Evidence for pre Big Bang physical universe?

In summary, current studies are being conducted to determine the rotational velocity of the universe, which has so far shown a positive velocity. This implies the presence of angular momentum, which is always conserved according to the basic law of physics. Shrinking the universe back in time 13.7 billion years would result in the universe spinning faster and faster until it reaches the limit of the speed of light. This suggests that the "big bang" proto-universe was likely spinning, but at or below the speed of light. The question then arises as to where this angular momentum came from, leading to the hypothesis that it could be evidence of a pre-existing massive spinning object or a previous rotating universe. There are also theories about the possibility of a closed
  • #1
Tiapan
6
0
If the universe is shown to have angular velocity, is this evidence of a physical universe prior to the "Big Bang"?

Several studies are being undertaken currently to determine the rotational velocity of the universe. So far they have all indicated a positive velocity although the values determined are not all the same depending on the computational model used.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t42n638233258641/fulltext.pdf

Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. Now let's shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 billion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the "big bang" proto-universe was probably spinning, and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast, we have one very large amount of angular momentum.

Of course there are paradoxes, if the universe is spinning where is its axis? When we look at the universe it seems uniform all over with no indication of an actual physical center. That aside I continue.

My question is if the proto-universe has all this angular momentum, where did it come from? Could I hypothesis that it is possibly the legacy of some pre-existing massive spinning object obeying the conservation of angular momentum law? Could I further hypothesis that it is implied evidence of real physics prior to the "Big Bang" phenomena, such as a previous rotating universe's "Big Crunch".

I know this is a place where angels (and scientists) fear to tread, but it does work on the basis of normal natural physics. If the universes rotational velocity is measured, could this not be a priori evidence for a closed oscillating universe.

I am fully aware that current evidence indicates the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate. This would lead to the conclusion that, contrary to the above, the universe is open. Its fate the same as a flat universe, cold, dead, infinitely diluted, spread across a dark cryogenic void. This would indicate the big bang was a one off event and generates paradoxes such as how do you get such a massive amount of something like a universe, from a void of nothingness. The intellectually simpler answer is a closed universe eg oscillating universe, with no beginning or end thus removing the paradoxical question of how did it begin.

However, to be closed we need to account for the mass that appears to be missing, that would be required for the total gravity of the system to counter the expansion, slowing it, causing a reversal and eventual collapse into the next "Big Crunch".

This has prompted us to look for the "hidden" missing matter and has led to the discovery of dark matter/energy, although its exact nature is unknown it is apparently non-Baryonic.

It appears to me that a closed universe must take into account all energy/matter equivalence. During the "Big Bang" expansion phase, and matter antimatter annihilation stage, massively vast quantities of gamma radiation were emitted these would have radiated out at the speed of light in an expanding shell like process. (ever seen the old footage of a nuclear blast). Let's call this the gamma photosphere. In theory it should now have a diameter of 27.4 Billion light years, and be around 380,000 light years thick. As massive as it is I doubt we would ever be able to see it.

If E=mc^2, then the gamma photons that constitute this photosphere, have a mass equivalent of m=E/mc^2=hv/mc^2. Could this be part of our "missing" mass. But photons are massless! Are they? It seems gravity affects them and black holes trap them.

If large masses affect photons, do photons affect large masses?

Next take this shell idea to its absurdity. Although we see the Big Bang as more of an expansion than explosion over about 380,000 years, I still feel it was a fairly tumultuous environment, matter antimatter energetics are fairly explosive. So I envisage the proto-universe as some sort of violent hot quark soup, where some areas are cooler, eg the outside, allowing sub-nuclear binding, eventually forming leptons and baryons etc and emitting lots of gamma hv. I believe these particles especially on the outer fringes are literally blasted into the void continuously during this period.

Lets assume that the particles all have the same force applied (Dangerous assumption on my part but I have to start somewhere), ie total impulse, since the particles have different masses the velocity these are expelled at, will be inversely proportional to their mass. The long and the short of this model, is that like the photo sphere mentioned earlier there may be successive shells like the rings of an onion, all with far smaller diameter spheres. May be the neutrino sphere is followed by the negatively charged leptons and much further in because of their far greater mass, baryons, a shell of positively charged protons, next neutrons, alpha particles (Doubly charged), then eventually atoms ions compounds and us.

Of course this could all be arrogant nonsense because I am missing some pertinent facts, but if my logic makes sense then the question arises. What is the effect of having charged shells surrounding the inner universe, could the induced electrostatic attraction be sufficient to account for the accelerating expansion that is currently being observed?

Some things to measure and ponder.

Cheers
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. Now let's shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 billion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the "big bang" proto-universe was probably spinning, and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast, we have one very large amount of angular momentum.

I'm curious. Why do you start with the assumption that the rotational speed be limited to < c? I thought GR and all the peer efforts showed that in the singularity space is collapsed and the rotational speed has no theoretical limit. Einstein described a collapsing star spinning at speeds above c ( and was certain it would fly apart before actually collapsing into a singularity ).

