If and when the "Big Bang"......

[Harveyf]

Here's one I've pondered for almost seventy summers [and winters; etc.] When the Universe began, was the black container of space "there" to welcome the expanding matter, or was it created as the matter expanded from its initial inception? If the space was "there," how did that "empty" get to be? And if the space was created as the matter expanded, what was it replacing as it grew...the empty, or the nothing, or the null, or.......??
Harveyf

[marcus]

Here's one I've pondered for almost seventy summers [and winters; etc.] When the Universe began, was the black container of space "there" to welcome the expanding matter, or was it created as the matter expanded from its initial inception? If the space was "there," how did that "empty" get to be? And if the space was created as the matter expanded, what was it replacing as it grew...the empty, or the nothing, or the null, or.......??
Harveyf

Harvey, I personally doubt that space (a web of relationships) can exist without matter

I am not saying that matter must be everywhere, but there must be some sprinkled around for space to be space

I cannot imagine space having an Absolute existence on its Own, like your black container.

I guess I mean to include light in the idea of matter---as some people do---so energy as well as mass-ful stuff counts here as matter.

It is a nice question to wonder about for 70 years. Humans get a chance to wonder about some great questions, dont we? :smile:

[Harveyf]

Yes, Marcus; seventy years of pondering - it's not enough...I hope another of me in one of those other dimensions has resolved some of my questions. You would think with all that space, and the problems of time, human beings would find warfare infantile, and pre-historic. That's why the dialogue is everything. To continue asking questions, do you think Mankind will ever get over religion, and begin to focus on the greater questions of how Humanity will survive if it doesn't reach out to the cosmos for its continuance?

[PoPpAScience]

Harveyf; there are those alive today who have answers for your questions. But to get others to see beyond what they feel is the only answers, just like in religions, is the hardest part. Just like how Einstein went beyond present day thoughts, others today must also go beyond the norm to see more. Also going beyond present thoughts today is the key to continuance of humanity.

[Harveyf]

Strange, but I almost understand of what you speak; the rational mind, setting aside all mundane thought, focusing on the common sense of reality, expunging all consideration of conflict, prejudices, and any strife of human spirit. The thinkspeak; the feelspeak - the mind, if you will, of empirical evidentiaries. The mind of Man striding one level up to truly rational thought, allowing emotional compassion to rule over the baser animal instincts of pre-Cambrian mentality. "Wings Over The World," as H.G. Wells imagined the human of the future to be. Long overdue for Humanity, if you ask me...
Harvey

[PoPpAScience]

Yes Harveyf that is well put. Going beyond what is known, to seek more knowing, is the Evoluting of human knowing. We must never stop Evoluting or thoughts, or live in fear of knowing more then we believe.

[russ_watters]

The way the big bang theory goes, space itself was created with the big bang. The matter in the universe is actually essentially stationary in an expanding space.

[Phobos]

Welcome to Physics Forums, Harveyf. [:)]

Like Russ said, the Big Bang marked the beginning of space, time, matter, energy, etc. In the standard Big Bang model, there is no external reference frame into which space is expanding. Perhaps "expanding" has the wrong connotation...perhaps our language doesn't have a word to accurately describe it since it is something very different from our everyday experiences. The universe certainly appears to be expanding from our viewpoint (galaxies getting farther apart), but the expansion is not at the expense of some external reality.

As far as we know.

Our scientific insight is limited to the "visible universe", which is the portion that is within our field of view. There are some theories about external realities (for starters, check out String Theory) but these are not as well developed/accepted as Big Bang theory.

[Harveyf]

Then, if I understand you correctly, Phobos, you and Russ are advocating our viewable cosmological reality as having been created simultaneously with the "empty" of the spatial boundary into which all matter is "sort of" expanding from micro-second to micro-second. It IS a puzzlement to attempt visualization of a spatial vacuum which obviously has "depth," and yet can accomodate "expanding" matter which does not lie on the periphery of the simultaneously created space, but fills the "hollow" of the dark container with its content...whew!
Harvey

[Chronos]

Its pretty hard to fathom space, time or matter as stand alone entities. None of these concepts can be defined in terms that do not include all three properties. The observable universe is the only universe of any consequence to us. Whatever unobservable properties it may possess, if any, are irrelevant: at least from a scientific perspective. Just to clarify, the universe may well include features not yet observed, but, that is not the same as unobservable features.

[Harveyf]

Doesn't seem fair to be endowed with such a capacity for curiosity, only to have the candle dim and extinguish itself just as the flame has begun to burn its brightest. With such limited scope, wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus our energies on the only universe we can see, before we begin to tackle the abstract philosophy of alternate universes? I can see trying to fathom and define the concept of whether or no matter fills the void at the moment of the "Big Bang," or if the void is expanding its dark interior as the newly-created matter rushes to "fill" it, quicker than conceptualizing the possibility of imperceptible dimensions. Yes, it's hard to fathom Space and Time, but even harder trying to ignore them, and almost impossible not to look up and out and think, "why?"
Harveyf

[russ_watters]

Then, if I understand you correctly, Phobos, you and Russ are advocating our viewable cosmological reality as having been created simultaneously with the "empty" of the spatial boundary into which all matter is "sort of" expanding from micro-second to micro-second. It IS a puzzlement to attempt visualization of a spatial vacuum which obviously has "depth," and yet can accomodate "expanding" matter which does not lie on the periphery of the simultaneously created space, but fills the "hollow" of the dark container with its content...whew!
Harvey Slight clarification: the way it looks, there is no boundary. The Hubble telescope has found that if you look in any direction, the large scale structure of the universe looks pretty much the same. Think about the surface of a balloon - its a 2d analogy to what space is like. The surface of a balloon is finite but has no boundary - and if you blow up the balloon, the surface expands, but doesn't really expand "into" anything.

[Chronos]

What russ said is better. His logic is compactly described. I tend to venture off into a 'void' which does not even exist [by my own admission!]

[Harveyf]

I know what you're saying, Russ; the problem is attempting to resolve that balloon's surface expanding "not into anything..." In reality, of course, when you blow up a balloon, its surface is expanding into the space in which I also dwell. My mind creates the troubling thought of the dark container of space that matter is filling being finite. In other words, to my simple mind, created space as finite, expanding as it does along with the matter it contains, leads my rationality to consider as to what, if anything, lies beyond the periphery of that "finite edge?" If nothing [no thing] - how does one describe it to his own mental satisfaction? If the peripheral "edge" of space is being "pushed outward" by its content expansion - what is it "pushing" against? See how limited minds work? I know you will say my perspective is a little off; that there is no "other side" to the peripheral edge of expanding space, but you can grasp, I'm sure, the philosophical, as well as the physical complexity of that "no thing's" consideration. Hmmmm...
Harvey [p.s.] deep, but very enjoyable conversation...

[Chronos]

Just to compound the torment [I routinely do that to my puny mind], consider this. We are in the most ancient region of the universe observed since the big bang. Everything else we see, even nearby stars, appear as they were in the past. So, in that sense, we are the leading 'edge' of the universe.

[Harveyf]

Chilling, if not absolutely fascinating!! Gotta tell you this: I was nine years of age when I first had the thought about the "why" of the blackness of space. After seeing two H.G. Wells motion pictures, and staring at the night sky, I responded to my mother's inquiry as to what I was staring at, with: "Why is the black, mom?" She said, "You mean the sky?" I said, "No, mom; you take all the lights out of the sky and you're left with the black - the container - why is that?" She said, "God knows!" You can see why, at the age of almost seventy, I'm still asking the simple, yet tough, and maddening question!
Harveyf

[John]

Two forms of expanding: It can just expand like a loaf of bread, in which the center stays still and everything else just expands like rising dough, or it can expand like an explosion, in which an empty shell is formed with all the material leaving the center.

