Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The begining

  1. Jul 30, 2003 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    to start, i agree with the BB theory as a "result" of the begining,
    the BB theory does not explain where the energy came from to cause the BB.
    what is requierd is a theory that predicts where the BB energy originated.
    the only part of the BB theory i do not agree with is that it created space, i think space has allways exsisted and the word NOTHING absolute nothing is meaningless.
    i argue that space is a physical thing and that our universe was created from space.
    for somthing to be created from space, space must have physical properties this is where my argument is weak but still plausable,
    from the greek we have the aether a substance once believed to fill all of space,
    quintessence the "fifth element" is another term for the aether and is postulated to exist in order to expllain the accelerating universe,

    modern physics ascribe the charicteristic parameters of permittivity and permeability to space,
    in the 1930 Paul Dirac proposed that the "vacuum" actually containes electro magnetic waves or zero point energy,
    if space had these properties befor the BB it is possible that they were instrumental in causing it.
    what came first the chicken or the egg?
    did space have properties before the BB?
    BTW can the electrical properties of space help to prove expantion?
    or was the BB the begining of everything?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 30, 2003 #2

    Eh

    User Avatar



    The problem is that this physical space is expanding. Run the clock back to say, 13 billion years ago, and the universe is much smaller and denser. This includes all of space, which shrinks down to zero volume at the singularity. Granted, GR may not be reliable for predicting what happens early on in the universe, but if you accept the premise that the universe cannot be static (must be expanding or contracting), you are left with few options. Either the universe is cyclic (contracts and expands) or there is a first moment to time, IOW a beginning.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2003
  4. Jul 30, 2003 #3

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i agree space is expanding, but only in our local area, infinite space has nothing to expand into.
    one analogy would be stretching a rubber sheet not from the edges but just in one place leaving the bigger part unstretched.
    i find it impossible to comprehend the abscence of space, if space was created by the BB what did it have to expand into?
    i have great respect for scientists and for erudite posters on this forum, but the abscence of space is codswollop.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2003
  5. Aug 1, 2003 #4

    Eh

    User Avatar

    It doesn't need anything to expand into. Take an infinite volume of space, and imagine that the vast voids between galaxies expanding. There is no need for any external space for this to happen.

    That would only work if GR is not an accurate description of space in most of the universe. And that seems like an unjustified position, since we don't need to postulate the existence of such spaces.

    Perhaps, but the concept of "absence of space" only comes when taking the singularity to be a reality, as opposed to a result of applying a theory where it is no longer valid.
     
  6. Aug 1, 2003 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    as far as my understanding goes scientists are taking an isolationist view ie that the universe we live in is the only one,
    when i think of infinite space i can see no reason to deny the existence of multiple universes contained in it.
    my assumption is that space is the only thing that has always existed,
    is infinite, and has properties that can initiate the birth of a universe
    if my reasoning is correct and there are multiple universes' then the expantion of space can only be local to the individual universe
    our local physical theories would not have to change as long as they fit observation why should they?
    as ever i am at the mercy of higher reasoning please be kind.
     
  7. Aug 2, 2003 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Some physicists and astronomers have proposed an anthropic argument (see Weinberg in further reading). Perhaps there is a multitude of universes, all with different values for the vacuum energy density, with larger values being more probable than smaller values. Then universes with a vacuum energy much greater than a millielectron-volt would be more probable, but they would expand too rapidly to form stars, planets or life. At the same time, universes with much smaller values are less probable. The anthropic argument would say that our universe has the optimal value. Physicists disagree about whether this kind of explanation, which makes bold assumptions about the existence of universes that can never be tested, and about the probability distribution of the vacuum energy, is an acceptable explanation.
    http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8
    http://www.counterbalance.net/cqinterv/cq3-40-body.html
    Seth Shostak on Multiple Universes and Chance
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2003
  8. Aug 2, 2003 #7
    I agree strongly with the Weinberg view of the possibility of multiple universes (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting this view).

    This doesn't merit being called even hypothesis; in that such a view cannot (for now) be supported by mathematics or observation. So, it's just conjecture.

    But my CONJECTURE is that our universe "began" by the ending of a preceding one; perhaps governed by an entirely different quantum.

    The preceding universe had to be "closed", however, because it must have had a beginnintg/end.

    Also, the character of a preceding universe doesn't necessarily predict the character of the following one (i.e., "open", "closed", "flat", etc.)

    Thanks, Rudi
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2003
  9. Aug 2, 2003 #8

    Eh

    User Avatar

    But how do you deal with the expansion of this space? Even with a multiverse scenario, this bulk spacetime must be expanding if GR is correct.
     
  10. Aug 2, 2003 #9
    Let me elaborate on my original post and muddy the waters:

    Planck's constant varies from universe to universe.

    We know what Planck's constant is; we just don't know why.

    Hawking said (I think) that it would take an accelerator of massive proportions to really delve deeply further into the universe. Not a forseeable prospect.

    But possibly this accelerator exists in nature and may someday be observed, if so.

    I wish us all luck.

