, such as galaxies, we are not only looking at three dimensional space, we are also seeing three dimensions of time.

$$\frac{a}{b}=\frac{(n^*-I)}{(I-u^*)}$$

http://existics101.com/?page_id=238



---Futilitist

 

[Dywyddyr]

Given that the author of that idea is something of a nutcase what makes you think this is worth posting?

 

[paddoboy]

Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

The BB is the current overwhelmingly supported model of the evolution of the Universe/spacetime, supported by four main pillars of cosmology.

What you are suggesting is totally unevidenced, and entirely speculative......in short, bullshit!

 

[Futilitist]

Given that the author of that idea is something of a nutcase what makes you think this is worth posting?

Well, before you go off half ducked, have you actually watched the videos?

I don't really care about the mental condition of Gavin Wince, though he seems pretty sane to me. His physics and mathematical ideas are not at all nutty, and he explains them beautifully. I think his concept of three dimensional time is revolutionary. The existics equations have the potential to transform all of physics.

I began watching the existics videos a few weeks ago. They blew my mind. It took several viewings of several videos, but I now think I have a pretty solid grasp of the concept of three dimensional time and it's application to physics and cosmology. I have discussed the concept with many smart people and they all think it makes perfect, even beautiful, sense. I am prepared to defend the concept in open debate.

So, given all of that, why do you suggest that Gavin Wince is a "something of a nutcase"?

-and-

What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?

The BB is the current overwhelmingly supported model of the evolution of the Universe/spacetime, supported by four main pillars of cosmology.

I realize that. But recently there have been some unexpected anomalies showing up. A good theory is simple, explanatory, and predictive. The standard model (ΛCDM) is none of the above. It seems cluttered with "epicycles".

What you are suggesting is totally unevidenced, and entirely speculative...

It is not "totally unevidenced". In fact, it helps explain many recent anomalies, like the super luminal neutrino. I admit it is speculative, though "entirely speculative" is hyperbolic. Relativity was once speculative. Speculation can be a good thing.

...in short, bullshit!

Yes, your argument is bullshit because it is too short. All you have done is make a declaration.

What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?



---Futilitist

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well, before you go off half ducked, have you actually watched the videos?

Didn't need to - I've read his book.

I don't really care about the mental condition of Gavin Wince, though he seems pretty sane to me.

That probably says quite a bit about your mental condition.

His physics and mathematical ideas are not at all nutty

Actually they are.
See here for example.

The existics equations have the potential to transform all of physics.

If by "transform" you mean "turn it into a pile of worthless sh*t" then I agree.

So, given all of that, why do you suggest that Gavin Wince is a "something of a nutcase"?

Because I've read his book.

In fact, it helps explain many recent anomalies, like the super luminal neutrino.

Since there wasn't a "super-luminal neutrino" what makes you think it needs explaining?

 

[paddoboy]

I realize that. But recently there have been some unexpected anomalies showing up. A good theory is simple, explanatory, and predictive. The standard model is none of the above.

"Some" unexpected anomalies you speak of have been explained...Others are still being looked at. eg: DE.
That does not detract from its overwhelming accepted status and the evidence that supports it.

It is not "totally unevidenced". In fact, it helps explain many recent anomalies, like the super luminal neutrino. I admit it is speculative, though "entirely speculative" is hyperbolic. Relativity was once speculative. Speculation is a good thing.

It is totally unevidenced, and superluminal neutrinos are just a dream my friend. Nothing travels FTL...period.
You are right though, it is entirely speculative.

Yes, your argument is bullshit because it is too short. All you have done is make a declaration.

No, my argument/declaration is fact.
I'm not going to elaborate on it now, as it has been discussed many times in other threads.

What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?

It is unsupported, unevidenced speculation, pure and simple.



-

 

[Futilitist]

Didn't need to - I've read his book.

Then you should be able to formulate a good argument. I did not know Gavin Wince had a book.

That probably says quite a bit about your mental condition.

That is highly speculative.

Actually they are
See here for example.

I have seen that before. It is crap. And it is not about three dimensional time.