If it expands like a loaf of bread we could see regions that are “outside the loaf”. If it expands like a shell, it would look infinite because light would travel round and around the shell and never leave the shell.

With the universe expanding like a shell, it would have a dipole look to it, which the universe does have. When you look directly at the outer or inner edges, there will be fewer things to see, but the light will eventually bend around the shell.

Expanding like a shell gives rise to the idea that there is another shell below us and another shell above us, and the center is constantly renewing itself.

To answer Why is the sky black? If expanding like a shell, then the shell we are in doesn't have to be that old or that big, so if not that old or big, it didn't have the time or the capacity to fill itself up entirely with light.

[Chronos]

Because light requires space and time to travel through. It is a big picture thing. Once you let go of the absolute reference frame thing, it all makes sense.

[Harveyf]

I must admit, the manner of your explanations are becoming more "familiar" to my inexperienced thought-processes on this matter of expansion, but may I inquire of you as to list other analogies to help the process along? I still feel like a fledgling in comparison to the ease by which you comprehend the phenomenon; I'd like to say, 'eureka,' and join the mental party. In utilizing the "shell" analogy, as opposed to the loaf of bread one, you state the light might bend at the edge of viewable space corroborating the "shell" analogy. I really want to understand this; can you elaborate? I do so want to 'let go' of the absolute reference thing, Chronos...If I could just fully comprehend the process you're trying to help me visualize?! [And thank you all for exhibiting such patience with my naivete].

[John]

I would like to know what Chronos thinks about the shell form, and if this idea has been put forth by anyone else. All I know about the universe being an expanding shell is, when I compared what we would see being in an expanding shell, the form any explosion takes on, it looked exactly like all the descriptions I have ever seen about the universe, for example:

If we were inside the expanding shell, Andromeda might appear as another galaxy one revolution of the shell away from us, but it would be younger and seen from a different angle, so we wouldn't recognize it as Andromeda. The light arriving from Andromeda the second time around would have been given off when the shell was smaller. It would have spiraled up to us from closer to the center. As we look farther still, we would see light that has spiraled up and around several times, so every galaxy we see will be younger than ours, relative to how far away. The universe would appear to be a solid expanding form with us on the edge and no older galaxies than ours. We would also appear to be exactly in line with the polar axis of it, even though we are just part of the shell. We would even appear to be in the center, with the whole of it expanding away from us. The expanding shell fits every description of the universe I have seen so far, but I have never heard anyone say it is an expanding shell, like you would typically get after an explosion.

I have to say I am tired of people telling me my ideas are all wrong. This seems right.

[Harveyf]

John; believe me, I would want to be among the first to assure you that your ideas were right; unfortunately, I cannot "see" the shell analogy in the terms you describe. For the misfit I am, there must be either a different or simpler methodology to explain the seemingly simplistic picture before your eyes. Would that I had those eyes to see with. Is there any other way to describe the phenomenon of infinite expansion, or is there a limit to the "balloon's flexibility?" And is there an analogy for that, and has either been proven to be the case, thus far, by scientists and/or astronomers?
Harveyf

[Chronos]

Analogies, while useful aids to visualizing physical processes, sometimes create more problems than they solve. Space is the ratio of distance vs time between two material [mass possessing] objects in the universe. That ratio is called velocity [d/t]. As you can see, neither term has any meaning without the other. When distance is zero, time is meaningless. When time is zero, distance is infinite, and also meaningless. Therefore, without mass possessing objects in motion, all notions of time and space are meaningless. The concepts of mass, time and space combine to form the universe we observe. Regardless of which direction you look, you will see something. This makes sense when you bear in mind you are always looking into the past when you observe the universe. Since all massive objects [such as earth and the solar system] travel much slower than light, light from the past has traveled beyond our present. We only see the part that is just now catching up with us. This also explains why the universe appears to be so homogenous and symmetric. No matter what direction you look, you are ultimately looking back at the 'big bang'. I could elaborate on why I think that way, it is a quantum fluctuation thing.. but, that is a different story.

[Chronos]

To John: You are basically advocating a background dependent reference frame. Apply relatavistic corrections and propose the experiment you would use to test your prediction.

[John]

But in my background dependent reference, everything works the way they say it does. We can't say the universe has no shape. We can't say it is just about mathematical time and velocity. Sure that sounds intelligent, but it must have some kind of shape. The shape that appears to us doesn't produce all the qualities we know the universe has. My expanding shell is not only the natural way an explosion happens, but it has the correct dipole, the correct infintity, and the correct "always looking back to the origin" qualities; and it is all in a physical structure that you can visualize and draw a picture of. Einstein said, "If I can't visualize it I can't understand it."

[John]

If we can get past rejecting the expanding shell idea, I have a really hot explanation for how much it can expand and what happens when it runs out of time. We are almost to that point, marked by the new fact that the galaxies seem to be accelerating away from each other, as if the shell of space has nearly reached its limit and space is slowing down, but the heavier galaxies are slowing down less.

[Harveyf]

John; Two things: 1) I'm glad Einstein said it first; at least my visualization problem emulates a like mind in the field 2) I can't wait to hear your explanation for the ultimate result of the expansion we've been discussing...

[John]

I had written this in another thread, and it’s an important prerequisite for what I want to say next. Oddly, it wouldn’t post in the other thread. I wonder if it will post here.

They say a string is a two-dimensional tube. I have figured out what that would look like. If you take two points and separate them by a distance you have

. . (two points separated by a distance)(I have to learn to draw on this thing.)

Points HAVE to be separated by a distance, because if they aren’t you can’t create any space with them. It is impossible to create a line with an infinite number of points not separated by a distance. You have two impossibilities. You can’t have an infinite number of anything, and if you did have an infinite number of points not separated by a distance, you wouldn’t span any distance.

So you must have points that are separated by a space. If logic says they have to be separated, the same logic says points themselves must also have an effective diameter. If they don't have a diameter and a mass, they don't exist.

The distance between them, mathematicians will tell you, doesn’t exist, and mathematicians are right because they are always right. Yet, there has to be a distance. At the same time, the distance has to not exist.

Let’s draw a manifold around those two points. Just draw a loop around those two points. The manifold represents what does not exist, and it encircles the two points, which have to exist and do have a diameter and mass. If the distance between them is space that doesn’t exist, then the points have a strong a need to come together. Their mass and their diameter resists their coming together.

So now with a manifold encircling two points that have diameter and mass, you have a two-dimensional hollow tube. The two dimensions are the two points. The hollow tube is the manifold around them. There is a huge tension between the two points because at the same time there is distance between them and nothing exists between them.

So you have a two-dimensional hollow tube that has the tension of the strong force. The farther you try to separate them apart, the harder they resist being separated.

[Phobos]

Harvey - It would be fair to say that the whole universe was infinite from the very beginning, such that expansion into something else is moot. But you'd still need to deal with the concept of an expanding infinity. [:)]

Perhaps this would be easier if we didn't view time as so one-directional. Since space is 4D (space + time), the whole universe (past, present, future) may already exist and we're merely perceiving the spacial coordinates at this point in the timeline. Still a tough question.

[Harveyf]

Phobos; this is scary. I actually comprehend your message. Now I know how limited my mental capacity is. I tried like crazy to understand John's concept. He and Chronos seem to dialogue with ease on matters that cross my eyes. As to that part of your message, that "...it would be fair to say that the whole universe was infinite from the very beginning," you say it best when you recognize that there is a concept of an expanding infinity to deal with. My own view on the possibility of a finite universe expansion is based mainly on my perception that there could be potential for the matter of space, and the peripheral edge of the real spatial container of "empty" into which matter is expanding, are both continuously experiencing birth from micro-second to micro-second simultaneously. But it isn't Physics upon which I can base such an assumption, but more in the line of philosophical consideration. Also, I would agree with your second premise on spatial coordinate perception, if it weren't for the real action of space-time motion which can be perceived and reasoned in the human mind. No; I cannot resolve black hole deep-well gravity science, just as I cannot fully make sense of a super-string theorum on universal creation, but I can see the results of all of these quantum mechanics in the night sky canvas. Both awesome, and in motion, the cosmos seem as simplistic in its ongoing existence, as complex as the most complicated piece of machinery, and as perplexing as life itself as a continuing phenomenon of reality.

