Could the Big Bang Be the Middle of the Universe?

[gruff]

I've been reading Julian Barbour's excellent book 'The End of Time' which is based on his work on foundational issues in Physics (specifically time and space). I like his ideas a lot, however I'm sure I read in it a description of the big bang which was in reference to Mach, I think, that showed the reversibility of direction of time. So you could imagine a universe in which the big bang is not the 'beginning' but the middle as it were. To put it in very flaky terms, imagine that on the 'other side' of the big bang event is a mirror universe with time running in the other direction. I've imagined it like two cones touching at their apexes. I might have hacked it together from more than one place though.

I like the idea because that it gets rid of the question 'what was before the big bang' because you can imagine an infinite universe temporally (ie heat death at either end, well you know what I mean) but with a creation event in the middle.

Is this a possible scenario? If so where can I read more about it?

 

[qraal]

I've been reading Julian Barbour's excellent book 'The End of Time' which is based on his work on foundational issues in Physics (specifically time and space). I like his ideas a lot, however I'm sure I read in it a description of the big bang which was in reference to Mach, I think, that showed the reversibility of direction of time. So you could imagine a universe in which the big bang is not the 'beginning' but the middle as it were. To put it in very flaky terms, imagine that on the 'other side' of the big bang event is a mirror universe with time running in the other direction. I've imagined it like two cones touching at their apexes. I might have hacked it together from more than one place though.

I like the idea because that it gets rid of the question 'what was before the big bang' because you can imagine an infinite universe temporally (ie heat death at either end, well you know what I mean) but with a creation event in the middle.

Is this a possible scenario? If so where can I read more about it?

Hmmm. Does sound rather novel. I think we need more details before saying whether it's viable or not. Usually reverse time Universes have a Big Bang/Big Crunch symmetry with exact time-reversal between the two 'sides'.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, from what I understand, this picture is incredibly implausible, because it completely fails to explain the extreme low entropy of that middle point between the two universes.

 

[Dmitry67]

Well, from what I understand, this picture is incredibly implausible, because it completely fails to explain the extreme low entropy of that middle point between the two universes.

Low entropy is low at the BB - it is a part of the initial conditions.
Entropy increases symmetrically on the both sides.
On both sides time arrow points away from the BB and observers in both parts of that universe interpret it as 'expansion' with BB in the past.

This is much more beautiful then the Big Bounce scenario, with infinitely complex initial conditions at -inf, and the mysterious decrease of entropy just before the Big Bounce.

 

[Chalnoth]

Low entropy is low at the BB - it is a part of the initial conditions.

Yes, but why? The thing is, it's vastly more likely to spontaneously generate a universe created just as it is today (as today our universe has much higher entropy), than it is to go through the trouble of making a big bang.

Any theory of origins, for it to be plausible, must make it so that it is more likely for a big bang to happen than for a universe like the one we see to spontaneously pop out of a thermal bath.

Entropy increases symmetrically on the both sides.
On both sides time arrow points away from the BB and observers in both parts of that universe interpret it as 'expansion' with BB in the past.

This is much more beautiful then the Big Bounce scenario, with infinitely complex initial conditions at -inf, and the mysterious decrease of entropy just before the Big Bounce.

Uh, it's actually the same thing. A decrease in entropy is the same thing as having the arrow of time run in the other direction.

 

[Dmitry67]

1
Yes, but why? The thing is, it's vastly more likely to spontaneously generate a universe created just as it is today (as today our universe has much higher entropy), than it is to go through the trouble of making a big bang.

2
Uh, it's actually the same thing. A decrease in entropy is the same thing as having the arrow of time run in the other direction.

1 I believe initial conditions fix the state of the omnium at some point or region. So it is just one another equation in the theory. Then the initial conditions are NULL, and there are just the equations

As MWIer, I see this picture as even more beautiful: as on both sides of BB evolution is the same, then the state of the omnuim is symmetric at t=0. So both sides of the BB are identical

2
No
To my surprise, Big Bounce people believe that before the BB entropy INCREASED, so BB was in the future. Then there was a sudden and mysterious drop of entropy few plank times before the BB. Universes before and after BB in that theory look totally different.

