The big bang and the beginning of time

Shrykull · Post by **Shrykull** » 2003-03-21 01:08am

So, the matter could have always existed, but what triggered the big bang, cause it to explode?

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-21 01:20am

Shrykull wrote:So, the matter could have always existed, but what triggered the big bang, cause it to explode?

In other words, "what caused the big bang?"

If causes temporally precede their effects, and time is an inherent part of the universe (as any variation of the big bang account I have ever encountered would posit), then there cannot be a "cause" for the big bang. Such a thing would require for time to exist before the universe.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-21 02:40am

Is there any other possibility besides the theory that the matter had always existed? I can't think of any.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-21 02:45am

Durran Korr wrote:Is there any other possibility besides the theory that the matter had always existed? I can't think of any.

The creationist fundies are right? That all I've got anyway.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-21 02:47am

Bah, the fundies will just shove the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE God in the equation to explain the matter's existence, Occam aside...

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-21 02:58am

Durran Korr wrote:Bah, the fundies will just shove the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE God in the equation to explain the matter's existence, Occam aside...

Well, they'll insist that God existed before the universe. Naturally, they will not address the problem of how can the term "before" be meaningful when its referent is non-existant.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-03-21 03:52am

Just wait for Durandal to show up, he'll set us straight. I believe it had something to do with quantum probabilities, but I don't remember the specifics.

Edi

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-03-21 04:13am

actually, I am becoming something of a fan of the VSL theory (Variable Speed of Light). basically it posits that in the first moments following the Bang, c was a great deal faster than it is now. it predicts that as the universe expands, a correction is building in the vacuum which, eventually, will lead to another bang, from which new matter will be brought into the universe.

there is no need for a god, as the universe has never had a beginning, and will never end, being continuously reborn from its' own ashes.

thats about the shortest treatment I can give it...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-21 11:11am

Shaka[Zulu] wrote:actually, I am becoming something of a fan of the VSL theory (Variable Speed of Light). basically it posits that in the first moments following the Bang, c was a great deal faster than it is now. it predicts that as the universe expands, a correction is building in the vacuum which, eventually, will lead to another bang, from which new matter will be brought into the universe.

Unfortunately, there is almost zero evidence to suggest that universal constants aren't constant. The only thing which could affect the speed of light is if the permeability of free space was different then from what it is today, which I guess is possible. I'd classify it more as a fringe theory, like string theory.

As for what "triggered" the big bang, that's a difficult question. Time literally did not exist "before" the big bang. If you want to imagine a giant universal clock, it didn't start ticking until the instant after the big bang took place.

The universe was in a singularity condition opposite that of a black hole. While black holes are singularities which extend to no space and all time, the universe extended through all space and no time. So, all the visible matter in the universe was located in exactly one spot. This spot cannot be mapped on a coordinate plane, because it spans the entire plane. So, any reaction which took place in such a condition would have done so instantaneously. There are two main schools of thought on the issue: The universe was extremely hot, and the universe was extremely cold. Either way, identifying the working mechanism behind the big bang is something that cosmologists are still researching. We really don't know.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-21 11:20am

The implication for time being intergral with the universe, also means that any relationship between the universe and some other *outside* object (like a really powerfull alien being) will not be based on temporal relationships (eg. before, after, longer existance, shorter existence). The objects would have to either exist or not exist (a static relationship). Without time, or time's direction, one really can't create the other.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-21 11:35am

Zoink wrote:The implication for time being intergral with the universe, also means that any relationship between the universe and some other *outside* object (like a really powerfull alien being) will not be based on temporal relationships (eg. before, after, longer existance, shorter existence). The objects would have to either exist or not exist (a static relationship). Without time, or time's direction, one really can't create the other.

The dimensions we observe are based on the limits of our own perception. There could be as many as 7 other dimensions, if string theory is correct, but we just can't observe them. Describing that kind of stuff goes into extremely high-level math which I know nothing about.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-21 02:17pm

Durandal wrote: The dimensions we observe are based on the limits of our own perception. There could be as many as 7 other dimensions, if string theory is correct, but we just can't observe them. Describing that kind of stuff goes into extremely high-level math which I know nothing about.

In the last special edition of Scientific American, the one specializing in the state of modern physics, there was a really good article on string theory.

In fact, it was the first article to give me a good explanation for string theory. It finally explained (to me) why they call the universe "a process" and how no objects actually exist. It also gave a pretty good explanation on the extra dimensions and why they think they *might* exist.

Off topic: It also had a good article on dark matter, what they think it is (super symmetry particle), and how they are building dark matter detectors. Dark matter interacts with gravity, but they call that an "approximation". They think it might also interact with the weak force, and are developing nutrino-like detectors to find these particles/

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-21 02:30pm

Durandal wrote:The dimensions we observe are based on the limits of our own perception. There could be as many as 7 other dimensions, if string theory is correct, but we just can't observe them.

String theory, or perhaps more accurately, string theories are a veritable mess of dimensionality. The original formulation had 26 dimensions, and most of its revisions 10 (though I've heard of a 60-dimensional somewhere), and that's discounting the pissing contest some mathematicians made out of it (I bet that was fun), topped with someone proposing a theory with somewhere between two and three hundred thousand dimensions, because that particular number had very nice supersymmetry properties.