[John]

All physics and math is based on that perception of the universe, which is the idea there is an infinite expanse, and matter and numbers fill it.

For example we see a line. We say the line already exists and there are an infinite number of places or points in that line. We say the infinite expanse of space already exists, and that all matter is expanding and even being sucked into it.

But then we get all these weird things that come out of string theory, and string theory seems so correct in so many ways. The weirdest is ten dimensions.

If space doesn’t already exist, then you have to make space. The mathematical line doesn’t exist. You have to make it. You can’t make a line with non-dimensional points. Whoa! Nelly! This changes everything. You have to make it with points that have value and mass.

If you try to stack points together that have value and mass, like stacking cannonballs, you get a structure of tetrahedrons, and you can only travel from “cannonball” to “cannonball” or point to point in six directions, which are six underlying dimensions. You get a structured universe on a background that can be a simple expanding shell from a normal explosion of real material.

In this space that is a structure, we live in an expanding shell, which will run out of energy and collapse, but our souls will go between the points of space to a lower shell where we continue our existence. That goes on forever as each shell collapses. If we are living in a series of shells, from a series of explosions, then we see the shell we are in, the shell above us, and the shell below us.

The microwave background picture gives us three distinct regions separated by two empty regions, as if we are looking at our shell, the shell above us, and the shell below us. Each shell has an empty gap between them.

The shell above us will collapse, but we are safe. Part of space itself will run out of momentum and collapse falling through the hyperspace between points, all the way to the center, where it explodes into a new shell. The Bible says at some time in the future, the sky will roll up like a scroll and one third of the stars will fall from heaven. If we are in the middle of three shells, when the upper shell collapses, exactly one-third of the stars that astronomers and scientists are aware of through powerful telescopes, which are galaxies in the outer shell, will disappear from the night sky.

[Harveyf]

John; now I understand you completely.

[4newton]

The Big Bang (BB) theory states that the universe started from a small point or singularity and that all the energy of our universe, in all forms, expanded outward in all directions. Observation indicates that the universe, on the large scale, is uniform to a high degree in all directions. That is, all-observable matter and energy, microwave radiation, is evenly distributed in all directions.

All the contents of the universe are transitioning outward at the same rate and form a sphere with a hollow core. Our experience tells us that the universe around us is three-dimensional and has another component of time. To resolve our observation and experience we must expect the universe to be a three-dimensional spatial sphere, or hypersphere. All actions in the universe must stay inside of the hypersphere, follow the curve of the sphere. All light then must travel around the sphere. There is no spatial direction back to the BB.

The observation of the red shift of distant objects indicates that there is no preferential direction of motion and therefore the direction of the transition outward from the BB is not a transition in any spatial direction or spatial dimension.

The speed of light is the only known limit of the rate of the expansion outward from the BB. This rate is the maximum rate of transition of all things in the universe. The expansion outward from the BB appears to us as time.

As we look around the curve of the hypersphere we see light just arriving that started in the past from distant objects. The light from the distant objects are is shifted because the expansion of the hypersphere moves them away from us at a rate that is proportional to their distance from us. The most distant observation to this time is the microwave background radiation MBR. This radiation is shifted all the way down to the microwave frequency.

Because the universe is expanding outward at a transition rate equal to the speed of light any light waves coming to us from one radian around the sphere would be red shifted to zero. This is the point that the transition from the BB equals the rate of the expansion of the hypersphere.

Knowing the rate of expansion outward from the BB you can then find the size of the universe and how old it is. You only need to know the distance to an object and its red shift.

[Harveyf]

Thank you 4Newton: When you speak of a hypersphere, and that the BB began the expansion in all directions at an equal rate, how do you know that content matter is contained in this hypersphere, rather than continuing its expansion in all directions within a space that has no "curves?" What is it about the "Red Shift" that leads to a theory of a hypersphere construct to the visible universe, rather than just a limitless, endless, ever growing [ever "stretching"] sphere of containment of matter? BTW, do you happen to know the size of the universe, and how old it is [I should ask what is the latest estimate on the answer to these questions from the scientific community?].

[4newton]

>Thank you 4Newton: When you speak of a hypersphere, and that the BB began the expansion in all directions at an equal rate, how do you know that content matter is contained in this hypersphere, rather than continuing its expansion in all directions within a space that has no "curves?"<

If the spatial dimension extended from where we are today back to the BB it would not be a BB it would be the Big Fountain. The transition outward from the BB would then be part of the spatial dimension and you would see a preferential direction in the spatial dimension indicated by a larger red shift in one direction and a smaller red shift or blue shift in the opposite direction. The transition out from the BB must not produce any effects predicted by Special Relativity SR, for example an increase in mass. There are many other things that would also be different.

In short you would observe different effects.

>What is it about the "Red Shift" that leads to a theory of a hypersphere construct to the visible universe, rather than just a limitless, endless, ever growing [ever "stretching"] sphere of containment of matter?<

As stated above you would see a preferential direction.

We recognize the universe as a three dimensional construct and we are able to see red shift in all direction and all angles. This requires the universe to be a hypersphere. A hypersphere is a sphere with a hypersurface and a hypersurface is a construct of one fewer dimensions then all the dimensions under consideration. In this case we are only considering a four dimensional universe, XYZT. The hypersurface is XYZ. The dimension outward from the BB is the T dimension. Just as all dimensions in the XYZ are perpendicular to each other the T dimension is perpendicular to all the XYZ dimensions. You use this fact every day when you drive your car and check your speed. Speed, motion, or velocity is stated as distance with respect to time and if you plot this you always have time perpendicular to distance.

>BTW, do you happen to know the size of the universe, and how old it is [I should ask what is the latest estimate on the answer to these questions from the scientific community?]. <

Most of the scientific community is blind to this concept they started out this way but did not recognize the expansion outward from the BB as a transition in the time dimension. The lack of understanding time is the result of not understanding dimensions. They have a need to make everything more complicated. They are trying to curve space with mass and somehow arrive at the result that the universe is flat. As you can see this concept is simple and violates no experience or observation. This concept does not care if the universe is open, flat, or closed; it does not affect the concept.

I have not made the calculations. Feel free to become part of this idea and do the calculations. The math is simple as stated before. You may end up with a Nobel Prize. :wink:
.

[Chronos]

I humbly disagree. The 'scientific community' is not blind to any possibility. The math we do know is already so complicated it takes decades to derive even the simplest solutions. To suggest they have simply missed 'simpler' alternatives appears to be ludicrous. However, don't let that stop you from exposing their incompetence.

[4newton]

>I humbly disagree. The 'scientific community' is not blind to any possibility.<

I have seen no sign if interest. What do you think of the concept?

>The math we do know is already so complicated it takes decades to derive even the simplest solutions.<

A clue that an idea has limited scope is if the math is too complicated or you need to use tricks to over come weakness in the math.

>To suggest they have simply missed 'simpler' alternatives appears to be ludicrous.<

It is not ludicrous.
Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the earth or is the earth flat?

>However, don't let that stop you from exposing their incompetence.<

I have no interest in exposing anything.

Not being able to see simple solutions is not incompetence and I do not intend to show disrespect of their skills and abilities.