 

[Chalnoth]

1 I believe initial conditions fix the state of the omnium at some point or region. So it is just one another equation in the theory. Then the initial conditions are NULL, and there are just the equations

As MWIer, I see this picture as even more beautiful: as on both sides of BB evolution is the same, then the state of the omnuim is symmetric at t=0. So both sides of the BB are identical

Yes, but this hypothesis fails when compared against Boltzmann Brains: if it is true, then there are vastly more Boltzmann Brains than real observers, which is counter to our observation that we are real observers (evidenced by the fact that inference works).

2
No
To my surprise, Big Bounce people believe that before the BB entropy INCREASED, so BB was in the future. Then there was a sudden and mysterious drop of entropy few plank times before the BB. Universes before and after BB in that theory look totally different.

It does depend upon which bounce scenario you are talking about. The fully-symmetric bounce is the most simple, and least likely.

 

[Dmitry67]

We are entering very slippery territory: we are talking about different mathematical universes. Can we use the 'probability' argument there?

For example, say, there is only one universe with null initial conditions
1000 universes with number N<1000 as initial condition
1000'000 universes with 2 number N,M <1000 as initial conditions
1000'000'000 universes with 3 numbers etc.

So there are 1'000'000'000 such universes per only one universe without initial conditions. Does it mean that there are 'more' such universes and they are 'more likely'? I think the opposite is true.

 

[Chalnoth]

We are entering very slippery territory: we are talking about different mathematical universes. Can we use the 'probability' argument there?

For example, say, there is only one universe with null initial conditions
1000 universes with number N<1000 as initial condition
1000'000 universes with 2 number N,M <1000 as initial conditions
1000'000'000 universes with 3 numbers etc.

So there are 1'000'000'000 such universes per only one universe without initial conditions. Does it mean that there are 'more' such universes and they are 'more likely'? I think the opposite is true.

The point is that this idea (a universe symmetric in time) predicts that observers should observe things very, very differently then what we see. It is, therefore, almost certainly wrong.

 

[Dmitry67]

The point is that this idea (a universe symmetric in time) predicts that observers should observe things very, very differently then what we see. It is, therefore, almost certainly wrong.

Please clarify
What would be different?

 

[Chalnoth]

Please clarify
What would be different?

As I said, it's the Boltzmann brain argument. Basically, it's a reductio ad absurdum. The argument goes like this:

Imagine that the universe could be born out of a thermal bath. Small fluctuations out of a thermal bath are quite common, while large fluctuations are exceedingly rare. Our universe could just be a rare fluctuation. But then, if our universe's distant past is a rare fluctuation, then the higher-entropy later universe would be more common. And single brains fluctuating out of nothing would be more common still. Thus, if this low-entropy early universe fluctuated out of a thermal bath, then the prediction is that the vast majority of observers would be those that fluctuated out of a vacuum, and those will, overwhelmingly, not see an ordered universe (generally their observations will be highly disjointed and disordered, making no sense). Because we do observe an ordered universe, one in which inference works, we can be pretty confident that that is not us.

Which, in turn, makes us quite confident that any theory which predicts that the most common sort of observer is a Boltzmann Brain just can't be correct. That is why the simplest bounce scenario, the symmetric time one, just doesn't make sense.

 

[Dmitry67]

Imagine that the universe could be born out of a thermal bath. - as we know, it is false, and the 2nd law exists because of the initial conditions at the Big Bang (check Loschmidt's paradox). And if entropy at BB was low then arrow of time always points away from the BB (in our case, symmetrically in different directions of both sides)

So I don't understand your argument. You begin from a false statement... so what?

 

[WhoWee]

So you could imagine a universe in which the big bang is not the 'beginning' but the middle as it were. To put it in very flaky terms, imagine that on the 'other side' of the big bang event is a mirror universe with time running in the other direction. I've imagined it like two cones touching at their apexes.

Do you mean to say that Time might be a line running in two directions?

 

[gruff]

Do you mean to say that Time might be a line running in two directions?