I just got warned yesterday so I won't make the same mistake here, but the rotational speed is a direct result of mass ... so a black hole/singularity containing all the mass of the visible universe would have a pretty high rotation. And were it to 'go off' you would have to assume serious angular momentum ... among other effects ...
 
  • #3
pywakit said:


I'm curious. Why do you start with the assumption that the rotational speed be limited to < c? I thought GR and all the peer efforts showed that in the singularity space is collapsed and the rotational speed has no theoretical limit. Einstein described a collapsing star spinning at speeds above c ( and was certain it would fly apart before actually collapsing into a singularity )[/COLOR].

I just got warned yesterday so I won't make the same mistake here, but the rotational speed is a direct result of mass ... so a black hole/singularity containing all the mass of the visible universe would have a pretty high rotation. And were it to 'go off' you would have to assume serious angular momentum ... among other effects ...

I guess as the stationary observer on the outside, if such a place existed , I assumed c would apply, if we bring in GR and SR then we may observe from the inside other effects and greater speed. But the speed is not central to my argument about how and why a pre-existing angular momentum is present, I see it as the possible final remaining evidence of a previous collapsed universe?.

Second if we have a transition to a quantal state surely it must be a macro effect ie a quantal fluid ie Bose-Einstein condensate like cooled liquid helium. This is because a quantal singularity could not exist as a single defined point. Quantum physics says we cannot determine both position and velocity at the same time as they are probability curves of standing waves. However we could have a quantum fluid a finite volume behaving similar to liquid helium.

Cheers
 
  • #4
Tiapan said:
I guess as the stationary observer on the outside, if such a place existed , I assumed c would apply, if we bring in GR and SR then we may observe from the inside other effects and greater speed. But the speed is not central to my argument about how and why a pre-existing angular momentum is present, I see it as the possible final remaining evidence of a previous collapsed universe?.

Second if we have a transition to a quantal state surely it must be a macro effect ie a quantal fluid ie Bose-Einstein condensate like cooled liquid helium. This is because a quantal singularity could not exist as a single defined point. Quantum physics says we cannot determine both position and velocity at the same time as they are probability curves of standing waves. However we could have a quantum fluid a finite volume behaving similar to liquid helium.

Cheers

The crux of my model is ... the critical mass point of a black hole is EXACTLY equal to the total mass/energy of the visible/local universe. Everything that came FROM the big bang is the exact amount of mass necessary to CAUSE the big bang. As an eternal closed loop ... moving in a linear fashion through time ... this would be a good explanation for 'pre-existing' angular momentum.

As far as your second paragraph, I think we don't know enough about the properties of a singularity and the space it 'occupies' to make definitive assumptions.
 
  • #5
Tiapan wrote ...

My question is if the proto-universe has all this angular momentum, where did it come from? Could I hypothesis that it is possibly the legacy of some pre-existing massive spinning object obeying the conservation of angular momentum law? Could I further hypothesis that it is implied evidence of real physics prior to the "Big Bang" phenomena, such as a previous rotating universe's "Big Crunch".

.................

One of the fallacious presumptions of our species is that nothing existed before we ( and OUR universe ) came along. I am at a loss to understand why physics would not have existed prior to the existence of our visible universe. Because we we not there to observe it? Because 'ours' is the first physical object to have ever existed? This has always seemed the height of arrogance ... of unsupported ego.
 
  • #6
Tiapan said:
Several studies are being undertaken currently to determine the rotational velocity of the universe. So far they have all indicated a positive velocity although the values determined are not all the same depending on the computational model used.

Unfortunately I can't access that paper. My understanding is that all of the observations of the early universe is consistent with zero rotation.

During the "Big Bang" expansion phase, and matter antimatter annihilation stage, massively vast quantities of gamma radiation were emitted these would have radiated out at the speed of light in an expanding shell like process.

I think you have the idea that the big bang was an explosion of something expanding into something else. It's better to think of the big bang as an explosion that was happening everywhere. At a given time post-big bang, one part of the universe is going to look a lot like another part of the universe, so you don't have separate onion shells.

Except that the big bang isn't expanding into anything. When the matter-antimatter annihilation happened, then the universe was dense and hot enough so that the photons aren't going to get very far before getting reabsorbed.
 
  • #7
pywakit said:
One of the fallacious presumptions of our species is that nothing existed before we ( and OUR universe ) came along.

It's possible that nothing existed before the big bang. It's possible that everything existed before the big bang. Given a lack of evidence, then anything is possible.
 
  • #8
twofish-quant said:
It's possible that nothing existed before the big bang. It's possible that everything existed before the big bang. Given a lack of evidence, then anything is possible.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is true only where there is an ABSENCE of evidence. We have mountains of evidence that 'space' exists and is uniform unless disturbed by mass. It would be illogical to presume 'anything is possible' in the light of the available evidence.

Shall we say it's 'possible' that you might get a gold atom if you fuse two hydrogen atoms? No. The evidence is sufficient to reject that possibility.
 