It is understandable to follow a thread of an idea and to show resolve in trying to develop the idea. This requires some blindness to any idea but you own. NIH not invented here. It seem the more obscure your concept the more it is accepted. No one wants to let anyone else think that you don’t understand an idea.

What bothers me is an almost total disregard for the test of logic and the idea that if the common person can understand an idea it must be wrong. Understanding and discovery of new concepts is the result of inspiration. It is not the result of formulation.

When working on an idea everyone starts to develop tunnel vision. Did you ever try to proof read you own paper only to have someone else look at it and find the obvious errors? It is necessary to take a step back and criticize you own idea and have others look for obvious errors. That is why I am on here.

Up to this point I am disappointed. I have had no disagreement with the theories but I also have had no positive comments. I have had some good questions that have helped me better express the ideas. The problem may be that the idea is sound in logic but difficult to visualize in common experience. This is the same as trying to understand how the earth could be round from the view of the people in the dark ages.

Up to this time they have no answers to almost all the basic problems. The professional scientist is unable to see profit in these problems. If they try to develop a concept or an idea and they are proved wrong they suffer loss of stature and maybe even money. New ideas are left to people like me that care only about discovery. If I am wrong I have no problem rethinking my idea in fact I demand it of my self. It has been necessary to do so many times. I will never get recognition for any of these ideas they only go to the members of the club, which is only right. I do think however that I get more reward of discovery.
.

[russ_watters]

Science has been unable to recognize simple solutions many time in the past. Does the sun go around the earth or is the earth flat? Those ideas were never part of science.

[selfAdjoint]

Russ? The geocentric-heliocentric controversy was never part of science? Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, were they not scientists? For that matter weren't Aristarchus, Hipparchus and Ptolemy scientists in their day? Have you read the Almagest? There are at least two modern translations into English. Warning; it's tough.

[Phobos]

The Big Bang (BB) theory states that the universe ... expanded outward in all directions.


BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.


All the contents of the universe are transitioning outward at the same rate and form a sphere with a hollow core.


There's no evidence for a higher dimension of space into which our 3D space is embedded. But your later description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.


The speed of light is the only known limit of the rate of the expansion outward from the BB. This rate is the maximum rate of transition of all things in the universe.


It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)


Because the universe is expanding outward at a transition rate equal to the speed of light


Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?

[Harveyf]

My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates. As the fledgling of the group, even though fast becoming a septigenarian, It has taken me up to this point in my existence to resolve the ramifications of religious exegesis injected into scientific discovery, to where I've been able to exclude such mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space. Now, I wish to enable my mind to grasp the scope of the universe about me in terms I, a most common denominator; human being, that is, can really understand. Since I am not versed in mathematical explanations, I can only hope for a dialogue replete with comprehensible visualizations. If analogy is the best I can hope for to achieve success towards this goal, I humbly ask of my peers in this forum if they can "come down to my level" in order to assist in my quest for wisdom of this knowledge you can impart. So; fellas and girls, tell me again: What, exactly do you mean a hypersphere as opposed to an "open" universe, and why, if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accomodating it be created simultaneously? If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality - and yes, I realize my manner of questioning appears more philosophical than scientific, but I have to believe there is a window of opportunity for both to be expressed so that even a layman like myself can appreciate the explanations on different levels for the benefit of all. Who knows; if an untested mind like mine can grasp the argument, who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefor of creation? With repsect, and in friendship.

[selfAdjoint]

The universe could have come into existence all at once and the size it has now, but atronomical observation from the time of Hubble in the 1920's up till now shows it is expanding, and we can project the rate of expansion back to find out when zero volume occurred. The fillip that has been added in the last few years is that the rate of expansion is increasing (shown be several lines of investigation). so of course that affects our estimate of the time since zero volume. Current estimate is 13.5 billion years.

[Harveyf]

Thank you, selfAdjoint. Thus; given that thirteen and a half billion years is the latest estimate for what you call, "zero volume," I take that to mean that the BB occured at that moment in time, thrusting from a seemingly central core all of the necessary ingredient material that makes up the universe as we know it. My question then, which I originally postulated was, when this material began its expansion, was the space; the "black" of it, so to speak, already existant, or was it created along with the expanding matter? To put it another way, in using the balloon analogy, the dots upon the surface of the balloon's fabric expand as air is introduced into the balloon...is the fabric itself being created as part of that expansion, or did the space [the balloon's surface or in universal terms, the "empty"] already exist, awaiting matter's introduction into it in the BB?? More importantly, am I missing some absolute in physics which makes my question moot, or am I lacking in a scientific principle which makes my analogy errant? Thanks for your patience.

[RingoKid]

the other thread is moderated and it wouild seem reserved for uber boffins. I didn't know that or read the instructions before posting it, seems neither did you as your post has now registered 3 times....

thanks for you reply John, I posted one back . It hasn't registered yet but it might. I would repost it but i can't remember what i posted so hopefully it'll turn up in a day or so

cheers

here is the link for anyone interested...

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=40273

[RingoKid]

BTW I been posting stuff like this for a while seeking some sort of feedback...

a universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line beteween the two branes

and if the leading edge is expanding at lightspeed faster than the trailing edge that would give you your impression of a slow moving photon or time moving faster depending on whether you were looking forward or backward, and the impression of the spacetime hypersphere expanding..ie inflation of the universe

but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything

[RingoKid]

and think ripples in a spherical pond for a multiverse

[marcus]

Olias has just posted link to a new paper about cosmology
which has no formulas. It is by a good writer named Rudi Vaas.

he does Scientific-American-level articles in popular science magazines
in Germany and also some more academic technical stuff. he's good in science and a good journalist as well

this paper "Time before Time" is a little bit more academic and philosophical than Vaas's popular sci. journalism articles, but it
may nevertheless turn out to be useful.
One nice thing about it is that it is free for download

http://arxiv.org/physics/0408111

It talks about the different visions people have had about the beginnings of the universe, including the new LQG vision in which there is no big bang singularity----he gives references to Bojowald and Ashtekar papers.
(but his discussion is entirely un-mathematical)

[Harveyf]

Thank you, Marcus, for your consideration; from what I can see, the essay is most informative, and provides much food for thought. Thank you, again.

[John]

4newton was saying the universe is like a sphere with a hollow core: an expanding bubble, just like my idea. He made the point that if we could go straight back to the center, it would be a Big Fountain.

The one radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.

All of his other concepts seemed right on. He answered a lot of the same questions I answered, by using the same expanding shell model. First, light has to curve around the shell. The universe isn’t a solid “loaf of bread” expanding in all directions with us in the center. It just seems that way. But as he said, if it were expanding in all directions (and we weren’t in the center) there would be a preferential direction.

(Assuming we are not in the center) the only way it can appear to everyone, everywhere in the universe, that everything is expanding away from them is if they are on the surface of an expanding bubble, or inside of an expanding shell where light follows the curve of the shell.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.

I agree with 4 newton’s approach, and agree that when we try to expose the incompetence of others, that’s not the way to discover things.

If this conversation is good, we can also answer Ringokid's questions, who has a glimpse of the same expanding sphere with a hollow core.

[Chronos]

The universe is not spherical. That is an urban legend. There is no observational evidence it is composed of spheres surrounded by spheres, or anything resembling that. If you boil that concept down, you end up asserting there is a preferred reference frame. That is not consistent with current theory.

[John]

I think this is another "the earth is flat" conflict. I can't find any reason why an expanding hollow sphere doesn't work. I just naturally came to that conclusion, and so did two other people right here. And there are no other suspicions here of what it could be, except the expanding loaf and the "Big Fountain". There has to be some reference frame. It has to have some kind of physical shape, right? What does current theory say?

The only thing I have heard is, it is kind of flat (sic), but that is also what an expanding hollow sphere would appear to be. This is very similar to the "earth is round" debates.

