Big Bang, big rip, lQc, has anyone ever run a computer simulation?

[yoda-morpheus]

I have a question regarding LQC that I can't find anywhere, and since most of the relevant answers to similar questions are here I may as well ask, here...

For a simple background, when I was introduced to the big rip and combined that with the big bang, I immediately thought the two co-existed in a cycle. But the question was in how they combine to a cycle.

LQC seems to validate what happens in-between these two events, and so does seem to validate the big bang, the big rip, and what is in-between these events.

Before I was aware of LQC, I read a paper that I cannot find online anymore that some scientists calculated backwards in time past 0, and found it arrived in an entirely new time...

We would think that all of this 'evidence' confirms what we all assume outside of physics as computer scientists. (note: if you want to prove these theories, all we really need to do since we will never observe them ourselves is to put them into computer simulations and see what happens)...

Knowing these things, I still can't find an answer to a simple problem that plagues me with something I need to get across to people:

Q = Given a cyclic nature of all of this, and that time is either 2,3,4 dimensional instead of 1, the real question then becomes what happens as we keep going not just into the time of 1 universe before this one (which was already done), but as we keep going 2,3,4,5,6...N universes before this one??

The reason for doing this is not to prove any theory, exactly, but rather to display the exact properties of time as it relates to space expansion, implosion, bounce, and re-expansion.

The idea is simple - given you create a computer calculation given a proper and accurate time equation that we can use to calculate backwards in time 1..N universes in the past, we then collect in a file these two things:

(a) the exact time the universe before ours ended
(b) the exact time the universe before that one ended.
(c) ...continue.

This proves one of two things about the properties of time that I think everyone is failing to acknowledge right now, being caught up in the in-between of big bang and big rip...

1. In this computer loop, we can easily state whether time as it relates to space is only two-dimensional if it forms a circle that never changes, thereby assuming that if we tie most of modern physics together, time would form a circle on a x,y plane (regardless of its actual shape) and therefore the end of (a), (b), (c).. above would be exactly the same number...

2. If it is the case that (a) > (b) > (c), this would tell us with a lot of mathematical certainty that time is three dimensional in this form of reality, just like space, since we can assume if time's end on each universe is larger than the previous, it actually confirms the *idea* of Einstein that the universe is infinite, which either way we have already basically proven looking at only time itself.

The difference here is being able to determine whether time forms a circular, 2D pattern, or an ever-expanding sphere, 3D pattern like space. Knowing this will be entirely revealing, and it is something I can't even find appropriate equations anywhere to even start building a computer algorithm to start calculating - that is why I am turning to you all...

Keep in mind, I know LQC assumes a cyclical pattern. 1&2 are both cyclical patterns. The difference here is like this - assume time is the frames of a video. Each frame represents time as it expands in this universe. The space segment is the 3D video. We can also relay in simple to describe terms other notions of relativity if we imagine a video...

So what happens at the big rip? We are at the last frame of our universe, or video. What happens between that and the big bang? Either it will play the same video in a different way (like our notion of a multiverse), or it will instead play an entirely different video (again, like our notion of a multiverse).

What happens to our next video can be proven by a computer run, or simulation of our equations, by merely plugging in realistic numbers. We cannot prove things we can't observe ourselves or test ourselves by any other means, we can only simulate them on a computer to try and prove their validity and therefore reveal to us 'what happens'...

So that brings me back to the original question - given that the universe is cyclical, *how* is it cyclical? And the answer is whether or not we know the exact calculations of when each universe before this one ends as it relates to time. We should, like I said, observe (a)=(b)=(c)=(..N) (constant, circular, 2D) or (a)>(b)>(c)>(...N=0) (absolute beginning, spherical, 3D).

If you already have the answer to this, I would love to know it. If none of you do, you're in luck: I'm an excellently unemployed computer programmer due to market conditions and societal conditions in the US - if you can explain the equation and I can understand it and its variables, I can compute and answer this for you...

Thanks,

 

[yoda-morpheus]

...Side note for physicists that I wonder about:

Another thing I am interested in understanding is this: Hawking wanted a single equation to describe the universe. Given we should make things "as simple as possible but no simpler", what I have found as a pattern in physics that people see but don't seem to realize, is we have special mathematical numbers, constants. c, pi, at times log, etc. Figuring out how light waves travel over the two wavelengths of space can reveal both time and therefore *why* c is important. Time may also be related to *pi* in some way. Figuring out *why* these constants exist in this reality will be revealing in the physics world, and nobody is concerned with trying to figure out these details. (if math describes not only our reality, but realities stacked on top of this one that we cannot observe, then one of the latter things we should try to understand is why we have special numbers all over math and physics, and how it all ties in, not just that they 'exist'...) Then we need to return to hawkings and simply state - yeah, we have one mathematical formula... It was tying all of these other formulas together...

 

[Chalnoth]

Time with more than one dimension leads to closed timelike loops. Nobody has yet figured out how to make a theory sensible that has closed timelike loops.