  • #9
twofish-quant said:
Unfortunately I can't access that paper. My understanding is that all of the observations of the early universe is consistent with zero rotation.



I think you have the idea that the big bang was an explosion of something expanding into something else. It's better to think of the big bang as an explosion that was happening everywhere. At a given time post-big bang, one part of the universe is going to look a lot like another part of the universe, so you don't have separate onion shells.

Except that the big bang isn't expanding into anything. When the matter-antimatter annihilation happened, then the universe was dense and hot enough so that the photons aren't going to get very far before getting reabsorbed.

Thank you twofish. My model would be better described as a confluence of events. 'Local' space was collapsed into the singularity just before the 'bang'. When critical mass was achieved, collapsed space 'reverted back to shape' taking radiation, and hydrogen/helium from the 'big bang' with it. Additionally there would have been the initial angular momentum resulting from the near infinite rotational speed of the singularity.

The first part of this would explain isotropy ... the homogenous hydrogen, helium, CMBR, etc. So no, I am not thinking of the big bang as a simple explosion spreading out into space from a 'central' location.
 
  • #10
pywakit said:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is true only where there is an ABSENCE of evidence. We have mountains of evidence that 'space' exists and is uniform unless disturbed by mass. It would be illogical to presume 'anything is possible' in the light of the available evidence.

It has been 'space' itself that has been expanding since the BB. At the BB 'space' did not exist, in any meaningful sense. Any volume of occupied space, such as that of the observable universe, would have had zero volume.

At the BB the singularity was one of time as well as space so there is no 'evidence' that there was a 'before'.

If we are dealing with physics and not metaphysics then we can only approach the singularity from the positive time axis, but not actually reach it.Garth
 
  • #11
Garth said:
It has been 'space' itself that has been expanding since the BB. At the BB 'space' did not exist, in any meaningful sense. Any volume of occupied space, such as that of the observable universe, would have had zero volume.

Would you be kind enough to show evidence that the infinite universe ( infinite space ) did not exist prior to the big bang? Also prove that 'space' is actually expanding as opposed to attempting to achieve/maintain isotropy. There is more than one way to look at 'evidence'.

At the BB the singularity was one of time as well as space so there is no 'evidence' that there was a 'before'.

Relative to what? To us? What about to an outside observer watching this unfold? I will never grasp this concept. It is lacking in rationality.

If we are dealing with physics and not metaphysics then we can only approach the singularity from the positive time axis, but not actually reach it.

We have no evidence of metaphysics. And it is clear that our egos are clouding our vision. We have maintained this unsupported, irrational logic since science was first 'invented'.

Science has worked well explaining the forces of gravity, matter, and energy. But it has failed miserably to define the big picture ... Looked much at the number of models lately? There are as many as there are cosmologists and astrophysicists. Logic says at best ... only one is right, and the rest are wrong. Yet they all 'believe' theirs to be the correct one. Sounds more like religion than science.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
pywakit said:
...Yet they all 'believe' theirs to be the correct one...

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

How do you know what a given theoretical physicist believes? The cosmologists I know of do not say, in their papers, that they believe the models they have proposed. One puts forward a model if one thinks it is worth testing and the purpose of presenting it is to get it considered by others and tested.

If a guy expresses his reservations about a model and makes it clear he does not believe it but is offering it for comparison with data, then one what basis do you, pywakit, claim that he is not telling the truth---that he actually believes, prior to empirical testing, that his theory is right?
 
  • #13
marcus said:
What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

How do you know what a given theoretical physicist believes? The cosmologists I know of do not say, in their papers, that they believe the models they have proposed. One puts forward a model if one thinks it is worth testing and the purpose of presenting it is to get it considered by others and tested.

First, did you not notice the ' .. ' ? I intentionally mis-used the word to strengthen the point about illogical thinking. We are not talking about 'little pictures' of the universe, such as theories on red shifts, and angular momentum of galaxies. We are talking about the overall structure, and function of our visible/local universe, and how it relates to the infinite structure we call space. Does the theorist just toss out any old idea for consideration? I don't think so. I don't think he/she is going to waste anyone's time and potentially embarrass him/herself. So 'believe' may be technically inaccurate in that they don't state it in their papers. But I think we can safely assume they DO believe/expect positive ( or negative, as the case may be ) results that will support that theory. Think Turok or Hawking don't believe in their theories? Greene? Is he just goofing around with something he gives a 50/50 chance to? You mince words, without consideration of human nature.

And it is amusing to me that it's quite acceptable for 'learned men' to offer up the bizarrest of theories to their peers for review and ( possible ) testing ... but inappropriate for me to do the same even if the theory is reasonable, and appears to violate no laws of physics.


If a guy expresses his reservations about a model and makes it clear he does not believe it but is offering it for comparison with data, then one what basis do you, pywakit, claim that he is not telling the truth---that he actually believes, prior to empirical testing, that his theory is right?

I like to pick on Frampton ... so I will again. He offered up his 'empty packet' theory to the science world, and everything I have read about it fairly screams "I BELIEVE!" ...