Yes. Like the number line with 0 in the middle. From the point of view of observers on either side of the BB there appears to be a beginning to the universe but there is no such thing. It would simply be an artefact of the arrow of time on each side.

 

[gruff]

Imagine that the universe could be born out of a thermal bath. - as we know, it is false, and the 2nd law exists because of the initial conditions at the Big Bang (check Loschmidt's paradox). And if entropy at BB was low then arrow of time always points away from the BB (in our case, symmetrically in different directions of both sides)

Hi Dmity67. It's like the North Pole analogy: every direction from the NP is south. Likewise every time from a BB is the 'future' but there are only two paths to take.

I'm not a physicist so I can only think philosophically about it. But I'd like to know more.

 

[Dmitry67]

Exactly

 

[twofish-quant]

One really weird idea is to see how Boltzman's brain arguments would work if a random thermal fluctuation tripped over some phase transition (i.e. inflation). It would be cool, if one could show that if you end up hitting some phase transition, then this resolves Boltzman's brain issues, hence any coherent universe must have inflation.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm not a physicist so I can only think philosophically about it. But I'd like to know more.

Trying to figure out what the universe is like using abstract philosophy rarely work very well. Also beautiful elegant theories generally fall apart when you hit messy reality, so that if someone comes up with a beautiful, elegant theory in an area with no data, then I tend to distrust it.

The way physics works is

(assume something) -> (figure out the consequences of that assumption) -> (see it doesn't work)

And after eliminating things that don't work, you end up with stuff that is standing. The problem with a double cone-shaped universe is that it's not obvious how you prove that it's wrong.

 

[Chronos]

My gripe with bounces is not a single quark is lost or gained in the process. The whole idea otherwise collapses [or falls apart] after a finite number of bounces.

 

[gruff]

Trying to figure out what the universe is like using abstract philosophy rarely work very well. Also beautiful elegant theories generally fall apart when you hit messy reality, so that if someone comes up with a beautiful, elegant theory in an area with no data, then I tend to distrust it.

The way physics works is

(assume something) -> (figure out the consequences of that assumption) -> (see it doesn't work)

And after eliminating things that don't work, you end up with stuff that is standing. The problem with a double cone-shaped universe is that it's not obvious how you prove that it's wrong.

Thanks for the lesson in the scientific method but I understand that already ;)

I was indirectly asking what physics would falsify it, whether is a case of being 'not even wrong', rather than philosophical objections.

[There are lots of other hypotheses that deal with why the BB occurred that originate with semi-philosophical ideas (colliding branes, multiverse etc), there's nothing wrong with that. Inflation is an example of a conceptual what-if hypothesis which then drives the physics. Likewise relativity began as an idea, Einstein didn't come across it by directly manipulating equations. Maxwell's another example too. Science is creative.

String theory isn't exactly teeming with testable predictions and seems to be based on intuition and a mathematical sense of 'beauty'.

As I understand it both approaches (mathematical and philosophical) attempt to find correlations between currently unconnected areas of knowledge to create new structure. You then test that new structure against experiment.
(physics is predicated on the 'abstract philosophical' idea that you can represent real things as symbols in mathematics. Mathematics has its own rich structure independent of reality, its the task of Physics to find which mathematical patterns match reality).]

Back to the question then. I can think of two reasons why its not a good idea.
1.All information is destroyed at the BB so no causal connection between both sides. You might as well hypothesise a single BB event as we do now. Unless its feasible for each side to develop independently.
2.It might remove the 'why' question for the BB as a creation event of the entire universe, but you're still left with 'why' a time-symmetrical universe existed at all.

 

[Chalnoth]

Imagine that the universe could be born out of a thermal bath. - as we know, it is false, and the 2nd law exists because of the initial conditions at the Big Bang (check Loschmidt's paradox). And if entropy at BB was low then arrow of time always points away from the BB (in our case, symmetrically in different directions of both sides)

So I don't understand your argument. You begin from a false statement... so what?

What I'm saying is that for any theory of the universe to make any sense at all, it has to explain why it started in a low-entropy state. Merely stating that it happened that way doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Dmitry67]

Now I understand.