[RingoKid]

Chronos...current M theory would have universes as rippling bubbles floating and interacting in the 11th dimension

I would also have them inside each other

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

Here's something to think about assuming we are a sphere within a sphere..etc

What if the universe is expanding faster again by repulsion/attraction of a parallel universe. Does that mean another brane collision is imminent from the leading or trailing edge of our bubble skin and will it open up new dimensions or obliterate our universe ???

will we even be conscious of it if say we are transformed into a higher or lower plane existence...ie the energy powering us/our fundamental string building blocks as individuals gets reconstituted so that in the new post brane collision universe i get transmuted into a rock or an enlightened entity that no longer needs a physical presence to justify it's existence ???

reincarnation, nirvana anybody ???

[Phobos]

-- mentor hat --

Let's try to keep this topic based on the Big Bang model (including appropriate modifications such as inflation theory), which was the context of the original question.

Discussions of string/M theory can be held in that forum and you can post a link here to that sidebar discussion.

thanks

[Phobos]

My goodness, but the forum has suddenly erupted with dialectic on ideas in the expansion of space and hyperspheres. I am humbled by the profundity of thought. Then, too, I almost feel grateful that I cannot visualize the mathematical formulae as applied to the quantum physics required to dialogue on these theorum. I trust you will forgive my limited capacity for comprehending the exactitude of the science behind your ruminations, but I would appreciate continuing in this forum, if only to attempt receiving a glimpse of the far-flung territory you are covering in these debates.


Don't even worry about it. Physics Forums is open to anyone of any technical level who wishes to discuss scientific topics. Our members include high school students with casual interests in science as well as college professors and professional scientists/engineers. Welcome.

[4newton]

Phobos Thank you, for responding

BBT does not speak of an outward expansion. It's more like the points in the universe are getting farther apart from each other.

If you accept the idea of a Big Bang and we accept the Big Bang as a fact based on the background radiation. You then observe all the points of the universe moving away from each other. Distant objects = points and red shift = moving away, then you must reconcile the mechanisms that results in the two sets of facts.

It is then possible to make an intuitive leap from other observation in nature.

In an explosion, something like a Big Bang, it is noted that all the material in the explosion is sent out in all direction from the center of the explosion. It is also noted that the various components of the explosion form a sphere as they move out from the center and the components have increasing distance between them as they move out.

It is then reasonable to accept this as the mechanism of the universe BB. Checking this idea with the facts we find no conflict. This then adds support to the BB theory and the concept of all the components of the BB moving outward in all directions and forming a spherical construct of the resulting components.

Having at this time no extended understanding of dimensions we question our knowledge of a spherical surface and our universe. We find a conflict with the two. The spherical surface is two-dimensional and the universe is three-dimensional. The solution was simple. We just allow three-dimensional surfaces. This is a hypersphere with all the components, objects in the universe, moving out from the BB resulting in points getting farther apart.


description of this other dimension as Time sounds better.

You are right. I did not intend to give the idea that the expansion outward from the BB was a spatial dimension. My intent was to state that the dimension of the expansion outward from the BB was a different dimension and then later show that this dimension fits the observation of time and the time dimension.

It's the maximum rate of motion through space, not the maximum rate of the expansion of space. (e.g., the early inflationary period)

I agree that the only observation to date is the maximum transition in the spatial dimension. I did not go into inflation at this time and I think it is best to address this at a later time.

Are you referring to the Hubble Constant (our observed expansion of space) or the expansion of the hypersphere you describe away from its center?

I am referring to the expansion outward from the BB not (our observed expansion of space)

The expansion outward from the BB is of course related to expansion of space. Just as the distance from the center of a balloon to the surface is related to the distance around the balloon. In the same way there is no material of the balloon at the center of the balloon just as there is no material of our universe back at the center where the universe started.

This relationship tells us that the transition outward from the center of the BB cannot exceed the rate of any transition observed in the sphere of the universe.

[4newton]

Harveyf thank you for your response. I am now finding your posting and the posting of many others the exchange of ideas I had hoped for on this forum.

I've been able to exclude such (religious interpretation) mythology from the reality of existence, and time and space.
If you stay around for many of the ideas you may need to change you mind.

I have found that free will is the first law of nature. To prove this just talk to anyone and you will find that it is natural to believe against facts. You will also find that no overwhelming fact will convince anyone of the existence or non-existence of God. You will find however that if you believe you will find support and if you don’t have faith you will also find support in physics. Who but God could design a universe that allows this freedom. Of course you may reject that idea.

if there ever was a BB [like it appears there was], cannot the universal space accommodating it be created simultaneously?
Yes your thought is a possibility, but because the number of possibilities are infinite with out some thread of connection to reality it will lead no where.

The only relationship I can see to this as a part of creation is in the negative. If physics and nature has told us anything about God and creation is that he does not do direct creation on the large scale. All things seem to flow from a grand plan.
If, as you intimate, the "red shift" is indicative of material within the universe increasing its velocity away from the "core" of where a BB might have originated [for whatever reason], what might be the ultimate destiny of matter within this reality
Because of the direction you are coming from it may help if you think of the process in this manner.
From the eternal ALL the Creator, God, induces an energy differential. This may have been one pulse or it could be a continuing number of cycles. We at this time have no way of knowing. We only know that there was at least one pulse.

The reason may be as simple as God wanting us to (Know, Love, and serve God.). This I see you doing by being on this forum. If you learn about God’s creation you are trying to know Him. You seem to have a mild and kind manner. Which could indicate that you love God. The first two indicate that you are doing the last.

The ultimate destiny is for the energy to fade away into the ALL and to last forever with a record of out deeds.
who is to say that even this mind might not succeed in contributing something new to the equation of the why and wherefore of creation? With respect, and in friendship.
I think you have much more to contribute then you realize. You already have my respect and I do extend my friendship.

[4newton]

John thanks you for your response.
The one-radian idea was murky. I didn’t bother to understand it. I did ACCEPT IT and pursued a model where light can only travel 60 degrees (or so) around the surface of the expanding bubble. It never really worked in my head, but I didn’t get uptight.If you consider the concept in its simple form you may eliminate all but two dimensions and look at a circle. An expanding circle has a radius that is increasing as the circumference is also increasing. Two points on the circle one-radian apart are increasing their distance at the same rate as the radius is increasing.

Redshift is an indicator of the rate of change between two points. If the radius is increasing at a rate equal to the speed of light then two points on the circle that are one-radian apart will be moving apart at a rate equal to the speed of light. Any light going between the two points will never arrive because they a separating at the same rate that the light is traveling. Also the redshift of the light going between the two points has a frequency shift down to zero. You therefore are unable to see anything beyond one-radian around the circle or in the case of the universe one-radian in any direction.

As for red shift going to 0 at one radian: I believe light has the ability to go around and around the expanding bubble. But we see light that was given off at an earlier time, which means the bubble was smaller then, so the light has followed a spiral path to get to us. It doesn’t matter how many times it has spiraled around.If the transition outward from the BB is at a rate equal to the speed of light, as stated above, then the light from distant objects can only be seen up to one-radian. Observation indicates that redshift for distant objects are in the range close to the speed of light and the z for the background radiation is equal to about 1100. Also if light could go around and around many times you would see the background radiation repeat at a lower frequency each time it went around.

Your observation of the light traveling in a spiral is correct and is the current cause for the dark energy theory. The cause of the redshift not being linear with increasing distance is because the light must travel the circumference of the sphere of the universe compared to the straight line of the transition outward from the BB. This is being interpreted as an accelerating expansion of the universe instead of a correction of the geometry.

[4newton]

RingoKid

universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line between the two branes
Strings and super strings are only a question of dimensional view of matter, forces, and energy and I don’t think they warrant being extended to branes and the construct of the universe. I think this should be a topic of (mass, gravity, and charge) and belongs in the physics area.