Wonder what experiments his peers came up with? Theorems? Yes. No doubt there are many occasions where a reasonable hypothesis might be expressed with reservations. Certainly there are many scientists who have doubts ( serious or otherwise ) about the validity of their hypothesis. Yes there are 'truthful' scientists.

My point was only that beliefs cloud logic, and rationality.
 
  • #14
Garth wrote ...

"Any volume of occupied space, such as that of the observable universe, would have had zero volume."

Zero stored energy, too?
 
  • #15
Thank you Twofish for your reply.

twofish-quant said:
Unfortunately I can't access that paper. My understanding is that all of the observations of the early universe is consistent with zero rotation.

Sorry here is the abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t42n638233258641/"

Newer data may supersede this, also the point that if there is no external reference how does one determine as an observer whether the object you are sitting on is rotating or not. Perhaps Coriolis effect or measurable angular acceleration component, neither of which are apparently within our current measurement limits at present.

twofish-quant said:
I think you have the idea that the big bang was an explosion of something expanding into something else. It's better to think of the big bang as an explosion that was happening everywhere. At a given time post-big bang, one part of the universe is going to look a lot like another part of the universe, so you don't have separate onion shells.

Yep I hear what you are saying and the fact that the physical properties of the universe we observe are so homogeneous eg 4K background, suggests that model may be correct. I guess the difference is that even if our real space is in fact a "space" on the "skin" of an expanding bubble would still indicate a hypothetical center of the locus in space-time ie the center of the bubble, does this imply this is a virtual center, not found in our real space hence a paradox.

twofish-quant said:
Except that the big bang isn't expanding into anything.

I am aware of that position. However this model assumes a definition of "universe" along the lines of "That which is all". I query this, and am open to the concept which defines a "universe", as that which has its genesis in a "Big Bang" phenomena?

The latter could imply that there is space/void being expanded into, that these events occur within ie that which is from the "Big Bang" but accordingly that which is outside the "Big Bang" is also valid theoretically. It also allows multiple instances of other possibly concurrent "universes". Intuitively I can relate better to this latter scenario than the idea of a one off everything. But intuition is not scientific fact. This shifts the gravitational dynamics, in that we could now deal will smaller fractions of local mass where a closed universe may be achievable.

Could quasars and superclusters be other universes separate to our own ie not formed from our Big Bang? If true one would expect these distant objects to be fixed with local stars and galaxies (native to our universe) moving past them. Have we observed these with sensitive enough equipment to perceive any change in relative position, I get the feeling the measurement would take significant time to see a measureable change if the rotational velocity, if it exists, is slow.
twofish-quant said:
When the matter-antimatter annihilation happened, then the universe was dense and hot enough so that the photons aren't going to get very far before getting reabsorbed.

I guess I am looking at it being analogous to a star. Photons in the stellar center may take years to reach the outer surface because of the convoluted path of absorbing electronic transitions and re-emmissions, while transiting the dense cauldron of seething matter. However once at the surface a photon which has a directional vector of velocity, which can if facing away from the dense matter expand away from the source massive object, and further I wonder what (type of) force would be necessary to alter its path especially a 180 degree turn in such a small distance except massive gravity, but that can't be correct because a Big Bang event is an apparent breach in gravitational containment. Hence the onion rings idea.

I wish I knew more so I could determine the methods to test my ideas better. But whilst I bow to those such as Lorentz, Boltzman, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Hawking, I still like to look at the evidence then draw a conclusion of my own, then check if these others have similar ideas, and feel proud if I come close.

Particularly whether we have a closed, flat or open universe. the first would explain a lot of awkward questions the latter two have too many paradoxes, yet the evidence at present is in their favor. I find it is often the simplest solution that is closest to the truth.

BTW just saw this vid so I am feeling more optimistic.


Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
pywakit said:
The crux of my model is ... the critical mass point of a black hole is EXACTLY equal to the total mass/energy of the visible/local universe. Everything that came FROM the big bang is the exact amount of mass necessary to CAUSE the big bang. As an eternal closed loop ... moving in a linear fashion through time ... this would be a good explanation for 'pre-existing' angular momentum.

Similar to the open, flat or closed universe hypothesis three situations are available, only evidence will ultimately determine which of the three is correct. At present the evidence is favor of the more problematic solutions. So your "critical mass point" could be greater than, equal to or less than the universes total energy/mass. If it is greater than, then the anomalous breach of gravitational constraint would not occur so I guess we can rule that one out, assuming you are suggesting this as the source of the Big Bang. To be exactly equal to leaves no room for loss or error, yet we have Mr. Heisenberg that may defeat that. This leaves us with the less than scenario, which may imply what I am saying. Sure we could have a big bang which forms our universe but there is a bit (or lots) left over ie that which is separate to our universe.