However, I was under the impression that all those extra dimensions are of extremely small size, to make the familiar inverse-square law of gravity work--the surface of an object in n-dimensional space is at most n-1-dimensional (e.g. the surface of a sphere in three dimensions is two-dimensional), meaning there can only be three 'macroscopic' dimensions discounting time.

If there is some mechanism that could keep gravity from propagating in the extra dimensions, I would really like to know.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-21 02:58pm

Kuroneko wrote:String theory, or perhaps more accurately, string theories are a veritable mess of dimensionality. The original formulation had 26 dimensions, and most of its revisions 10 (though I've heard of a 60-dimensional somewhere), and that's discounting the pissing contest some mathematicians made out of it (I bet that was fun), topped with someone proposing a theory with somewhere between two and three hundred thousand dimensions, because that particular number had very nice supersymmetry properties.

Yes, string theory's major limitation is that it involves such grotesquely high energies that testing it is impossible.

However, I was under the impression that all those extra dimensions are of extremely small size, to make the familiar inverse-square law of gravity work--the surface of an object in n-dimensional space is at most n-1-dimensional (e.g. the surface of a sphere in three dimensions is two-dimensional), meaning there can only be three 'macroscopic' dimensions discounting time.

Yes, the extra dimensions are "rolled up" and imperceptible.

If there is some mechanism that could keep gravity from propagating in the extra dimensions, I would really like to know.

The mechanism would be their very nature. Spacetime curvature can't propogate through something that isn't "unrolled." I could be wrong about this, though. Then again, so could the string theorists.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-21 06:16pm

Durandal wrote:
If there is some mechanism that could keep gravity from propagating in the extra dimensions, I would really like to know.
The mechanism would be their very nature. Spacetime curvature can't propogate through something that isn't "unrolled." I could be wrong about this, though. Then again, so could the string theorists.

You're definetely wrong about this, unless there is some peculiar meaning of "unrolled" that I'm unaware of. A universe with sufficient concentration matter (and a deficiency of any possible counter-acting factors like the cosmological constant, quintessence, or whatnot) would be closed, and thus isotropic, i.e. invariant with respect to direction. Meaning, every dimension would "loop on itself", and thus not be "unrolled". General relativity does not care about such things.

It's not that gravity must not propagate through the extra dimensions. If they're finite and quite small, their effect on the on gravity will be negligible and thus the inverse-square law would still be valid. A mechanism that keeps gravity from propagating in them is only a concern if the extra dimensions are "large".

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-21 10:17pm

theres actually new evidence that the universe is indeed a hypertoroid, shown by the fact that theres a cutoff to the regions of the sky in which we see certain extremely low frequencies.

The cutoffs are in a specific area in the sky and fits perfectly with a hypertorus in shape. Its caused by the fact that the frequencies of light cannot exist within the region of space along the circumference of the body of the torus.

first substantial evidence of the 4th dimension!

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-03-21 10:53pm

Shaka[Zulu] wrote:actually, I am becoming something of a fan of the VSL theory (Variable Speed of Light).

Hey, I just brought that up in the other thread about the end of the world... Sweet. I'm educated.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-21 11:20pm

Durandal wrote:Yes, the extra dimensions are "rolled up" and imperceptible.

Down to the Planck length, right?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-03-21 11:46pm

Those planck length's are quite short, and there are sharks swimming below.
Interdimensional sharks.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-22 12:22am

kojikun wrote:theres actually new evidence that the universe is indeed a hypertoroid, shown by the fact that theres a cutoff to the regions of the sky in which we see certain extremely low frequencies.

The cutoffs are in a specific area in the sky and fits perfectly with a hypertorus in shape. Its caused by the fact that the frequencies of light cannot exist within the region of space along the circumference of the body of the torus.

To what exactly are you referring? Considering that a toroidal topology would contradict the big bang account, it would have to be pretty convincing evidence. I would be really interested in hearing it, or at least a summary and a reference.

kojikun wrote:first substantial evidence of the 4th dimension!

Since you're evidently ignoring the time dimension, I can only conclude that you claim that toroidal topology of the universe constitutes evidence of a fourth spacial dimension. This could be true if you specify what kind of hypertorus the universe is supposed to be. Left unqualified, it is a an invalid inference--a torus with a three-dimensional surface is a hypertorus.

TheDarkOne · Post by **TheDarkOne** » 2003-03-22 03:08am

I like the big bang theory form the discworld novels better then the real one.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-03-22 09:06am

i have quite a decent site with some string theories on, at http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/index.htm and its sufficiently dumbed down so plebs like me can understand it

.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-22 11:57am

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? ... 34&tid=160

Its all there in the links provided by /.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-24 07:01am

kojikun wrote:http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? ... 34&tid=160

Much thanks. I'm currently trying to decipher the original paper linked by the NY article. I fear in the end it shall prove beyond me, but, still, I'm having fun trying.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-24 04:59pm

well assuming the evidence is correct, it shows that the universe has 4 dimensional curvature (and that time isnt the 4th dimensional)