Before The Big Bang

Originally posted by HEYJOSE
Was there any foreplay before the big bang? Anybody?

Nope,, the big bang was the happy beginning

reply to post by CLPrime

Professor Krauss is saying that the energy found in the quantum vacuum causes an expansion of space - that is, it has negative pressure, which precisely mimics the cosmological constant. Matter or empty space, it doesn't matter...vacuum energy will cause space to expand. The only matter will do is locally counteract that expansion with its own gravity.

Ok so he is saying that space is expanding and not saying the cosmological constant is merely a force which is pushing the galaxies apart. So I guess I still need to wrap my head around the idea of infinite space expanding. Damn.

The only "pattern" within the CMB that indicates it originated from a single point is the fact that it is homogeneous and isotropic in all directions. This is equally explained by a homogeneous and isotropic (i.e., uniform) release of energy from the vacuum.

Hmmm, ok, that's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. That opens up many possibilities for different theories.


reply to post by ImaFungi

the fact that energy is spread out "straight",,, this is what you mean by flat? that there is not matter as high and far up and down as there is out?

No... that is a complete and utter misinterpretation of what is being discussed. We are talking about the GEOMETRY OF SPACE-TIME. Before anyone even decides to join this conversation I would appreciate it if they could understand the very simple concept before confusing everyone with irrelevant statements.

I dont get how/why in infinite space the universe consolidated isolated in one comparatively small area?

Well in actuality we don't know if all the energy is isolated to one area... in fact I believe CLPrime thinks energy is spread throughout all of space-time in a homogeneous and isotropic fashion. Which would indicate all the energy did not appear from a single common point as predicted by the most common version of the Big Bang theory. My theory however, does predict all the energy came from a relatively common point (that is after it all clumped together and exploded/inflated).

i dont get why there couldnt be other isolated energetic universes 23894839275873289478324239423 light years west of the edge of our universe?

If the Universe is infinite and flat, my theory would predict there are an infinite amount of other Universes spread throughout space-time.

I dont get what the infinite space is made of? and where physical energy came from?

My theory would predict space-time is the most fundamental feature of reality, it is the "fabric of reality", there is nothing more fundamental from which space-time is made. And my theory describes matter as a form of condensed space-time.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

The linear concept is just abstract gobbledygook like chaos theory, randomness.

And in my mind the logic of a closed system is as equally crazy and abstract because it involves the idea of a void surrounding the closed space. It's much more logical to say the entire realm of reality is simply an infinite expanse of space-time.

In any case you have lost all respect from me by talking about chaos theory in such a way. Try educating yourself. If you actually believe the Universe is completely predictable in the way you describe on the last page you are grasping onto outdated theories and living in the past. We now know the Universe is not deterministic in the way you believe, so try and catch up with science please. There is no such thing as a "clockwork universe".

Stopped time and immense gravity cause an implosion that then blasts outward.

And how exactly do you assume an implosion could happen in a place where time has stopped? Your theories seem to be verging into the realms of esoteric nonsense rather than science.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


I dont really know who came up with the word infinite first. I was probably told in a lecture at some time, but i cant remember it. I haven't been particularly interested in religion either. Religion and a Deity are two different things in my world.

I have studied dimensions for a few years. Dimensions can be used to describe the universe layer by layer in theory. But to do this you need a platform "space" A dimension of some kind. Since we exist we know that the infinite platform must exist.
Because no matter what finite you take away from our existence, infinite space will never get smaller in size or cease to exist. It will always be there.
Even when finite is formed by the infinite dimension "space". The infinite space will never change. It wont stretch or be compressed. Because if it does, that space is not infinite, it will be a finite space "dimension". It will be a limited space.

When it comes to a finite dimension. A finite dimension can never have the same properties as the infinite space. Thereby the fabric of a finite dimension will not be like the infinite. "Its a totally different dimension". Because the infinite can not form a dimension like it self. It can only form a different dimension with different properties.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


just marking for later, as iv just woken up and these big words are hurting my head....... ahhh coffee

Professor Krauss is saying that the energy found in the quantum vacuum causes an expansion of space - that is, it has negative pressure, which precisely mimics the cosmological constant. Matter or empty space, it doesn't matter...vacuum energy will cause space to expand. The only matter will do is locally counteract that expansion with its own gravity.

The only "pattern" within the CMB that indicates it originated from a single point is the fact that it is homogeneous and isotropic in all directions. This is equally explained by a homogeneous and isotropic (i.e., uniform) release of energy from the vacuum.