Perhaps I can answer some of the paradox as follows
Lets say we have three types of space
1. Normal space ie a spatial volume containing matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, which at any particular instant may contain transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background.
2. Classical vacuum ie a spatial volume containing NO matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, but which at any particular instant may contain transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background. So can we define it as really empty?
3. Absolute vacuum ie a spatial volume containing NO matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, and which at any particular instant contains NO transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background. In other words it is a true void it contains nothing, zilch, vacant, empty. Surely this kind of space could only exist beyond our universe. Is it a case of defining Nothing = Something. If this something os nothing then that matches the other theory of the bubble expanding but there is "nothing" beyond that it is expanding into.

pywakit said:
As far as your second paragraph, I think we don't know enough about the properties of a singularity and the space it 'occupies' to make definitive assumptions.

True but we are free to meditate and discuss hypothesis. My point was not so much about a singularity but whether or not it can be quantal.



Cheers
 
  • #17
pywakit said:
Garth wrote ...

"Any volume of occupied space, such as that of the observable universe, would have had zero volume."

Zero stored energy, too?

Could you expand on this statement please

Cheers
 
  • #18
Garth said:
It has been 'space' itself that has been expanding since the BB. At the BB 'space' did not exist, in any meaningful sense. Any volume of occupied space, such as that of the observable universe, would have had zero volume.

At the BB the singularity was one of time as well as space so there is no 'evidence' that there was a 'before'.

If we are dealing with physics and not metaphysics then we can only approach the singularity from the positive time axis, but not actually reach it.


Garth

I am not sure I agree totally, I believe angular momentum could be valid physical evidence, I have already given my reasons why above provided the universe rotates (at any speed).

I agree apart from this we have no other observable evidence to work with, so we cannot postulate mechanisms without evidence. But does that rule out negative or normal time pre big bang? I think not.

I have problems visualising singularities thinking them more quantal in nature as a standing wave where position and velocity can not be measured simultaneously. I prefer the concept of quantal fluid with a finite volume. Just my thought. All facts start off as a simple ideas.

The asymptotic example does not rule out its sister the other side of the mirror to maintain symmetry.

Cheers
 
  • #19
Tiapan said:
Similar to the open, flat or closed universe hypothesis three situations are available, only evidence will ultimately determine which of the three is correct. At present the evidence is favor of the more problematic solutions. So your "critical mass point" could be greater than, equal to or less than the universes total energy/mass. If it is greater than, then the anomalous breach of gravitational constraint would not occur so I guess we can rule that one out, assuming you are suggesting this as the source of the Big Bang. To be exactly equal to leaves no room for loss or error, yet we have Mr. Heisenberg that may defeat that. This leaves us with the less than scenario, which may imply what I am saying. Sure we could have a big bang which forms our universe but there is a bit (or lots) left over ie that which is separate to our universe.

Perhaps you might explain how my model violates Heisenberg. Well, you do just say 'may' ... however I really don't see how it could when we are dealing with a finite amount of energy.

There really is no choice. It must be exactly equal. Otherwise it ends up with us stuck permanently in a black hole, or fading away. A one-shot universe with a lot of 'splainin' to do ... What really happens to black holes. Where did the mass come from. Isotropy. Etc.

Perhaps I can answer some of the paradox as follows
Lets say we have three types of space
1. Normal space ie a spatial volume containing matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, which at any particular instant may contain transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background.
2. Classical vacuum ie a spatial volume containing NO matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, but which at any particular instant may contain transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background. So can we define it as really empty?
3. Absolute vacuum ie a spatial volume containing NO matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, and which at any particular instant contains NO transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background. In other words it is a true void it contains nothing, zilch, vacant, empty. Surely this kind of space could only exist beyond our universe. Is it a case of defining Nothing = Something. If this something os nothing then that matches the other theory of the bubble expanding but there is "nothing" beyond that it is expanding into.

I still don't understand why you speak of dark energy as a 'given' when it is anything but. How do you know it is not an inherent property of space rather than an external force acting upon space? Both would have the same effect. And we have not established that 'absolute' vacuum exists. This is a hypothesis. Why could not 'energized' space exist everywhere? What would prevent the 'bubble' from expanding into space that already contains energy? It would just mean that this region of space ( our local universe ) has a greater energy density than the space outside the bubble.

When you release a bottle of nitrogen in a sealed vacuum chamber, the atoms will rush to equalize themselves ... make the distance between each atom equidistant. It is such a stretch that space operates the same way with all the matter from the BB? It wants to smooth out the bumps. it doesn't like being disturbed. It wants all the lines perfectly straight. No gravitational ripples.

True but we are free to meditate and discuss hypothesis. My point was not so much about a singularity but whether or not it can be quantal.

Is it critical to understand the function before we can accept the function itself?
 
  • #20
pywakit said:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is true only where there is an ABSENCE of evidence. We have mountains of evidence that 'space' exists and is uniform unless disturbed by mass. It would be illogical to presume 'anything is possible' in the light of the available evidence.

We have evidence that this is how the universe works today. There's no reason to think that this is how the universe worked pre-big bang.
 