[John]

In this thread we think it is expanding like a balloon that is being blown up. And science knows the galaxies are accelerating away from each other. I think I can show it is expanding like a balloon, due to the fact the expansion is speeding up.

If you draw galaxies on a balloon, and blow it up at a slightly decelerating rate, as if gravity is gradually slowing it down: you have a picture of how we used to think the universe was expanding.

The galaxies you draw on the balloon would all be getting farther away from each other at the proper rate as you blow up the balloon. It all works smoothly and simply, but a problem is, the galaxies you drew on the balloon would also be getting bigger in size as the balloon expands. If you were to keep erasing the galaxies and making them smaller as the balloon expands, so that the galaxies you drew remain the same size on the surface of the expanding balloon, then you are adding space at a faster rate than the balloon is expanding.

Now the galaxies would be accelerating away from each other.

(I don't think the universe is expanding at the speed of light.)

If a galaxy gives off its light and the light chases around the expanding balloon of space, it might miss us several times, or we see it in a different place, then we see the galaxy's light after it has spiraled around several times, and it has a greater red shift because it is father away in time. Actually we have accelerated away from the light of that galaxy. We are going faster now relative to when it gave off its light.

[John]

This model brings up some interesting points on the original question of, What is space?

Is space just there? Or is it a vibrant thing like the surface of an expanding balloon? If the galaxies are accelerating, that says space is a thing that is expanding along with them, but at a slightly different rate.

[Harveyf]

When I began to think along these lines which John is alluding to [the fabric of space itself being created, but at a different rate of expansion than the material contained within it], I thought [almost sixty summers ago] the process itself as so outrageous a concept that the suggestion of spatial expansion, and material expansion simultaneously became an intellectually acceptable hypothesis. When you initially consider a "spatial container" of "empty," if you will, "waiting" for that "pulse" of matter to explode within it, "meaning" of "empty" loses relevance, but if you opt for not "empty," but " nothing" [no thing], rather than "empty" as existant [meaning, that you cannot express the "no thing" in rational terms - for "empty" connotes potential], it becomes "fairly" reasonable to begin the hypothesis with "there was this nothing," which cannot be defined nor expressed, from which "something" became; what this "something" was, was a spatial "empty" containing the prerequisites for a BB, which eventually became matter with which to fill the big "empty." As the matter expanded, so did the big "empty" to accomodate its expansion...but not like the balloon analogy which, as was correctly pointed out, would have the dots [galaxies] requiring erasure and reconstruction to fit the model [or balloon's peripheral surface]. And having just read my submission over, I think I need a headache powder.....

[John]

60 summers was a long time ago to start thinking about that!

I asked a similar question sometime in the mid-eighties, What if space is made of literal points? What if things move from point to point? The points had to have distance between them, and by manipulating the distance between points you could curve, compress, and stretch space; causing objects to curve, slow down, or speed up, which is what gravity does to objects. The problem was, the points with distance between them could only line up in six directions. I became aware of string theory and it has six underlying spatial dimensions. String theory makes sure points never touch each other. My points that had distance between them could only line up in six directions. I knew at that time my ideas were right.

By that time I had constructed a lot of scenarios for what space is. Everything seemed to work. Now we have discovered the galaxies are acellerating away from each other. Scientist have a few theories that throw the classic ideas of mass and momentum out the window and introduce vacuum bubbles and a lot of other stuff. How else could they be accelerating?

My idea that space is something which is expanding, and the galaxies are something else that is expanding easily gives us galaxies that are accelerating away from each other without changing the laws of momentum, since they are both expanding according to the same laws of momentum but they have different mass qualities. Space is much lighter so it would slow down sooner, causing the galaxies to appear to be accelerating.

[Harveyf]

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but it appears we're [sort of] in agreement on simultaneous spatial expansion and galactic expansion; n'est pas?

[4newton]

Chronos
The universe is not spherical. That is an urban legend. There is no observational evidence it is composed of spheres surrounded by spheres, or anything resembling that. If you boil that concept down, you end up asserting there is a preferred reference frame. That is not consistent with current theory.
You seem to ignore a lot of observations.

It would help if you explain how you disregard the Big Bang and expansion.

I don’t think that there is any question that if there was a BB then you have a reference point for the rest of the universe. True you have no absolute location for the BB.

However if the BB is point zero you may then state that the Earth is a measurable distance from the BB.

If the expansion outward from the BB is time and the expansion is equal to the speed of light then the units may be years and in this case is the same as light years. Again remember this is not a spatial dimension.

You may then pick any two objects with a line drawn between them as reference zero. All location can then be stated as time T from the BB and angle from the two objects. A line drawn between the two objects is used as an angle reference. The location of any objects can be stated as T, the distance outward from the BB, and angel 0-360 perpendicular and 0-360 parallel to the line drawn between the two objects.

Our physical senses tell us when we are in the zero reference frame of acceleration. I don’t know anyone that can not tell the difference.

Current theory does not state that there is no zero reference frame for velocity it just says that you may not be able to know when you are at zero velocity.

[Chronos]

The most polite response I can give is, bull. Your 'reference frame' does not exist. You are ignoring the most fundamental laws of physics, and have no clue about the math involved. Get a textbook, learn basic physics, and I will be glad to discuss your questions. Till then, don't try to impress us with your lack of knowledge.

[John]

I started working on an "absolute reference frame" model in about 1984, and was surprised when I learned about string theory to find the whole thing was just like string theory, which I was too dumb to know about when I started thinking about a hard, absolute physical model. Now, whenever I tell learned people about all the correlations, they are unimpressed and they all give the same answer. There is no reference frame.

True, there is not one reference frame, there are two. There is the reference frame that the reference fame was built on, like a Big Bang that exploded points out and made space, you have it expanding outward from a particular point. Then we have the reference frame in which a hollow expanding shell of points appears to be a vast empty space.

I think scholars don't like the fact that God was making it look one way but it really looked a different way. They have to get to their answers in one step. When that doesn't happen, they say, "If you are smart you realize there is no reference frame", which is very similar to saying "Pure logic doesn't work, and there is no God creating or pulling levers."

But there is the universe as seen from God's point of view, and the one we're inside seen from our point of view. String theory mathematically solves the riddle that connects the two, and the mystery answer is points that have distance between them.

You can imagine a space made of infinite points where you can go from point to point in infinite diretions. But if you create a physical space made of actual physical points that have distance between their centers, because they are physical things, like stacking cannon balls, they can only line up in six directions. You can go in any direction, but the points inside of you have to zigzag through the underlying structure, which is why we and everything physical are made of point particles flying around.

[4newton]

Chronos
The most polite response I can give is, bull. Your 'reference frame' does not exist. You are ignoring the most fundamental laws of physics, and have no clue about the math involved. Get a textbook, learn basic physics, and I will be glad to discuss your questions. Till then, don't try to impress us with your lack of knowledge.

I am sorry if you are lost in any of these concepts.

If the textbooks you have answer all the questions under consideration please let me know where I am wrong.

You have the advantage. I do not know the Chronos laws of physics, religion, or what ever.

As anyone can see there is nothing here to impress anyone. I present only a concept and I am looking for honest criticism. No way do I think I have all the answers. If you have some idea that better explains the observations or if you think the line of logic is faulty please state so. If you know that the concept is not in line with observation I look forward to you correcting my mistakes. I have no problem revising any idea.

Don’t get so up tight.

[Chronos]

Chronos


I am sorry if you are lost in any of these concepts.

If the textbooks you have answer all the questions under consideration please let me know where I am wrong.

You have the advantage. I do not know the Chronos laws of physics, religion, or what ever.