What Krauss is saying here tels us that he is not talking about the infinite space. He is talking about a space after the Big Bang occurred.
A infinite space wouldn't have a negative vacuum initially. Because a negative vacuum space is only indicated if there are differential in pressure. How can a infinite space have negative pressures? Negative compared to what exactly?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Ok so he is saying that space is expanding and not saying the cosmological constant is merely a force which is pushing the galaxies apart. So I guess I still need to wrap my head around the idea of infinite space expanding. Damn.

That's right. The cosmological constant is a negative pressure exerted by the vacuum energy, which causes a metric expansion of spacetime. It was never, ever a force to push galaxies apart. Even when Einstein first conceived of the cosmological constant, before the Big Bang was ever thought of, it wasn't a force pushing galaxies apart...it was a negative pressure causing the 4D Lorentzian manifold of spacetime to metrically expand. And, since that pressure is being exerted on the inside, it does not require any sort of space "outside" (or, as spy66 seems to think, any sort of pressure differential) for the universe to expand into. The universe can legitimately be infinite and expanding.

The only "pattern" within the CMB that indicates it originated from a single point is the fact that it is homogeneous and isotropic in all directions. This is equally explained by a homogeneous and isotropic (i.e., uniform) release of energy from the vacuum.

Hmmm, ok, that's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. That opens up many possibilities for different theories.

It may also interest you to know that even the single-point hypothesis doesn't explain the level of uniformity we see in the CMB. That's why they had to introduce the idea of initial rapid expansion (the Inflationary Epoch)...the speed with which the "singularity" of energy expands is what actually ensures the extreme level of uniformity.
But, of course, this isn't needed if it was a uniform release of vacuum energy in an infinite empty universe.

reply to post by CLPrime

It may also interest you to know that even the single-point hypothesis doesn't explain the level of uniformity we see in the CMB. That's why they had to introduce the idea of initial rapid expansion (the Inflationary Epoch)...the speed with which the "singularity" of energy expands is what actually ensures the extreme level of uniformity.

Yes, that certainly is very interesting. A lot of the time it seems to me that scientists would rather build theories around their preconceived notions rather than build theories around the actual evidence. In any case I'm still not sure either way, both theories seem equally as plausible to me based on the evidence so far. That reminds me of something which Krauss mentioned in one of his lectures, he says that at some point in the future (a few hundred billion years or something, I can't really remember now) all the evidence of the Big Bang will have disappeared because the galaxies around us will have moved so far away that we will no longer be able to detect anything outside of our own galaxy. Meaning eventually we wont even be able to detect how energy is spread throughout the universe, it will just seem like infinite space surrounds our galaxy. It seems to me there must be some sort of process capable of creating universes like ours. If it happened once then it must be able to happen again, assuming space-time is infinite. How would your theory account for such a cycle of universe creation?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


My theory doesn't account for such a cycle.
My theory is founded on my belief in God's plan as revealed in his Word. He created one universe, with one purpose, and that precludes the possibility of any sort of cycle or plurality.

ETA: however, consider this...when the universe is so expanded that it's almost entirely vacuum again, then we're right back to where we started...and infinite empty universe. The vacuum in this emptiness can then collapse again.

reply to post by CLPrime

ETA: however, consider this...when the universe is so expanded that it's almost entirely vacuum again, then we're right back to where we started...and infinite empty universe. The vacuum in this emptiness can then collapse again.

Yeah that's what I thought. And that would result in a cyclic process. Thanks for answering all my questions I think I'm starting to understand your theory much better now.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Mind you, I don't agree that that's actually what happens/will happen, but, regardless, it answers your question.

In fact, any finite region of vacuum in the universe now can spontaneously collapse and release an immense amount of new energy. That's a somewhat ominous possibility, considering a majority of the universe is empty space.

reply to post by CLPrime

In fact, any finite region of vacuum in the universe now can spontaneously collapse and release an immense amount of new energy.

That's what I don't really seem to understand about your theory. How is that a 'vacuum collapse' could result in an isotropic distribution of energy? I don't really understand how that would work.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Point A in an isolated quantum vacuum system will collapse the same way Point B does. This is a perfectly uniform energy release.

If you want to subscribe to the cyclic universe, then the minuscule variations in the CMB could be a result of the matter/energy dispersed throughout the pre-collapse emptiness left over from the previous universe.

reply to post by CLPrime

Point A in an isolated quantum vacuum system will collapse the same way Point B does. This is a perfectly uniform energy release.