  • #21
Tiapan said:

That's a very old paper. It's an 1985 paper that refers to a 1982 paper by Birch

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.298..451B

and the title of *that* paper is "Is the universe rotating?" rather than "The universe is rotating!"

More recent papers with a lot, lot better data give results of the global rotation of the universe that are consistent with zero rotation.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvD..55.1901K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhRvL..77.2883B

I guess the difference is that even if our real space is in fact a "space" on the "skin" of an expanding bubble would still indicate a hypothetical center of the locus in space-time ie the center of the bubble, does this imply this is a virtual center, not found in our real space hence a paradox.

But it's not. You have to be careful not to confuse metaphors with reality. What the situation is that there is no reason that distances have to be Euclidean. If you have a right triangle, there is no reason why c^2 has to equal a^2 + b^2. It's just a property of the universe that we live in that it does.

Now you could have other rules for distances which behave *as if* they were on some sphere in a higher dimensional Euclidean space. But that is just a metaphor for how distance behave. There is no reason for the higher dimensional space to exist.

The latter could imply that there is space/void being expanded into, that these events occur within ie that which is from the "Big Bang" but accordingly that which is outside the "Big Bang" is also valid theoretically.

But observationally, there is no reason to presume that the big bang is expanding into something.
ble.

Could quasars and superclusters be other universes separate to our own ie not formed from our Big Bang?

There is no reason to think that they are and some good reasons to think that they aren't. In particular, if you have quasars and superclusters that formed independently, then you should see elemental abundances that are very, very different. Right now everything that we've seen has about 25% helium with other stuff and the older the object is, the less other stuff we see. If you have quasars and things form from separate big bangs, then you should see quasars with 15% helium, some with 50% helium, and we don't see that.

Also a single big bang provides a nice explanation for why we don't see nearby quasars. Quasar ate up all of the gas and dust and there isn't any more.

During the 1960's-1970's, there was a huge amount of work done on trying to figure out what the universe would look like if there wasn't a big bang or if there were lots of little bang's. As we've gotten better data, it's moved things toward a big bang.

If true one would expect these distant objects to be fixed with local stars and galaxies (native to our universe) moving past them.

I think you have a misunderstand of how the big bang model works. It's ok to reject the big bang model, but at least you have to have a clear idea of what it is that you are rejecting. In the big bang cosmology, you *don't* have an explosion that is moving into empty space. You have everything expanding from everything else.

I guess I am looking at it being analogous to a star.

The problem is that it's not. Again, you can create your own model of cosmology, but if you want to reject the standard model, you have to understand it so that you can explain why you are rejecting it.

There's no surface or edge in the BB cosmology. It's not an explosion that's expanding into something.

I wish I knew more so I could determine the methods to test my ideas better.

First you understand the models. Once you understand the models, then you throw darts at it.

But whilst I bow to those such as Lorentz, Boltzman, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Hawking,

You really shouldn't. Each one of these people got something seriously wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
pywakit said:
When you release a bottle of nitrogen in a sealed vacuum chamber, the atoms will rush to equalize themselves ... make the distance between each atom equidistant. It is such a stretch that space operates the same way with all the matter from the BB? It wants to smooth out the bumps. it doesn't like being disturbed. It wants all the lines perfectly straight. No gravitational ripples.

Yes it is because at that point you have a model that is not the big bang model. One thing about the BB model is that it assumes that at very large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Which is to say that one part of the universe is more or less like another part of the universe, enough so that the details don't matter enough when you are doing a basic calculation.

If you have matter going into a vacuum, then this isn't the situation since at that point things are no longer homogeneous and isotropic. At this point, you are no longer working with anything resembling the standard big bang model at all.
 
  • #23
twofish-quant said:
We have evidence that this is how the universe works today. There's no reason to think that this is how the universe worked pre-big bang.

I respectfully disagree. We have 13.7 billion years worth of evidence. You make an illogical assumption based on many other illogical assumptions.

What there is 'no reason' to believe is that the 'universe' ( infinite or finite ) operated in any other fashion before our BB. You make the baseless ( other than Man's ego ) assumption that our universe created it's own physics, rather than 'rightfully' assuming ( as a working model ) that every process that has occurred since the BB is simply part of the 'laws of space'.

I will never understand the 'anything is possible' mentality. Once again. Mathematical probability/certainty does not equate to 'actually existing' in the universe.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
twofish-quant said:
Yes it is because at that point you have a model that is not the big bang model. One thing about the BB model is that it assumes that at very large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Which is to say that one part of the universe is more or less like another part of the universe, enough so that the details don't matter enough when you are doing a basic calculation.

If you have matter going into a vacuum, then this isn't the situation since at that point things are no longer homogeneous and isotropic. At this point, you are no longer working with anything resembling the standard big bang model at all.

I'm sorry. You misunderstood what I meant, I think. That analogy applied to the space between the finite universes such as ours. The property of space I am referring to tries to make the 'lines' straight. To get rid of gravitational ripples. To make it homogenous and isotropic. So space will work to spread them as far apart as it can.