If we are talking about the state of matter, then high entropy state is more likely, I agree.

But when we are comparing different mathematical universes, or universes with the same equations but different initial conditions, then universes with simpler (or null) initial conditions are more likely.

The meaning of the word 'likely' is different in both cases. In the first cases it is a probability. In the second case it is a result of ocamms razor.

 

[twofish-quant]

String theory isn't exactly teeming with testable predictions and seems to be based on intuition and a mathematical sense of 'beauty'.

My general sense is that people have been giving up on string theory over the last few years.

Back to the question then. I can think of two reasons why its not a good idea.
1.All information is destroyed at the BB so no causal connection between both sides. You might as well hypothesise a single BB event as we do now. Unless its feasible for each side to develop independently.
2.It might remove the 'why' question for the BB as a creation event of the entire universe, but you're still left with 'why' a time-symmetrical universe existed at all.

One thing that I have noticed is that people have been starting to use anthropic arguments in cosmology. Since there is no particular reason to assume that the universe started out the way it is, you start by assuming that there are a large number of universes produced, and then assume that the requirement that we see the universe selects out some of the gazillion universes produced.

It's one of those "we don't know if it will get us anywhere, but it's work thinking about for a while" things.

 

[Chalnoth]

My general sense is that people have been giving up on string theory over the last few years.

I don't think that's the case at all, though it would be difficult to know for sure. It seems more like people are just making the switch to working on LHC and peripheral studies for the time being. When the high-energy experiment field slows down again, I think we can expect string theory work to pick up. Unless, of course, the results of the LHC present us with an entirely new direction for high-energy theory.

One thing that I have noticed is that people have been starting to use anthropic arguments in cosmology. Since there is no particular reason to assume that the universe started out the way it is, you start by assuming that there are a large number of universes produced, and then assume that the requirement that we see the universe selects out some of the gazillion universes produced.

It's one of those "we don't know if it will get us anywhere, but it's work thinking about for a while" things.

Well, yes, but in my opinion we should have always been going this route. It seems rather likely, after all, that of the parameter space which we are aware, life only inhabits a minuscule fraction of that space. So the most natural way to get life is if the universe explores the entire available parameter space.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

One really weird idea is to see how Boltzman's brain arguments would work if a random thermal fluctuation tripped over some phase transition (i.e. inflation). It would be cool, if one could show that if you end up hitting some phase transition, then this resolves Boltzman's brain issues, hence any coherent universe must have inflation.

Boltzmann's brain concept is by far the most stupid thing that has ever been considered in science. Well at least modern science. It comes from deep misunderstanding of nature of consciousness, or from intentional abuse at least.
Even if you avoid engaging in definition of consciousness, it is still pure manipulation.

You can take some unlikely event, or even worse, series of unlikely events, which lead to some consequence, and claim that since chances for that development are next to none, then that probably didn't happen, or if it did there must be some parallel existence where pure chance wins. You will end up with disassociation of reality, and nothing useful can not be deduced.
It is certainly not helpful to understand how from time before time, without any known law of physics, universe become what we observe today.

 

[twofish-quant]

It is certainly not helpful to understand how from time before time, without any known law of physics, universe become what we observe today.

I think it's very useful. The Boltzman's brain argument is that if you *assume* that the big bang occurred due to reasons X, Y, and Z, you end up seeing a universe that's very different from what we see, therefore X, Y, Z probably is not what gave rise to the big bang.

You understand what did happen, by eliminating what *didn't* happen.

 

[Chalnoth]

Boltzmann's brain concept is by far the most stupid thing that has ever been considered in science. Well at least modern science. It comes from deep misunderstanding of nature of consciousness, or from intentional abuse at least.
Even if you avoid engaging in definition of consciousness, it is still pure manipulation.

You can take some unlikely event, or even worse, series of unlikely events, which lead to some consequence, and claim that since chances for that development are next to none, then that probably didn't happen, or if it did there must be some parallel existence where pure chance wins. You will end up with disassociation of reality, and nothing useful can not be deduced.
It is certainly not helpful to understand how from time before time, without any known law of physics, universe become what we observe today.