    Thanks, Rudi
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2003
  11. Aug 3, 2003 #10

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The definition of space in physics is contentious. Various concepts used to try to define space have included:

    the structure defined by the set of "spatial relationships" between objects
    a manifold defined by a coordinate system where an object can be located.
    the entity that stops all objects in the universe from touching one another
    this is a quote from wikipedia.
    the idea i am trying to put to you is that space is infinite, it has no topography or spatial relationships.
    in infinite space it would be imposible to locate our universe.it is
    only when an event happens that leads to the creation of matter that we can discribe relationships or coordinates and only in our local space.
    an analogy is putting a drop of dye into water the water equalling space and the dye equalling matter space
    i think it is the "dye" that science is looking for.
    i am sorry but putting ideas into words is not easy for me.
     
  12. Aug 4, 2003 #11

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Local" = a radius of 13.7 billion light years around us, right?
     
  13. Aug 5, 2003 #12

    Eh

    User Avatar

    Yes, but things have come a long way in the past 100 years. "Space" is the structural quality of the gravitational field, and has no independent existence whatsoever. At least no such independent existence is needed. However, the idea you are putting forth would require that space does indeed have existence of it's own, with the gravitational field existing like icing on a cake. This just seems redundant, since if this space exists it does not interact with the physical universe, and as far as physics is concerned, it might as well not exist at all.

    That being said, such an independent space isn't a bad idea in itself, but could not ever be detected or tested and so is useless to physics.
     
  14. Aug 5, 2003 #13

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    how can i argue with some of the most inteligent people in the world?
    in truth i dont have to, the best minds are the ones that admit that the cause of gravity has not been found.
    people are modeling our universe to fit an unknown, even the speed of gravity has not been accepted by all in the scientific comunity.
    in a way there are double standards in science, hypothetic particles
    gluons, gravitons etc are used to explain a theory, they may be found given time but then again they may not.
    when i think of space i am not just thinking of what it is that seperates objects, space is in everything, i think its about 80% of all material objects ,ie you table is 80% space and 20%matter,
    so why is it that only the matter part of you table is given properties?
     
  15. Aug 5, 2003 #14

    Eh

    User Avatar

    Ok, but what does that have to do with space?

    Yes, often physicists will conjure up a hypothesis about the existence of some exotic particle or field. But typically, such a hypothesis is there for a reason. Let's compare:

    Typically, some exotic field or particle is actually predicted by an established model, or is required to explain some phenomena, as in the case of the neutrino. An independent background of space is not predicted by any model, and it doesn't look like it could solve any current problems in physics. As well, new particles are at least physical phenomena that interact with the rest of the universe, and technology allowing it, are testible. An absolute background of space on the other hand, would not be testible at all. So you can see why physicists would not put much value on the concept.

    Well, it would seem 99% of the universe is a vacuum. But as I said, even this vacuum is not just emptiness, as it is still the dynamic field.
     
  16. Aug 7, 2003 #15

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.rochester.edu/college/rtc/Borge/overview.htm
    l
    http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hughes/ucourses/120f96/inf3.html
    this link is very interesting if you have the time it is worth studying, "in my opinion".
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/darkenergy_folo_010410.html
    more and more the"vacuum" is shown to be complex, science states that
    an absolute "vacuum "cannot exist, therfore to deny the existence of
    "anything "before the BB is unscientific.
    or can someone explaine to me what an alternative for nothing is and how science allows for it?
    to say that space can expand from a point "0 dimentions " to an entity with dimentions is also unscientific.
     
  17. Aug 7, 2003 #16

    Eh

    User Avatar

    Who says a vacuum existed before the big bang?
     
  18. Aug 8, 2003 #17

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    thats my point EH nothing existed before the BB except some indefinable thing, it amazes me that people are willing to accept
    that the universe originated from what??
    space time was created by the BB right? if so what is non space time?
    if there is no space and no time "nothing can happen",to bring about a
    BIG BANG
    something must have existed before the BB and must be eternal,
    why not call that thing space?
     
  19. Aug 8, 2003 #18

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."
    --Albert Einstein
    at least AE agrees with part of my theory.

    http://ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
    if anyone cares to go to this page about the aether i think that
    it may give reason to think again
    but please dont bother if you are not willing to change your
    viewpoint.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2003
  20. Aug 8, 2003 #19

    Eh

    User Avatar

    That's not quite right, because there is no reason there must have been any prior event to the big bang at all. Since spacetime has a beginning at the moment of the BB, there could literally be no "before" at all. This is very different than saying there was "nothing" before the event, which is often associated with the quantum void, or a state where nothing but the laws of physics exist.

    See above. If there was something prior to the BB, space has no independent existence of the expanding field and could be ruled out. Quite honestly though, I don't see the need for "before" state in the first place. Even so, a working theory of quantum gravity may show that the universe, even as this dynamic expanding space has no beginning at all.
     
  21. Aug 8, 2003 #20

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    so are you proposing a unique event EH ?
    how can you use an as yet to be prooven theory ,quantum [gravity],we know it exists but not its source in your argument?
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The begining
  1. Before the beginning (Replies: 19)

  2. Beginning Astronomy (Replies: 6)

Loading...