If space had it's way, every sub-atomic particle in the infinite universe would be equidistant.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
pywakit said:
I respectfully disagree. We have 13.7 billion years worth of evidence. You make an illogical assumption based on many other illogical assumptions.

What there is 'no reason' to believe is that the 'universe' ( infinite or finite ) operated in any other fashion before our BB.

Actually, we have volumes of evidence from experimental particle physics which clearly demonstrates successive degrees of unification at higher energies. As we reach back to the earlier portion of the Grand Unification epoch, even gravity is indistinguishable from the electronuclear force.

That's quite different than the way the universe operates today.
 
  • #26
mugaliens said:
Actually, we have volumes of evidence from experimental particle physics which clearly demonstrates successive degrees of unification at higher energies. As we reach back to the earlier portion of the Grand Unification epoch, even gravity is indistinguishable from the electronuclear force.

That's quite different than the way the universe operates today.

I'm sorry for failing to be clear again. What you are referring to is part of the overall process of our local universe. There is no contradiction here. There was no magic involved. It was a natural progression of events, and processes. Of course things were 'different' then than they are 'today'. And things will be 'different' tomorrow. But to my knowledge, there is nothing to say that these events violated known physics, whether or not physics can entirely explain them yet. So I find no logic or reason to extropolate from the information at hand that we have 'evidence' that 'infinite space' did not enjoy prior existence to our local universe, and/or that other finite universes ( past, present, or future ) might operate under completely different physics.
 
  • #28
pywakit said:
I respectfully disagree. We have 13.7 billion years worth of evidence. You make an illogical assumption based on many other illogical assumptions.

I'm trying to avoid making any assumptions that are not based on observational evidence. Since we have no evidence on how the universe behaved pre-big bang, there's no observational evidence to constrain what is possible.

I will never understand the 'anything is possible' mentality.

It's quite simple. I've seen lots of weird things. Quantum mechanics is weird. General relativity is weird. Quantum mechanics + general relativity gets you into really, really weird territory. Having a situation in which there is no space or no time before the big bang is not that much weirder than things that I have seen.

Not everything is possible. Things that are inconsistent with observations are not possible and things that are logically inconsistent are not possible (or at least not useful). Having no space pre-big bang falls into neither of the two categories.
 
  • #29
pywakit said:
And things will be 'different' tomorrow. But to my knowledge, there is nothing to say that these events violated known physics, whether or not physics can entirely explain them yet.

There are lots of things that happened in the early universe that clearly violate physics as it currently exists. To give one example, every particle interaction that has ever been observed produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but its clear that happened at one point in the early universe.

Known physics often turns out to be wrong when you end up in some different observational area.

So I find no logic or reason to extropolate from the information at hand that we have 'evidence' that 'infinite space' did not enjoy prior existence to our local universe, and/or that other finite universes ( past, present, or future ) might operate under completely different physics.

There is a difference between saying that X is the situation, and we cannot rule out X. I see no reason to assume that infinite space does not exist, but at the same time I see no reason to assume that infinite space *does* exist.

Also there *are* theoretical reasons to believe that other universes would operate under completely different physics. One of the things that comes out of high energy physics theory that coupling constants such as the relative strength between weak and strong forces or the fine structure constants are basically random, and that if you were to redo the BB, the dice would get rerolled and you'd end up with different weak/strong force and fine structure constants.

The fact that we have a large section of the universe with similar physical laws is an artifact of inflation. You had a small area of space in which the law of physics worked a certain way, and for reasons we don't completely understand, that small region of space very rapidly expanded to form the entire universe. The consequence of this view is that other pre-inflationary regions of space would have had every different physical constants.
 
  • #30
I'm grossly simplifying the physics here, but...

In the standard model of particle physics, particles yet their masses by interaction with the Higgs field, and so the mass of the particles can be seen as a result of the strength of the Higgs field in a particular point in space. The thing about this picture is that there is no specific reason why the Higgs field ought to have the same strength in two different points in space, so it's perfectly possible to have the mass of the electron change from location to location. The reason this doesn't happen is that once one point in space settles on a particular field strength, it becomes energetically favorable for nearby regions to settle on the same value. At that point you invoke inflation and the region of space in which the forces act in the way that they do expand until any boundaries between different Higgs field values get pushed out to somewhere unobservable. If you expand this picture to grand unified theories and quantum gravity, you get the result that a lot of the fundamental constants come from field strengths and those are random.

This picture might be wrong (there are some big problems with it), but it's the current picture of the universe that particle physicists have, and one consequence of that is that if you were to have another universe, the basic physical constants would be different.

In case you are wondering, one big problem with this picture is the scale problem. If the field strengths are random, then why do the cancel out to give a cosmological constant of almost but not quite zero?
 
  • #31
twofish-quant said:
There are lots of things that happened in the early universe that clearly violate physics as it currently exists. To give one example, every particle interaction that has ever been observed produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but its clear that happened at one point in the early universe.

Known physics often turns out to be wrong when you end up in some different observational area.



