Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

[The God]

Paddoboy;

Nothing wrong in speculating, but that's all it is...no evidence at all prior to anything before t=10^_43 seconds.

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 ?

 

[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
You are lame.
---Futilitist

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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

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......

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 ?

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,

 

[Futilitist]

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.

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.

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!

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.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

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.

No wonder you were inferred as a liar and manipulator in your economic doomsday thread.

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.

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]

 

[Futilitist]

No wonder you were inferred as a liar and manipulator in your economic doomsday thread.

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?

Or are you suggesting some kind of pattern?

Conspirare --- to breathe together

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.

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

Professor Krauss supports the BB as per his E-Mail.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

Krauss believes both of his own statements to be true,

you are arguing with Lawrence Krauss!

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!

 

[paddoboy]

That is not true. I was directly called a liar and a manipulator.

I agree with them.

But on this obviously fake science forum, that doesn't really mean very much now, does it?

So why are you here? To educate all us mugs?

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

Good luck in your quest.

We are all well aware that Professor Krauss supports the BB and I have never disputed that fact.

Yes you have.

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.

You did make that claim, among many other stupid claims including not being able to differentiate between theory and hypothesis/speculation.

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.

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

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

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.

[/QUOTE]
That's nice dear.

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

To educate mugs.
Oh, and again any alternative hypothesis put will still need to run the gauntlet.

 

[Futilitist]

To educate mugs.
Oh, and again any alternative hypothesis put will still need to run the gauntlet.

That's great.

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



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

That's great.

You are halfway there, if you have accepted that fact.

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

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

 

[paddoboy]

Images for the universe has a beginning scientific paper

 

[Futilitist]

There are some interesting ideas, and clarifications in your post, and a great link to Penrose. I have viewed several Penrose videos and have his book "Road to Reality" which I use for reference from time to time. He has an interesting view on cosmology, and I think he does predict that a history of multiple big bangs should appear in the cosmos in the form of gravitational waves. I'll have to watch the video and review his thinking before I comment.

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.

Let me say that my model isn't someone elses ideas specifically, but a combination of ideas that I borrow shamelessly from all over the cosmological community. It is a bottom up, step by step process, based on generally accepted physics, using my own methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation and hypothesis when science does not yet have the answers. It evolves from comments from members, as well as my own research, and so threads like this keep me going.

Yes, me too. It is hard to cut through the noise sometimes, though. The trolls keep me busy.

I have found that by using a processs and methodology to try to formulate my own answers to as yet open questions has lead me deep into alternative views where sometimes the generally accepted views don't work with the direction my model goes. For example I don't invoke the curvature of spacetime, I consider the speed of light and gravity to vary as the energy density of the medium it traverses changes, including the presence of a gravitational wave energy gradient in the medium of space that is absorbed and emitted by all particles and objects, and still I agree that the speed of light in vacuum is c; go figure.

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?

When I view your thread and ideas, it is natural for me to compare them to mine, and comment on the differences, but that by no means means I don't find merit in your ideas. I'll take some time to watch the video and do some well called for research on the comments so far, and post later when I get something more related to your topic than to my model.

Thanks for the comments, quantum_wave. I have enjoyed comparing our not so different views on, and approaches to, cosmology.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

Yes, me too. It is hard to cut through the noise sometimes, though. The trolls keep me busy.

Your record on that score says it all.

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.

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.

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. with a better view than others. So, a paradox.

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.

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?

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.

Thanks for the comments, quantum_wave. I have enjoyed comparing our not so different views on, and approaches to, cosmology.

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.

 

[quantum_wave]

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.



---Futilitist

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

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]

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.

Nice post.

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.

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.

A future QGT may reveal all, or it may just push further back what we now see as a Singularity.

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 .

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

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.

 

[Futilitist]

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.

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



---Futilitist

 

[quantum_wave]

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

---Futilitist

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.