 

[yoda-morpheus]

...you didn't notice what I just displayed, or what is going on when you look only at time in combination with these three ordered event theories...

Imagine again time is the playhead on a video. What happens as time progresses? The playhead advances. That playhead, by itself, is one dimension.

Assuming time is only one dimension, all we then have is the definite start to the playhead (b) and the definite end (c) There is no 'repeat' or 'play something else' to that video...

If it were the case that we had only one dimension, then we would heavily be rejecting all these theories of multiple realities, a reality that expands and contracts, the notion of LQC, etc. The reason is because given a single-demensionality on time, we have only one universe and only one possible reality, and it has a definitive start and a definitive end, and absolutely nothing else ever happens.

This idea of single-demensional time I would assume by a large body of physics today is outdated. This means our reality, (u) is exactly b>u<c. And nothing further.

Rather, what we have done is already postulate that we have at least two-dimensional time, where the existence of multiple realities, and repeating realities, is continuously validated.

This implies that at least b-u-c<b2-u2-c2<bN-uN-cN, or that b0-u0-c0=b0-u1-c0...=b0-uN-c0.

This also displays the rest of what I stated in terms of a video - a video as we know it today forms two dimensions. It has a beginning, a time expanse (duration) and an end. We also know that a video has a beginning, a duration, an end, and either a repeat or a link to another video. The effect of a video having two dimensions is simple - it gets rewound or jumps to some random or selected frame, and plays again. Or, it plays an entirely new video. The same is true once you consider how these theories start coming together...

Therefore, I would have to argue that in the 20th-21st century, we have proven at least time has 2 or 3 dimensions to it already...

You just said it yourself in your statement to try and argue against what I am telling you - "Time with more than one dimension leads to closed timelike loops..." This is in accordance to your theories on the big bang, expanse, big rip, LQC, repeat - closed timelike loop.

If you expand on that idea, this concept of 'closed timelike loops' also confirms that idea that the two competing theories on this universe - whether it forms one repeating universe or a multiverse - do not actually contradict, but are complimentary theories to one-another...

Since you seem to be a physicist yet aren't concerned with these things, I'll point out another side note - confirming valid theories in physics should be as simple as putting the different pieces together to form one large jigsaw puzzle.. The theories that explain different aspects, perceptions, isolations, and a coincide and co-exist with one another, are valid and we should now be able to confirm that through cross-referencing... Theories that are completely isolated from all other theories, or are in contradiction, I would then question...

With the lack of adequate insight or response to this, I am likely going to have to just find some form of equation that is at least semi-accurate and just plug that into a computer. I don't want this to put off the stuff that I'm trying to do between this year and next...

Regards,

 

[yoda-morpheus]

To make my point that we have already defined at minimum 2D time, I need to further explain what has happened, in case people still don't understand.

(1) Imagine we have only one dimension to time. This forms only an x axis. You might think - negative x goes on to infinity, and positive x goes on to infinity...

If (1) were true, this would mean that when we then connect time by itself to space, we have both space and time going from negative infinity to positive infinity, without disruption or any event. This would mean there was never a 'big bang', or 'big rip', or 'LQC theory', or 'repeating universe or multiverse theory'...

(2) Imagine we have two dimensions to time. This forms an x,y axis, where time forms some shape on that plane, instead of a single line. If it were a single line, it would have a beginning, but no 'end'. If it were a circle, or some form of fuzzy ellipse, this would imply that there is a starting point, an expanse, and ending point that results in a new starting point, and the ellipse never changes. This would indicate that our reality would repeat over and over, meaning we live exactly the same lives in doom over and over. Yet we also know that is not true of this reality...

(3) If time forms 3 dimensions, just like space, this means for each reality it forms a different set of circumstances and events, has a beginning, end, and repetition - a cycle, and does something slightly different each time. It doesn't really matter here what I am concerned with - whether it has an absolute center and therefore an absolute beginning to it. What matters is that we are starting to correctly identify the properties of time by itself, thereby establishing evidence of Einstein that space-time is infinite, not because space is finite, but because time is infinite... This is by all theories in physics, the most probable one, and therefore you have already proven it, we just have to display 'how' it all works...

This allows us to draw better conclusions, and advance what is the most accurate according to what we cannot measure, but we can find enough evidence if we can draw computer simulations of all theories, and display how all of them interconnect to form an entirely clear picture of everything that we can possibly arrive at any understanding of...

I would also suggest that it is not the purpose of physics to invalidate any form of religion or notion of 'higher existence, purpose, or life-forms'.. That is called a 'why', and all we are concerned with in physics and as mathematicians is only 'what', 'when', 'where', and 'how'. The more accurate we get with those latter things, the more people can assume for themselves the 'why' with their own self and everything around them...

Later, dude.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm sorry, but this is a little too speculative and borders on a personal theory, both of which are not allowed per PF rules. Thread locked.

If you have some questions about LQC that are a bit more specific, feel free to ask. But talking about going back past multiple universe in the past, along with some of the other content in your posts, pushes this thread past the limit.