Exploring the Origin of Big Bang Energy

[wolram]

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 expansion?
or was the BB the beginning of everything?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wolram
i argue that space is a physical thing and that our universe was created from space.

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.

 

[wolram]

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.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wolram
i agree space is expanding, but only in our local area, infinite space has nothing to expand into.

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.

one analogy would be stretching a rubber sheet not from the edges but just in one place leaving the bigger part unstretched.

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.

i have great respect for scientists and for erudite posters on this forum, but the abscence of space is codswollop.

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.

 

[wolram]

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 expansion 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.

 

[wolram]

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

 

[r637h]

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

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wolram
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.

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.

 

[r637h]

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

 

[wolram]

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.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by wolram
i agree space is expanding, but only in our local area,

"Local" = a radius of 13.7 billion light years around us, right?

 

[Eh]

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

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.

 

[wolram]

how can i argue with some of the most inteligent people in the world?
in truth i don't 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 separates 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?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wolram
how can i argue with some of the most inteligent people in the world?
in truth i don't 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

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

.
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.

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.

when i think of space i am not just thinking of what it is that separates 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?

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.

 

[wolram]

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, therefore 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.

 

[Eh]

Who says a vacuum existed before the big bang?

 

[wolram]

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?

 

[wolram]

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 don't bother if you are not willing to change your
viewpoint.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wolram
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??

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.

something must have existed before the BB and must be eternal,
why not call that thing space?

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.

 

[wolram]

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?

 

[Eh]

I don't know what you're talking about. There is no doubt that the universe is expanding, but no evidence for the existence of any independent space.

 

[wolram]

go back to the baloon analogy for an expanding universe,
when you or i inflate a baloon it is expanding into space
the amount of air we blow into it defines its volume,the high pressure air in the baloon has replaced the low pressure air that ocupied that area of space, in a nut shell the high pressure air has expanded into something,"low pressure air",
the BB theory states that space is created along with it ie it creates its own volume to expand into right?
so what medium is supporting that volume ?

 

[Eh]

The balloon is just a clumsy analogy. It is not meant to be an analogy of an expanding volume, but only of an expanding area - the surface. This curved area is supposed to represent a curved volume. Unlike the balloon, it is not expanding into anything.

 

[heusdens]

A beginning

To begin with a real begin of anything or everything can not be conceived of. Borrowing from Hegel, we would have to state that:

It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself.

On the other hand, all contigent things, all material existence forms and conglomerations of material existence forms, DO have a definite begin and end. Whatever material existene form we can think of, we always will have to trace it back to some begin, and also it will have some end. This is know to be true for example: all life forms, stars and planets and other astronomical objects, galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters, and ultimately also for the 'universe' (although this then can NOT mean the universe in total, but only an insignificant part of it).

These two basic ideas, that there is no thing that can start from nothing, and that every material existence form has some definite begin and end, are at first sight contradictionary notions.

But there is not really a contradiction. We just need to state that - due to causality - every begin of every material existence form must be based on some previous material existence form, and also the end of every material existence form, must lead to some posterior material existence form.
As for example: a huge gaseous cloud of matter that contracts, when the circumstances are right (enough mass and not too dense) will lead to the formation of a stellar object, and when the stellar object has burnt almost all it's fuel, will lead to a star explosion (supernovae) that erupts star material back into space, leaving a much dimmer starlike object (white or brown dwarf, neutron star) or would collapse onto itself forming a black hole.

 

[wolram]

thankyou HEUSDENS i love that quote, i agree wholheartedly that
something must have always have existed.
if people are willing to accept that something has always existed it
is not unreasonable to propose that that thing is space.
the nonintuitive model of everythig including space starting with a bang requiers more philosophy than science.
the BB,BC model used to be the most popular theory, but now it seems
that our universe will just keep expanding eventualy suffering
heat death.
if that theory is corect then how can you have continuity?
another BB, for space already exists.
to get away from sutch nonintuitive theories i refer to O razor
and think that space must be eternal and infinite.

 

[Eh]

If Occam's razor is important, "space" is not a good candidate for something that has existed forever, since we have absolutely no evidence (or reasons to believe) that space has any independent existence from the gravitational field. One would be adding an extra and unncecessary entity (space).

A cyclic universe can't be ruled out entirely, and there are still some models floating around that would allow it.

 

[wolram]

some models FLOATING AROUND?

 

[Phobos]

My impression is that the Big Bang Theory acknowledges great uncertainty about what was "before" or "outside of" this universe. I don't think BB adherants are stuck on the idea of "nothingness" before/outside this universe. BBT is very successful at explaining the universe SINCE the beginning...and that is its strength and focus.

 

[wolram]

i totaly agree PHOBOS, the problem with modern theories is that they predict an ultimate end to life, however far in the future that end is
it won't be acceptable to some.
and if heat death is the outcome our universe will be of limits to
new creation
this is why i prefer to think of space as infinite and eternal, at least then in the far far future if our universe ends our decendents
will have somwhere to go.
that of course depends on humans adapting to space etc etc.
anyone for the arc?

 

[r637h]

I tend to agree; but, if the universe should happen to be closed, it will become obvious to our posterity. And they have a few billion years to figure it out. Maybe they can "move out" when it closes and "move in" to the next one at an appropriate time.

But we homo sapiens are our own worst enemies; with a convoluted brain which is probably a poor evolutionary compromise.

Maybe the dolphins...

But I don;t think we're Klingons, either. There may be a chance for us.

Which reminds me of a tasteless joke: How are the Starship Enterprise and toilet paper alike?
They both orbit around Uranus and knock off Klingons.

Sorry about the joke, but Thanks, Rudy

 

[wolram]

i am sorry Eh, but i cannot envisage what "no space" could be
the usual ansewer is its "unknowable".
the way i see it is that if there is no space for an event to
happen then nothing can happen.
does anyone have a view on what "no space" is?
oh i forgot there was also no time.
normally i bow to greater inteligence but no space is so counter intuitive i canot on this one.

 

[Eh]

I don't think there is such thing as "nospace". A beginning is just a first moment of time, and does not require a previous state without space existing and so shouldn't present a problem. If the heat death scenario bothers you, cosmology seems to have less problems with that. Some inflation theorists will insist that virtually all models of inflation will most likely end up leading to a scenario where there is never ending creation of bubble universes, along with stars, galaxies, etc. This would at least allow life to survive indefinitely, even if the mother spacetime that spawns these bubble universe may require a beginning.

 

[wolram]

where i can i read about bubble universes EH,do you have a link that won't exhuast my brain cell? by the way thanks for your time,
im not giving up yet though

 

[Eh]

This should help. http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm

 

[wolram]

Confused? So are the astronomers; but they are also intrigued by the possibility that whatever is out there may be different from anything the theorists have yet been able to imagine.
the big guns are all shooting but they seem to be missing the target.
this web page gives me very little if any confidence that current theories are correct.
to be honest some of the crackpot sites are more inspiring, the problem is they can be disproved ,whereas current main stream theories
cannot.
i am confused as to which way theorists are going with the current
models, there are far to many loose ends, WIMPs, MACHOs, GRAVITONs
DARK MATTER etc etc.
perhaps everyone will have to wait until space probes can provide actual data as to the existence or otherwise of these things
until then i am open minded to everything ,except the creation of space.
best wishes.