If by "transform" you mean "turn it into a pile of worthless sh*t" then I agree.

No. By transform, I meant unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And make modern cosmology make some kind of logical sense.

Because I've read his book.

Yeah, I am not really interested in why you think Gavin Wince is "something of a nutcase". You skipped over the more important question which was bolded so that you would know it was important and answer it. Since you didn't, here is my question again:

What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?

Since there wasn't a "super-luminal neutrino" what makes you think it needs explaining?

The Opera experiment detected one. I did not say the neutrino was actually super-luminal. It wasn't. It just appeared to be.

"Some" unexpected anomalies you speak of have been explained...Others are still being looked at. eg: DE.
That does not detract from its overwhelming accepted status and the evidence that supports it.

Not in and of itself. But there is more to it than that. We haven't even begun to discuss the concept of three dimensional time.

It is totally unevidenced, and superluminal neutrinos are just a dream my friend. Nothing travels FTL...period.

It is not "totally unevidenced". In 2011, the Opera experiment observed neutrinos "appearing" to travel faster than the speed of light. You are correct that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. But it does "appear" to. Three dimensional time explains why.

No, my argument/declaration is fact.

You need to support it a little better. And science is about probabilities, not facts.

I'm not going to elaborate on it now, as it has been discussed many times in other threads.

I missed those other threads so maybe you could give some kind of small hint as to the substance of your argument, if it isn't too much trouble. Thanks.

It is unsupported, unevidenced speculation, pure and simple.

That does not answer my question at all. You are just making another declaration.

What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?



---Futilitist

 

[Dywyddyr]

I did not know Gavin Wince had a book.

Then you didn't spend much time looking at his web page, did you?

That is highly speculative.

Not really.

I have seen that before. It is crap. And it is not about three dimensional time.

But it IS pertinent, since you stated: His physics and mathematical ideas are not at all nutty.
And it's crap because...?

No. By transform, I meant unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And make modern cosmology make some kind of logical sense.

Then, surprise, I disagree. The guy is a crank.

Yeah, I am not really interested in why you think Gavin Wince is "something of a nutcase".

Of course you're not. That's why you wrote: So, given all of that, why do you suggest that Gavin Wince is a "something of a nutcase"?

You skipped over the more important question which was bolded so that you would know it was important and answer it. Since you didn't, here is my question again:
What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?

Simple: he doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone who thinks relativity is a "failure", who assumes that "space-time is a whitewash" and/ or makes the claim "by necessity there has to be multiple time dimensions[1,2]" for things to travel through time at different rates automatically falls into this category.

They detected one.

No they didn't.

I did not say it was actually super-luminal. It wasn't. It just appeared to be.

Then why do you think it needs "explaining" (in a way other than the one that was done)?

It is not "totally unevidenced". In 2011, the Opera experiment observed neutrinos "appearing" to travel faster than the speed of light. You are correct that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. But it does "appear" to. Three dimensional time explains why.

So does the ACTUAL explanation. An explanation that explains, and "justifies", something that didn't happen isn't much of an explanation at all.

1 In fact using HIS logic there cannot be only 3 dimensions of time - everything moving (i.e. everything) must have its own "time dimension".
2 It appears (I say appears since he doesn't explain any further in the part I watched - nor in the book) that he's of the opinion that absolute time is the standard in current physics: more evidence of his lack of knowledge.

 

[paddoboy]

Not in and of itself. But there is more to it than that. We haven't even begun to discuss the concept of three dimensional time.

That's because it is entirely a speculative most unlikely solution

It is not "totally unevidenced". In 2011, the Opera experiment observed neutrinos "appearing" to travel faster than the speed of light. You are correct that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. But it does "appear" to. Three dimensional time explains why.

It is totally unevidenced, and you now seem to be playing with words.
No neutrino or anything else was detected at travelling FTL. After results that were doubted were checked out, it was found to be an equipment error...a loose fibre optic cable connector. Nothing more, nothing less.

You need to support it a little better. And science is about probabilities, not facts.

It is a fact that the BB is overwhelmingly accepted as the best model we have for Universal evolution and expansion.