You've misunderstood the argument. It's as twofish-quant said: if you say that our universe started out a certain way, and that particular way of our universe beginning predicts more Boltzmann Brains than real observers, then our universe can't have started out that way.

 

[Dmitry67]

Then it is clear why it started from a state with low entropy

 

[Chalnoth]

Then it is clear why it started from a state with low entropy

How is that, then?

 

[Dmitry67]

It is based on your words

It's as twofish-quant said: if you say that our universe started out a certain way, and that particular way of our universe beginning predicts more Boltzmann Brains than real observers, then our universe can't have started out that way.

Lets assume that universe did not start from a state with low entropy. If it started from a state with high entropy then Boltzman logic would be correct - we live in a huge fluatuation. So it predicts only Boltzmann observers

BB with low entropy predicts 'real' observers

 

[Chalnoth]

Lets assume that universe did not start from a state with low entropy. If it started from a state with high entropy then Boltzman logic would be correct - we live in a huge fluatuation. So it predicts only Boltzmann observers

BB with low entropy predicts 'real' observers

Er, no. The fact that our universe started at low entropy is an observational fact. However our universe began has to be consistent with that fact. The question is how we ended up with a low-entropy universe in the first place.

The Boltzmann Brain argument rules out a class of otherwise possible explanations for the observed fact of a low-entropy early universe.

 

[Dmitry67]

Yes, if is an observational fact but it changes NOTHING in what I posted above:

Lets assume that universe did not start from a state with low entropy. If it started from a state with high entropy then Boltzman logic would be correct - we live in a huge fluatuation. So it predicts only Boltzmann observers

BB with low entropy predicts 'real' observers

So your argument explains WHY we need to have low entropy at BB.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, if is an observational fact but it changes NOTHING in what I posted above:

So your argument explains WHY we need to have low entropy at BB.

I think you've misunderstood the argument. The Boltzmann Brain argument assumes the observed fact of a low-entropy start.

 

[Dmitry67]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Boltzmann proposed that we and our observed low-entropy world are a random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe

So, "we are random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe"
--> there are only Boltzmann brains
--> This is a bad universe as no real observers exist
--> entropy MUST be low at BB.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

Chalnoth, tell me please, do you believe that universe is spatially open, or that it is closed. Are you proponent of infinite or finite universe?

 

[Chalnoth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Boltzmann proposed that we and our observed low-entropy world are a random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe

So, "we are random fluctuation in a higher-entropy universe"
--> there are only Boltzmann brains
--> This is a bad universe as no real observers exist
--> entropy MUST be low at BB.

No. This does not follow.

The argument is as such:
1. Our universe had very low entropy at its start.
2. We assume that our universe was born out of a thermal fluctuation out of equilibrium.
3. However, small thermal fluctuations are vastly more common than large ones.
4. Therefore observers born out of small fluctuations vastly outnumber those who are born out of large fluctuations. The smallest possible fluctuation is a brain born out of this thermal bath, complete with memories and false observations of a false universe. These "Boltzmann Brains" would vastly outnumber real observers if point (2) is true.
5. Therefore our universe was not born out of a thermal bath in this sense.

Any theory, for it to say anything at all about the beginnings of our universe, must overcome this, and predict more real observers than Boltzmann Brains. Simply positing a low-entropy beginning doesn't work, as it isn't explaining anything. You have to posit why the entropy was low in the first place.

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, tell me please, do you believe that universe is spatially open, or that it is closed. Are you proponent of infinite or finite universe?

None of the above.

The observational evidence, so far, has yet to detect a definitive deviation from flatness. So at the very least it is very flat. This doesn't actually say anything about whether the universe is finite or infinite, because the curvature that we measure within our observable region may well be different outside it. So even if we had a definitive non-zero measurement of the spatial curvature within our volume, we still couldn't say whether or not our universe was finite or infinite (unless, of course, we were able to detect observational evidence of our universe wrapping back on itself, which also hasn't been detected).

Now, I personally think that the most likely answer is that as far as spatial extent is concerned, the region that was born out of our big bang event is probably quite finite. But I tend to suspect that the number of such events is actually infinite, such that the universe as a whole is very much infinite.

