What Existed Before the Big Bang?

[turbo]

Hubble Ultra Deep Field
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/
And there is this from the Hubble site commenting on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field data
"there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge."

We should parse these public announcements with care. The HUDF samples a tiny area of the sky relative to our immediate neighborhood, but that translates into a huge cross-section at great distances, and the resulting enormous volume contains countless galaxies. Of course, at great redshifts, there will be a lot of anomalous galaxies. That is because at very large redshifts, the galaxies most visible to us will be ones that are quite disturbed, such as those that are exhibiting energetic starburst events. Such galaxies will be highly over-represented in any survey in which we are "pushing the envelope" in regard to detector sensitivity, while quieter, more normal galaxies may fail to rise above the threshold of system noise. This over-representation of more energetic galaxies at redshift z~x is an example of a "selection effect".

 

[meteor]

if there are any suggestions you can offer or any sites or sources that i can try tolook up

if you're a fan of string theory, try this
"Born-again braneworld"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301126
A scenario in which two branes collide just before Big Bang, and then reemerge with their tensions changed. It's very similar to the ekpyrotic scenario, if you have heard of it

 

[Chronos]

Olber's Paradox was a paradox in the pre-GR days when it was generally thought that the universe was eternal and static on the largest scales. The version I gave in my post #26 is the standard argument. Newton had argued that if the universe was not infinite then everything would collapse down under mutual gravitational attraction; therefore it had to be infinite! Olbers argued otherwise.

The expanding universe resolved the paradox.

However there are other ways of interpreting the data, although these are not very popular today. One possibility is the stationary universe, I started a thread on it referring to a recent eprint by Peter Ostermann who is working on it, but nobody wanted to comment!

Hoyle also like to consistently push for a non BB model and gave various modified versions of his Steady State theory once the CMB scuppered it. One of these was a Mass Field Theory, which was static and therefore could be constrained by Olbers Paradox. This was one of his conformal gravity theories in which the (rest) mass of an atom varies across the space-time domain. There is a membrane (nothing to do with Brane theories) at which the mass is zero, here photons thermalise with the (infinite sized) atoms and that becomes the surface of last scattering of the CMB in the standard theory. As we look towards this membrane atomic masses decrease and therefore the light they emit is progressively red shifted.

Thanks Garth. I wasn't quite on the same page with respect to a static universe. It also occurred to me a static universe is implied by Olber's premise of an infinitely old universe. An expanding universe suggests the universe has a finite age because if you run the 'movie' backwards, it should collapse. I can't think offhand of any way to avoid that result without causing significant problems for modern cosmology. And that is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Clearly, much remains unexplained and it would be no surprise if new chapters are added to the book of theory, or existing chapters rewritten. Perhaps some older, out of favor ideas will be resurrected, although I suspect it will be something more surprising.

Apparently I missed your thread on the Ostermann paper. Give me a link, I would like to give it a look.

One of the problems I see with theories of mass, or gravitational constants that vary over time is the effect on stellar evolution. It is not clear how this can be reconciled with observation. Stars would require more atoms [mass] when young to initiate fusion. As they aged and their atoms got heavier, they would evolve at an accelerated rate. Not only would they run out of fuel sooner than expected, they would progressively collapse over time ending up as black holes.

 

[Garth]

Apparently I missed your thread on the Ostermann paper. Give me a link, I would like to give it a look.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=51024.

One of the problems I see with theories of mass, or gravitational constants that vary over time is the effect on stellar evolution.

In the Einstein conformal fame of SCC stellar evolution is unchanged, in the Jordan conformal frame G and M vary but such that GM is constant. Stellar evolution and all astrophysical processes are unchanged except for the time scale.

Garth

 

[fizzzzzzzzzzzy]

I agree with your teacher because that is the only one of the chocies that doesn't continue the question

 

[turbo]

I agree with your teacher because that is the only one of the chocies that doesn't continue the question

Your choice (God did it) is comfortable to many for the reason you cite. It is unsatisfactory to many others for these reasons:

Who made God?

Where did God reside before he created our universe?

Why are the rules of our universe (the principles of its structure and interactions) coherent and discoverable? This should not necessarily be the case if the universe was created by a capricious God.

What existed before the universe?

There are a lot more metaphysical questions, but I will leave you to parse these before spending a lot of time posing them.

 

[Garth]

Your choice (God did it) is comfortable to many for the reason you cite. It is unsatisfactory to many others for these reasons:

Who made God?

Where did God reside before he created our universe?

Why are the rules of our universe (the principles of its structure and interactions) coherent and discoverable? This should not necessarily be the case if the universe was created by a capricious God.

What existed before the universe?

There are a lot more metaphysical questions, but I will leave you to parse these before spending a lot of time posing them.

Although these questions can only be answered by a ‘work of faith’, i.e. you cannot use scientific observations to get a handle on them; the fact that the Big Bang or Black Hole singularities present a barrier or horizon for scientific observations has the consequence that much of modern cosmological theorizing (the multiverse, Smolin’s evolutionary cosmology etc.) may equally be thought of as a 'work of faith'!

Garth

 

[jbaxter1701]

Escape from a Dying Universe

Hello,

I am reading -- and re-reading Dr. Kaku's article in the December Discover magazine "How to Survive the End of the Universe". It is fascinating to ponder the possibility that hyper-advanced civilizations could develop incredible technologies that would enable them to move the essence of their intelligence - or in fact their civilization itself - to another universe in the Multiverse.

"Even if... (an artificial wormhole) ..."were subatomic... it might still be possible to inject enough information through the wormhole via nanotechnology to re-create the entire civilization on the other side".

The thought that came to mind upon reading this was -- what would this look like from "the other side"?

Suddenly, and seemingly from nothingness, there is information and energy. In a deep and mysterious process involving nanotechnological interactions, matter begins to form. Structure is created by the incoming information. A new Universe forms, starting from a tiny point in space. Or perhaps, space and time itself form... as if from nothingness.

This is a new Big Bang. A new beginning...

This was described in poetic language in the Book of Genesis, and in the creation legends of many world religions. Perhaps these beautiful legends are an echo of a "racial memory" that is older than the Universe in which we live?

 

[aguy2]

If the universe of space and time had a beginning then there is the question of First Cause.

1. One person might say, "God did it, He/She made the universe" - this leads immediately to the next question, "Who made God?"



Garth

I propose that: "There is a high probability that we and the universe around us are involved in an ongoing, staged process of self-creation; wherein and whereby the creator of us and the universe around us is attempting to create itself." What do you think the probability is of this being the actual case?

aguy2

 

[Garth]

My own particular view is that the material universe is self creating, see my posts/thread on self creation cosmology. Whether this universe had a beginning or not depends on how you measure time, SCC has two conformal frames of measurement, in one the universe linearly expands from a Big Bang, whereas in the other it is static and eternal.

However the laws of such physics would be 'pre-exisitng' in some sense and therefore you may want to ask where do they come from? The answer to this question I believe is essentially metaphysical in nature.

Garth

 

[Garth]

We do also have a problem with language.

It is futile, if not pointless to pose a question such as 'what came before time?' and expect a scientific explanation.

The question is not only pointless and futile but it is also linguistic nonsense. The word "before" assumes a temporal order in which one event can be unambiguously ordered before another event. In other words it requires 'time' to exist in order to have any meaning at all!

It is therefore true to say that when you (the Creator God) had not made anything, there was not time, because time itself was of your making...
What then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.

(St. Augustine. Confessions XI 14) AD 397/8