There is a difference between saying that X is the situation, and we cannot rule out X. I see no reason to assume that infinite space does not exist, but at the same time I see no reason to assume that infinite space *does* exist.

Also there *are* theoretical reasons to believe that other universes would operate under completely different physics. One of the things that comes out of high energy physics theory that coupling constants such as the relative strength between weak and strong forces or the fine structure constants are basically random, and that if you were to redo the BB, the dice would get rerolled and you'd end up with different weak/strong force and fine structure constants.

The fact that we have a large section of the universe with similar physical laws is an artifact of inflation. You had a small area of space in which the law of physics worked a certain way, and for reasons we don't completely understand, that small region of space very rapidly expanded to form the entire universe. The consequence of this view is that other pre-inflationary regions of space would have had every different physical constants.

Don't have time to properly reply right now, but didn't Einstein state that "god doesn't play dice with the universe"?

It is interesting to me that you say "I'm trying to avoid making any assumptions that are not based on observational evidence". Isn't this exactly what the whole SETI study is based on? Making assumptions based on zero evidence? We made the assumption that other molecular chains 'could' or 'would' culminate in life, when all the evidence we have says that only DNA will do it. We also made the assumption that 'all life will evolve to ( or past ) radio technology', when the evidence in front of us clearly shows billions of life forms that could never achieve such heights. Sharks have been around for 350 million years. Think if left to their own devices they might have cell phones in another 350 million? I think not. It's one thing to assume life will flourish under the proper conditions. It's quite another to assume that life will evolve to our form, or some other form capable of achieving the same things.

Since life first developed here 3.8 billion years ago, as many as 7 billion species have come and gone. Many had 10s of millions to 100s of millions of years to achieve radio. None did. Within our own species, homosapiens ... who came on the scene about 300,000 years ago ... how many were responsible for radio? .0000000001%? 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, at the time of the great migration, we were beating on drums, and tending goats. Those who did not migrate are still beating on drums, and tending goats. 50,000 years and they couldn't even come up with the wheel.

If not for the most serendipitous of events, we would have been knocked out of the sky. If not for the most serendipitous of events, dinos would still own this planet. And if I'm not mistaken, all those fairly large brained creatures coudn't come up with a wheel either in a couple hundred millions of years.

SETI had nothing to do with scientific observations and everything to do with 'dreams' and 'wishes'. Obviously they were not paying any attention to the 'observational evidence'.

I have other complaints ( as in issues with your 'purist' logic ) but they will have to wait ...
 
  • #32
pywakit said:
Don't have time to properly reply right now, but didn't Einstein state that "god doesn't play dice with the universe"?

Yes. And Niels Bohr replied "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."

Isn't this exactly what the whole SETI study is based on? Making assumptions based on zero evidence?

I said I'm trying to. Sometimes you have to make a guess, at which point you just flip a coin and go with it. If someone asks me whether there are other intelligent beings in the universe. I'll just flip a coin and give you the answer, since based on what I know that answer is as good as any that involves thought.

SETI had nothing to do with scientific observations and everything to do with 'dreams' and 'wishes'.

There's nothing wrong with dreams and wishful thinking as long as you realize that you are dreaming and doing wishful thinking. Sometimes if you are lucky wishes and dreams do come true, sometimes they aren't.
 

Related to Evidence for pre Big Bang physical universe?

What is the evidence for a pre Big Bang physical universe?

The most significant evidence for a pre Big Bang physical universe comes from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. This is a faint glow of electromagnetic radiation that permeates the entire universe and is believed to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang. The CMB provides strong support for the Big Bang theory and the idea of a pre-existing physical universe.

How does the CMB support the idea of a pre Big Bang physical universe?

The CMB shows that the universe was once in a hot, dense state, which is consistent with the Big Bang theory. However, the CMB also contains small variations in temperature, known as anisotropies, which are believed to be remnants of structures that existed before the Big Bang. These anisotropies provide evidence for the existence of a pre Big Bang physical universe.

Are there any other pieces of evidence for a pre Big Bang physical universe?

In addition to the CMB, there are other pieces of evidence that support the idea of a pre Big Bang physical universe. These include the observed distribution of galaxies and the large-scale structure of the universe, which suggest that the universe was already expanding and evolving before the Big Bang. There is also evidence from quantum mechanics and string theory that suggest the existence of a pre Big Bang universe.

Is there any scientific consensus on the existence of a pre Big Bang physical universe?

While there is strong evidence for a pre Big Bang physical universe, the concept is still highly debated and there is currently no scientific consensus on its existence. Some scientists argue that the CMB anisotropies and other evidence can be explained by other theories, such as inflation or cosmic strings. Further research and evidence are needed to reach a consensus on the existence of a pre Big Bang physical universe.

What are the implications of a pre Big Bang physical universe?

If a pre Big Bang physical universe is proven to exist, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the origins and evolution of the universe. It would also challenge our current theories and models of cosmology and potentially lead to new discoveries and advancements in our understanding of the universe. However, until there is a scientific consensus on its existence, the implications remain speculative.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
69
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
58
Views
5K
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top