 

[Dmitry67]

No. This does not follow.

The argument is as such:
1. Our universe had very low entropy at its start.
2. We assume that our universe was born out of a thermal fluctuation out of equilibrium.
3. However, small thermal fluctuations are vastly more common than large ones.
4. Therefore observers born out of small fluctuations vastly outnumber those who are born out of large fluctuations. The smallest possible fluctuation is a brain born out of this thermal bath, complete with memories and false observations of a false universe. These "Boltzmann Brains" would vastly outnumber real observers if point (2) is true.
5. Therefore our universe was not born out of a thermal bath in this sense.

Any theory, for it to say anything at all about the beginnings of our universe, must overcome this, and predict more real observers than Boltzmann Brains. Simply positing a low-entropy beginning doesn't work, as it isn't explaining anything. You have to posit why the entropy was low in the first place.

What a nonsense!
1 and 2 are inconsistent! So the rest makes no sense at all.
And also our Universe was not 'born of equlibruim of something' - unless you are going 'Beyond the Standard model' into the superstrings, the Bulk which produces the universes etc. But it is an offtopic. We can just compare 2 scenarios: BB with high entropy and BB with low entropy.

At first, should we follow the commonly accepted description of Boltzmann brains (from Wiki) or not? Answer first.

 

[Chalnoth]

What a nonsense!
1 and 2 are inconsistent! So the rest makes no sense at all.

They're only inconsistent due to the Boltzmann Brain argument in the first place. That's what this argument shows.

At first, should we follow the commonly accepted description of Boltzmann brains (from Wiki) or not? Answer first.

Yes.

 

[Dmitry67]

ok, let's begin from the very beginning

"We assume that our universe was born out of a thermal fluctuation out of equilibrium"

We can not assume that. When something is "born" then there is BEFORE the birth and AFTER the birth, and a state of that something BEFORE the birth. So this statement is equivalent to the famous "What happened before the Big Bang?" or "What caused the Big Bang?"

Do you agree?

 

[Chalnoth]

ok, let's begin from the very beginning

"We assume that our universe was born out of a thermal fluctuation out of equilibrium"

We can not assume that. When something is "born" then there is BEFORE the birth and AFTER the birth, and a state of that something BEFORE the birth. So this statement is equivalent to the famous "What happened before the Big Bang?" or "What caused the Big Bang?"

Do you agree?

Let me put it this way. If you want to talk about a universe being born at random, no matter whether it was "from nothing" or from a pre-existing thermal bath, the analysis is the same. It just doesn't matter.

 

[Dmitry67]

I deny that we can use the word 'Born'

The word 'Born' uses the time.
The word 'From' assumed some time dimension and transition from something into something. I also deny that.
As a special case, the universe we discuss exists from -inf to +inf, so it was never 'born from something', including 'from nothing'. It simply existed. Like pi or sin(x)
The word 'random' and theory of probability requires multiple trials. Not applicable in this case.

So in you statement "universe being born at random, no matter whether it was "from nothing" or from a pre-existing thermal bath, the analysis is the same" there are more words I don't agree with then I agree. So it is difficult point to start.

You are trying to apply simple common sense reasoning/things to the Universe and Big Bang. We can't do it. Listen, Loop Gravity Guys even deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, claiming that the entropy had been mysteriously 'reset to 0' at the Big Bounce. If we take another school, spuperstrings, then at BB there were more spatial directions and who-hows-how-many-of-these-dimensions-behaved as time! If we are talking about the BULK then we don't know the number of time dimensions too: it could be 0,1,2 or all.

And you are talking about the "thermal bath" before the big bang! We even don't know if there was time!

 

[gruff]

I think Dmitry67 is more convincing so far. Chalnoth, doesn't the Bolzman argument presume a classical background time and so your framing of it slips in the need for causation arbitrarily. Isn't this begging the question?

 

[Chalnoth]

I think Dmitry67 is more convincing so far. Chalnoth, doesn't the Bolzman argument presume a classical background time and so your framing of it slips in the need for causation arbitrarily. Isn't this begging the question?