I missed those other threads so maybe you could give some kind of small hint as to the substance of your argument, if it isn't too much trouble. Thanks.

It is at this time, yes. But I'll help you out.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang [The four pillars of cosmology I spoke of are in bold]
The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law.[6] The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space.

That does not answer my question at all. You are just making another declaration.

No, my declaration is fact. We have absolutely no evidence for any 3D time.
But we do have experimental evidence against such a speculative scenario
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960183903390
Abstract
Experiments, as proposed in this journal, are quoted to falsify a scheme with three-dimensional time.

What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?

See above.

 

[Futilitist]

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.


This thread should not have been moved.



---Futilitist

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

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.


This thread should not have been moved.



---Futilitist

You knew, I also agreed with Hugh Ross that time has a dimension but my analysis and experiment or observation are quite different from yours. In one of my science books that I've written titled, "Physics of the New Intelligent Design <id>" after I discovered the real and universal intelligence, I proposed a very simple universal formula of time. This is time according to me:

time, t = A --> A'

in where A is any object for study in science for time and
A' is when A moves forward or consumes space, thus A' is when the time that we study A.

Thus, if we apply that to universe, we need to apply that to the first sub-particle or particle or elemental particle, whichever is first to appear.

The universe is too big to study but if A is universe and A' is when universe consumes space, then, the universe has only half-dimension of time from its starting point of singularity.

How about particles? Since particles has dual natures as reported, then, my new discoveries said that particles has two dimensions of time. One t is for particle-nature and one t is for wave-nature of particles, thus, two dimensions of time.

So, the universe may had started with half time dimension but the particles has two dimensions? Can we assume that they have three time, now?? I don't know! But the most interesting insight for me is that if particles have two dimensions of time, then, it will surely behave differently in a double slit experiment! A counter-intuitive behavior...

That is an initial contribution of mine about time.

 

[quantum_wave]

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.


This thread should not have been moved.

I don't think you should be offended by the thread being moved here. You are already into discussion of an alternative theory when you address the beginning, or lack of a beginning, and also when you bring in the cyclical model.

Big Bang Theory doesn't answer the question about the explanation for the existence of the universe, but it seems to me it is implied that a singularity is equivalent to something from nothing. Plus, you won't find a majority in many science forums who think the "God did" explanation is right, I don't think. The third alternative, i.e. the universe has always existed, is growing in acceptance (Google it for recently published articles for example
http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning
).

...
What do you find wrong with the concept of three dimensional time?

---Futilitist

Nothing actually. I haven't been thinking about it before, but I can certainly see how one could refer to it that way, when looking at the Three Dimensional Time image you posted above. Here is some alternative thinking that you wouldn't see in the mainstream forums (not sure where you started the thread). I don't think it matters what model of the universe you are talking about, space contains energy, whether it is gravitational wave energy, CMB, light from stars and galaxies, dust, particles or what have you. I call it the medium of space to differentiate it form the void of space. Light speed through mediums of different densities varies relative to its velocity through a vacuum. If you look at the large scale as depicted in the 3D time image, you can see that the space traversed from distant objects located in various directions, will be traversing space that has differing amounts of energy density, causing it to take different amounts of time to travel the same distance to some central point in space.

 

[Futilitist]

Nothing actually. I haven't been thinking about it before, but I can certainly see how one could refer to it that way, when looking at the Three Dimensional Time image you posted above. Here is some alternative thinking that you wouldn't see in the mainstream forums (not sure where you started the thread). I don't think it matters what model of the universe you are talking about, space contains energy, whether it is gravitational wave energy, CMB, light from stars and galaxies, dust, particles or what have you. I call it the medium of space to differentiate it form the void of space. Light speed through mediums of different densities varies relative to its velocity through a vacuum. If you look at the large scale as depicted in the 3D time image, you can see that the space traversed from distant objects located in various directions, will be traversing space that has differing amounts of energy density, causing it to take different amounts of time to travel the same distance to some central point in space.