As anyone can see there is nothing here to impress anyone. I present only a concept and I am looking for honest criticism. No way do I think I have all the answers. If you have some idea that better explains the observations or if you think the line of logic is faulty please state so. If you know that the concept is not in line with observation I look forward to you correcting my mistakes. I have no problem revising any idea.

Don’t get so up tight. Apologies. My comments were rude and really unwarranted. I get impatient at times. There are no answers, just questions. I will gladly discuss those with you and try my best to keep it dignified.

[RingoKid]

OK so I read the first post and here's my answer

Nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

seek

It implies the search for space, nothing, creation, evolution and the rlation between them all and it's something i came up with quite a few years ago

along with this

Accept NOTHING as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define YOUR own reality

but on the understanding that absolute truth and reality lies outside of our direct comprehension

On topic...

personally i don't have a problem with post planck size big bang theory as being the process by which the universe attained it's current size if it works. I don't have a problem with a variation of steady state banging away at the leading edge creating spacetime and coverting "the negaverse'" to matter/energy either. I don't have a problem visualising the edges of the hypersphere as branes of a bubble skin expanding at different rates and separting alternate universes

I don't see where the conflict lies in trying to keep cosmology theories in their respective compartments, perhaps it would help if i knew what i was talking about beyond a laymans understanding but I actually find it helps inspire others thoughts more if i don't know what i'm on about, and as such do not feel constrained to conform to current physics dogma.

cheers

BTW I am not Peter Lynds but I am from New Zealand

[Chronos]

Ringo, I owe you an apology as well. My physics come from observation and what I think is physics. I am mathematically contained by the Lorentz invariant part of Einstein's version of relativity. His math is compelling... would you not agree? Propose an experiment that violates relativity. Einstein, himself, tossed that guantlet down to to the scientific community. Relativity has withstood every test devised to dispute it.

[turbo]

Since this thread has veered into philosophical grounds a few times :smile: I thought you participants would appreciate this link. Just scroll to the bottom of the page for the links to papers regarding physics.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/

[4newton]

Chronos I know how you feel. I feel the same way when people do not see things the way I see them. I then need to force myself to remember that they may have a valid point. I also admit that some times I can not see their point of view because I am biased of blinded by my view.

The reason I have moved away from SR is that the theory is contained and is unable to provide a path to the Big Bang BB and the observational expansion of the universe. SR has no concept of time it self or of dimensions. I do not see very many conflicts with SR in the concepts I have presented. If you look close at SR it does not deny a zero reference frame of motion it only states that a ZRF is not needed. The not needed has been extended by most, as there can not be. If my ideas are in error I would be happy if you could point this out to me. Please don’t just make the statement that I am wrong. Give me the reason my thought is wrong. Let me learn your view.

Thank you for being on line. I have found that your thoughts have required me to review my point of view many times. I would like it if we could find more common ground and resolve some of our disagreements.

[RingoKid]

...no apology needed Chronos. I take no offense for anything posted on the net.

With regards to your challenge. I don't think I could propose an experiment verifiable within our 3+1 d universe.

As the frame of reference required to prove it lies outside the universe, inside points of spacetime and wrapped up in hidden dimensions.

I dunno maybe jumping into a black hole or getting to the edge of the visible universe might be a good place to try. I'd imagine an object visible in the event horizon of a BH from our frame of reference would also be visible at a point on the edge of the expanding universe before it gets annihilated and reconstituted. Does that violate relativity or am i showing complete ignorance again ???

check my "wave of thought" or "strings and brane shapes" thread in the strings section it kind of qualifies what i believe a little. I would appreciate some feedback there though.

Cheers

[John]

I didn't realize until now that Relativity is based on the idea of something affected by two reference frames. I have this interesting, simple physical model that has the two reference frames as one of its features. There is the reference frame we see, and the reference frame that causes what we see. I now see that is the same as Relativity. Now I see that Einstein, and his girlfriend, were trying to explain things that were really happening in experiments. In my model, atoms change shape (contract, expand) because of the space around them. That contraction causes both gravity and momentum in objects to work.

I pursued this model of a universe made out of physical points of matter. I figured out how things move through that sea of matter.

I thought Einstein arrived at the idea of contraction through math. But it was an unexplained phenomena that was in an experiment! All of Relativity was apparently based on that experiment. In my model I realized things had to expand on one side and contract on the other as they got faster, in order to maintain constant momentum while traversing a sea of matter, which we call space.

This contraction/expansion of molecules is also what causes gravity to work. There is a test of my ideas. I believe the neutrons cause molecules to change thier shape. Therefore neutrons cause gravity. Hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, and hydrogen clouds in space which maintain their shape for centuries don't appear to have any gravity. Hydrogen also doesn't appear to have any momentum. The explosion of a star goes out into space then stops. It doesn't dissipate nor does it collapse back.

[magus niche]

hey people, I have been most entertained by the discussions on this forum. as a first timer (and certainly not an academic mathematician but an academic none the less), i find some consistencies and predictable contradictions among the many posts. But again excuse my ignorance if applicable :redface:

BIG BANG: i have always aligned myself with the notion that an event by which everything is spontaneously manifested is modelled on a very western linear rationale, proposing time as having a beginning and therefore an end. I am not saying that this is not correct, but simply observing human theorising. Our brains are seemingly infinite in there idea constructing, what makes everyone seem to think the universe is not working in a similar way: infinitely complex chaos being ordered by random (maybe willful) actions?

SHAPE OF UNIVERSE: ok, people keep referring to to the OBSERVABLE universe, observable by what? Our seemingly limited sensory organs that zoom in on SELECTED details? Or maybe our observations are based on technological feats such as telescopes or microscopes, both of which we, as human beings, have constructed to fulfill our own desires to understand this mysterious thing we call reality. Tools (technology) have been one of human beings' greatest achievements, don't get me wrong, but sometimes i just think we need to remember that they based on our own constantly developing understanding of light, lenses etc. and not some universally profound higher knowledge.

To bring this discussion slightly down to earth (i wouldn't want to burst any infinitely expanding bubbles :smile:) i pose this question which will probably seem ignorant to the maths inclined: how can we trust observations through our eyes or through the lenses of telescopes (radio, x-ray or whatever) concerning the beginning of space and time, when we are on a planet that seems to be rotating around its own axis, its own star, around its own spiral galaxy? all this movement seems to point towards some extremely large distortions of evidence.

ps. if this question is completely off the topic, i don't blame anyone for not answering...
cheers :wink:

[Chronos]

Modern, mainstream theory is based on relativity and a background independent reference frame. That is to say the results of experiments will be identical.. no matter what speed, or direction, you travel compared to anything else. More importantly, it says the results will always be the same. Time and space may bend, shrink or contract by their perspective, but, never by yours.

[Phobos]

Welcome to Physics Forums, magus niche!


BIG BANG: i have always aligned myself with the notion that an event by which everything is spontaneously manifested is modelled on a very western linear rationale, proposing time as having a beginning and therefore an end. I am not saying that this is not correct, but simply observing human theorising. Our brains are seemingly infinite in there idea constructing, what makes everyone seem to think the universe is not working in a similar way: infinitely complex chaos being ordered by random (maybe willful) actions?


Given the many different creation myths around the world, the western mind is not the only one that likes beginnings & ends. Perhaps it's a hardwired human trait.

From scientific studies, we get the Big Bang model which shows that the universe had a beginning but will not have an end (other than an end in the sense of all matter falling apart...but spacetime goes on). If you pop over to the String Theory forum, you'll probably find some discussions of potential pre-Big Bang time (whatever that means) which may hint at an infinite timeline in the past too.


SHAPE OF UNIVERSE: ok, people keep referring to to the OBSERVABLE universe, observable by what? Our seemingly limited sensory organs that zoom in on SELECTED details?