Well, no. All that the Boltzmann argument presumes is that the laws of physics (including gravity) are unitary. This is a statement that even though the current, very large universe appears very very different from the minuscule inflating patch it came from, the two are, in a sense, just two different configurations of the same physical system.

And if they are just two different configurations of the same system, then the 'initial' configuration during inflation was an exceedingly special configuration indeed: there are vastly, vastly more ways for a universe to look like the universe we see around us than there are for it to look like a small inflating patch. So that if our universe is to be uncaused, then it is more likely to appear in its present state than it is to appear as a small inflating patch.

This is somewhat counterintuitive, just because it doesn't seem reasonable that our universe could possible "just appear" in its present state, complete with the photons on the way from distant stars and all. But if we are to believe unitarity, then it seems that it is necessarily the case that it is even more weird for a universe to "just appear" as a small, inflating region.

 

[Chalnoth]

You are trying to apply simple common sense reasoning/things to the Universe and Big Bang. We can't do it. Listen, Loop Gravity Guys even deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, claiming that the entropy had been mysteriously 'reset to 0' at the Big Bounce. If we take another school, spuperstrings, then at BB there were more spatial directions and who-hows-how-many-of-these-dimensions-behaved as time! If we are talking about the BULK then we don't know the number of time dimensions too: it could be 0,1,2 or all.

It seems to me that you are trying to wiggle out of the argument by making special allowances that are pretty darned unlikely, such as the idea that the "big bang" event that we see in the past of our region of space-time was the only one.

And you are talking about the "thermal bath" before the big bang! We even don't know if there was time!

Actually, there isn't time in a thermal bath at equilibrium. At least, there is no arrow of time. There may or not be a dimension of time, but there is no arrow of time.

 

[Dmitry67]

All that the Boltzmann argument presumes is that the laws of physics (including gravity) are unitary. This is a statement that even though the current, very large universe appears very very different from the minuscule inflating patch it came from, the two are, in a sense, just two different configurations of the same physical system.

Yes, so it is applicable to 2 moments of time in our universe (if the number of time dimensions is still 1 and 2nd law is still valid - which is not guaranteed at plank times, but let's ignore it now)

But it can not be used to say something about the INITIAL conditions because they are INITIAL.

In some cases, the initial conditions are indistinguishable from the laws of physics: for example, check the Goedels Universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel_metric

This is a very interesting universe with the initial conditions are not defined at some moment of time of space, but globally. Goedels inverse is eternal: Closed time-like loops cross every point in spacetime.

 

[Dmitry67]

It seems to me that you are trying to wiggle out of the argument by making special allowances that are pretty darned unlikely, such as the idea that the "big bang" event that we see in the past of our region of space-time was the only one.

Well, I am ready to play on the superstring field:
* multiple bubble universes in the so-called BULK
* different collisions between multi-dimensional branes create these baby universes
* there are many 'big bangs', as you wanted
* there is 'something', which created these universes, as you wanted.

But now *YOU* must prove that 2nd law of thermodynamics is valid in the BULK.
To begin, try to find out how many dimensions BULK has and how many dimensions of them are TIME
It would be a great help to the superstring theory.

 

[gruff]

Well, no. All that the Boltzmann argument presumes is that the laws of physics (including gravity) are unitary. This is a statement that even though the current, very large universe appears very very different from the minuscule inflating patch it came from, the two are, in a sense, just two different configurations of the same physical system.

OK, I think I understand you: it presumes an exiting physical universe, the thermal bath, with no arrow of time.

 

[Dmitry67]

OK, I think I understand you: it presumes an exiting physical universe, the thermal bath, with no arrow of time.

... which is not compatible with GR.

 

[Chalnoth]

OK, I think I understand you: it presumes an exiting physical universe, the thermal bath, with no arrow of time.

Hmmm, not quite. Granted, the original argument presumed this, but it isn't necessary to do so. Notice that my last post didn't actually make any reference to a pre-existing state, as it's merely pointing out that the early universe had lower entropy than the current universe, and that essential fact absolutely requires explanation.