I think you may be misinterpreting the 3d time graph and the concept of three dimensional time. Please follow the link and watch the videos:

http://existics101.com/?page_id=238




---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

This thread should not have been moved.

Of course it should have. Science is no place for unevidenced nonsense, no matter how much that deflates your ego.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think you may be misinterpreting the 3d time graph and the concept of three dimensional time. Please follow the link and watch the videos:

http://existics101.com/?page_id=238




---Futilitist

Save me from that, and tell me how it differs from my thinking.

 

[Futilitist]

Save me from that, and tell me how it differs from my thinking.

No. You should watch the videos if you really want to understand. Then we can talk about it.

Of course it should have. Science is no place for unevidenced nonsense, no matter how much that deflates your ego.

You are the egomaniac, not me. It isn't about ego.

"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


This forum is way too authoritarian and uptight.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

"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
This forum is way too authoritarian and uptight.
---Futilitist

Why are you here?
Laurence Krauss speaks of the causes, the whys and hows of the BB.
They are mysteries. But he certainly supports the BB as the accepted model without a shadow of doubt, and I would add would also banish your own hypothetical nonsense quite smartly.

 

[Futilitist]

Why are you here?

Ah, the eternal question.

Laurence Krauss speaks of the causes, the whys and hows of the BB.
They are mysteries. But he certainly supports the BB as the accepted model without a shadow of doubt,

Dude. That is false. Krauss certainly does not support the big bang theory without a shadow of a doubt. He said so himself. That is what the quote was all about.

and I would add would also banish your own hypothetical nonsense quite smartly.

I doubt that. He is not as closed minded as you are.

And Krauss is very interested in multidimensional time models. I would bet that if he thought I was wrong, he would patiently explain why without insulting me.

The point is that Lawrence Krauss, a well known mainstream cosmologist, has a shadow of a doubt about whether the big bang theory is correct. But you don't.

Are you claiming to know more than Lawrence Krauss?



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

Are you claiming to know more than Lawrence Krauss?

Not at all. I agree with him.

 

[Futilitist]

Check this one out:

"I can draw a circle in space. But if time and space are really together as part of a four dimensional universe, why can't I draw a circle in time?"
~Lawrence Krauss

Of course the answer is: you can. If time has three dimensions.

And Gavin Wince is not alone with the idea of three dimensional time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

Theories with more than one dimension of time have sometimes been advanced in physics, whether as a serious description of reality or just as a curious possibility. Itzhak Bars's work on "two-time physics",[3] inspired by the SO(10,2) symmetry of the extended supersymmetry structure of M-theory, is the most recent and systematic development of the concept (see also F-theory). Walter Craig and Steven Weinstein proved the existence of a well-posed initial value problem for the ultrahyperbolic equation (a wave equation in more than one time dimension).[4] This showed that initial data on a mixed (spacelike and timelike) hypersurface obeying a particular nonlocal constraint evolves deterministically in the remaining time dimension.

Here is a paper from 2005 by Xiaodong Chen that has a 3d time concept similar to Wince's:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510010

Three Dimensional Time Theory: to Unify the Principles of Basic Quantum Physics and Relativity

Interpreting quantum mechanics(QM) by classical physics seems like an old topic; And unified theory is in physics frontier; But because the principles of quantum physics and relativity are so different, any theories of trying to unify 4 nature forces should not be considered as completed without truly unifying the basic principles between QM and relativity. This paper will interpret quantum physics by using two extra dimensional time as quantum hidden variables. I'll show that three dimensional time is a bridge to connect basics quantum physics, relativity and string theory. ``Quantum potential'' in Bohm's quantum hidden variable theory is derived from Einstein Lagrangian in 6-dimensional time-space geometry. Statistical effect in the measurement of single particle, non-local properties, de Broglie wave can be naturally derived from the natural properties of three dimensional time. Berry phase, double-slit interference of single particle, uncertainty relation, wave-packet collapse are discussed. The spin and g factor are derived from geometry of extra two time dimensions. Electron can be expressed as time monopole. In the last part of this paper, I'll discuss the relation between three dimensional time and unified theory.




---Futilitist