The observable universe means the portion of the universe that is within our field of view based on the finite speed of light and the age of the universe. Since the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, we have the potential to see things up to 13.7 billion light years away (ok, I'm simplifying here). For anything further than that, the light has not had time to reach us.

So, it doesn't mean the portion we can detect (and we know that we can't detect a whole bunch of stuff within the observable universe...like dark matter).

Tools (technology) have been one of human beings' greatest achievements, don't get me wrong, but sometimes i just think we need to remember that they based on our own constantly developing understanding of light, lenses etc. and not some universally profound higher knowledge.


Certainly.


how can we trust observations through our eyes or through the lenses of telescopes (radio, x-ray or whatever) concerning the beginning of space and time, when we are on a planet that seems to be rotating around its own axis, its own star, around its own spiral galaxy? all this movement seems to point towards some extremely large distortions of evidence.


Astronomers are aware of all that motion and they take it into account as best they can when they do their calculations (e.g., doppler shift of lightwaves, rotating a telescope at the same rate to cancel out the effect of relative lateral motion, etc.)

Anyway, rest assured that cosmologists readily admit that we have a lot to learn still about the universe!

[Nereid]

I didn't realize until now that Relativity is based on the idea of something affected by two reference frames. I have this interesting, simple physical model that has the two reference frames as one of its features. There is the reference frame we see, and the reference frame that causes what we see. I now see that is the same as Relativity. Now I see that Einstein, and his girlfriend, were trying to explain things that were really happening in experiments. In my model, atoms change shape (contract, expand) because of the space around them. That contraction causes both gravity and momentum in objects to work.

I pursued this model of a universe made out of physical points of matter. I figured out how things move through that sea of matter.

I thought Einstein arrived at the idea of contraction through math. But it was an unexplained phenomena that was in an experiment! All of Relativity was apparently based on that experiment. In my model I realized things had to expand on one side and contract on the other as they got faster, in order to maintain constant momentum while traversing a sea of matter, which we call space.

This contraction/expansion of molecules is also what causes gravity to work. There is a test of my ideas. I believe the neutrons cause molecules to change thier shape. Therefore neutrons cause gravity. Hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, and hydrogen clouds in space which maintain their shape for centuries don't appear to have any gravity. Hydrogen also doesn't appear to have any momentum. The explosion of a star goes out into space then stops. It doesn't dissipate nor does it collapse back.These ideas are pretty easy - in principle! - to test John, and AFAIK hydrogen has mass, and is 'affected by gravity'. For example, the Sun's mass has been measured to several decimal places; models of the Sun, built with theories in which mass causes gravity (whether the mass is H, D, He, or pure neutrons) are consistent with observations.

You mention that you think neutrons cause molecules to change their shape - how? in what ways? can you point to experiments which have found that the addition of neutrons to an atomic species in a molecule results in changes in the shape of that molecule? Perhaps water - if it is D2O instead ('heavy water'), will its shape be different? What about if the O is 18O instead of 16O?

[John]

The same mechanism that produces gravity produces mass in large objects. You can't measure the mass of the sun and say its mass is not equal to its gravity, therefore I am wrong. Mass in large objects and gravity are always going to be equivalent.

The thing you can do is measure the mass of Jupiter. Its mass is about five times that of earth according to my merky memory. Then say, "What? Jupitor is only five times heavier than earth?" That doesn't seem right! All the figures are right. It projects that much gravity and its mass is exactly equivalent to its gravity, but it is not as much heavier than earth as we would expect, considering its size. Jupiter is mostly hydrogen.

The hydrogen doesn't seem to be registering as much mass as it should, considering the size of Jupiter.

The sun is also different. It is a nuclear reaction in progress. You can't really say it is hydrogen. It is hydrogen being torn apart, and the hydrogen is becoming a form of neutrons. Neutrons produce gravity, I say. Neutrons are also instrumental in producing mass in large objects. So I say both gravity and mass are from neutrons.

We can't take the particles inside an atom, add up their weights and get its mass; for a lot of reasons, dark matter is one of them, and when you examine closely it seems that hydrogen, which should be registering, isn't really registering.

I developed a mecahnism for how mass does work. The faster you push something the more it contracts. In my model it just did. I didn't know that was the basic idea behind Relativity. That contraction causes it to maintain a consistent speed through a space that is more like a sea with waves than a empty expanse.

[magus niche]

cheers phobos for your response! this forum gets me thinking a lot, and i am curious to know the relevance of knowledge of things so far away that we cannot observe them. i suppose i ask myself similar qusetions about knowledge concerning the mind and other subjects that are difficult to ponder upon. As a visual artist and musician i am starting to view my place in the world as a 'medium' between the everyday practical, and the eternally ethereal. I believe in questioning everything. Not doubting everything, but believing in everything, sort of.

To me it seems that the universe is infinite and in balance between chaos and order, but how about the planet we live on? i suppose what i am getting at is maybe there are links to be made between the stars and atoms and one should always be looking for similarities between the macro AND the micro AND everything in between. but that isn't the astrophysicist's job though i suppose...

to continue my thinking out aloud: what gives the human being the right to define boundaries based on generalisations? do i or anyone else have the right not to consider say, a cell, as a universe, or maybe the human body? hmm... interesting...

these correlations have been made for thousands of years by mystics in various cultures around the world. its curious that specific sciences and disciplines 'zoom in' to various details without thinking about the overall relevance to life on planet Earth (which we are only one small part). i am not pointing a finger to anyone in particular (in fact these discussions give me confidence that there is a lot of speculating going on) but does anyone see my point?

catchya :wink:

[Chronos]

Your point is not supported by facts in evidence. Modern science is very good and has a lot of observational evidence in support. It is not speculative and it is not arbitrary. Just because you don't like some of it does not make it wrong. Join the crowd, there are many who do not like the implications. You are entitled to question theory, but, it is entirely wrong to question observation: unless the observation is in error. You don't have to take my word for it, but, observational evidence gets pounded before it gets published. Anymore, most writers routinely quantify the uncertainty in their results.

[Harveyf]

I must agree with Chronos on observational evidence as opposed to conjecture. As my life ticks by, I am confronted daily with the marvelous human mind coming up with alternative explanations to observational realities. The universe exhibits its presence to me in absolute terms. Although I am ignorant of the processes involved in its origins and maintenance, I am subjected to the reality of its existence by the senses I am endowed with in my evolutionary development. I am aware of what I am looking at: Space, Time, Matter, and my participation in that reality, until such a moment when I reach a state of immateriality. All else is conjecture, and flights of fancy, until hard evidence reveals an alternative truth to what my senses reveal as positive. As to where black holes empty into, or the singularity produced by gravity wells, various dimensions of being, and super strings of creation; all of these high-minded subjects cannot increase [or decrease] the certainty of what my senses perceive of what is "out there." I may never grasp the concepts created by the laws and disciplines of physical science; I am, after all, just a creature of philosophical romanticism, but I am always open to the dialogue [and dialectic] which produces the excitement of new ideas, and alternative evidentiaries which keep moving my species towards a greater understanding of the observational reality of "what is!"
Harveyf

[magus niche]

absolutely: observation is all we can really go by i suppose, just keeping you on you're toes, not floating in space - it's not a race.

to dismiss the mind and it's inherent biases would be a big mistake, would you not agree? and how do we map this enigmatic entity? probably the same way we mapped the physical world: reductive generalisations, but ones we seem destined to make.

isn't the world a magic place?:rofl: confusingly beautiful and simply infinite. anyway i'll cruise over to the less physical forums and leave you in peace...

[Harveyf]

Not at all, Magus; happy to receive your response - nothing like parallel wavelengths to make the conversation stimulating. Where, exactly, is the "less physical" forum you allude to? Perhaps I'll stroll over and see what's cooking.
Harveyf

[magus niche]

check out philosophy:metaphysics, for a range of views on existence. cheers see you round