Oh ok... so it's not like one single collapse event, it's like multiple or infinite collapse events all taking place at the same time throughout space? When you first described the theory to me on another thread I got the impression the entire vacuum of infinite space collapsed to form something like a Big Bang, but now I see that is completely wrong.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

To save on text this quote has been removed. I refer the reader back to my previous post to read the removed text.

its easy for me to grasp what your saying and i understand it...... are you trying to understand what im saying??

Yes I do understand the idea of randomness, but 1 and 2 as I have explained make it impossible to be true.

it was not predetermined that einstein would not get hit by a car... its just that throughout his life he didnt......

He didn't because the linked chain of events that would had made such an action possible did not materialize. The would be linked events did not materialize because the energy that would had started the chain of events in motion never existed going all the way back to the singularity of the Big Bang. Be it a mere extra photon in the primeval atom, or minus one photon that would had allowed a chain of events to begin to where Einstein was eventually run over.

things can either happen or they dont,,,,, you dont need to use the 5th dimension stuff to veer away from the big bang....... starting right now,

So then explain to me how the law of conservation of energy can be cheated? Because it has to in order for what you are saying to be correct.

i am saying the rest of your life is not predetermined,,,,,,, since 2 completely unrelated different things cannot happen to one person at the same time ( for example getting hit by a car,,, or not) one or the other will happen....... im not saying if we went back in time and killed einstein..... im saying hypothetically a 100,000 years ago all the humans could have died and we would not be here right now..... im saying the pitcher of a baseball game who let up a game winning walk off homerun with 2 outs and 2 strikes could have easily stuck the batter out..... there are deffinitly a lot of aspects of reality that are unavoidable and forcibly given to us by nature,,,,, but it is noone else but you who will make the choice on what you will have for lunch tomorrow ( unless you give me some crap like you only have ham and cheese, so the universe determined what you will eat for lunch tomorrow) it is you who will make the choice whether or not to run over the cyclist on the way to work,,,, you can,,, or you cannot,,, its up to you....... this is human free will,,, use it wisely...... if humans didn't use this freedom to make choices,,, nothing a human has ever done that sets humans apart from animals( every creation a human has ever done) would ever have been done....

That's getting into Dr. Kaku's theories about a multiverse system of all various possibilities of outcomes happening throughout the multiverse if such a "macro-verse" does in deed exist. Which is entirely possible btw as Dr Kaku has explained quite clearly in his materials he has produced over the years in espousing his theory of a mutiverse system. The idea would still hinge on the addition or subtraction of photons from each primeval atom in each of the mutiverses. Two different possible outcomes cannot occupy the same universe. The total energy contained in any universe would have to be added or subtracted from its total volume for any multiple possibilities to exist.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


do you hold this idea because you want to justify your lack of control over yourself or something? you have free will,,,,, your brain decides choices,,,,,,, you can sit in the corner right now,,, or hop on a plane,,, or get ice creamm...... multiple choices...... the universe is not deciding for you,,,,, you are...... i know these choices, and you and ice cream exist because the universe exists......... but star systems billions of light years away have no effect on you and you cannot ( right now) effect them..... locally,,,, in our world,,, what you are,,,, has some level of free will..

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


That's right, it's not just a collapse at one location. The entire isolated system of the quantum vacuum is a single wavefunction existing at a given energy level, and it collapses all at once to a lower energy level. This releases energy.

Imagine a large tank half filled with water. Covering the surface of the water (half-way down the tank) is a porous sheet of plastic. Above the sheet of plastic is nothing but air.
Then, suddenly, the entire sheet of plastic drops. It's porous, so water now flows through and on top of the sheet. Now, wherever the sheet stops, it's got a volume of water above it, not just air.

The collapse of the quantum vacuum works the same way. The vacuum energy level drops, like the sheet of plastic, allowing energy once "hidden" within it to be released into the infinite empty universe. This energy was uniform throughout the universe. We also find it has negative pressure, so it would have caused an initial period of rapid inflation, which would then slow, and the energy would cool and condense, allowing the formation of matter.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

I dont really know who came up with the word infinite first. I was probably told in a lecture at some time, but i cant remember it. I haven't been particularly interested in religion either. Religion and a Deity are two different things in my world.

Religion has really influenced science when it comes to the term "Infinite." Infinity does not exist within this universe, all is finite and closed.

I have studied dimensions for a few years. Dimensions can be used to describe the universe layer by layer in theory. But to do this you need a platform "space" A dimension of some kind. Since we exist we know that the infinite platform must exist.

Are you confusing inside 3D physical knowns within this universe with theoretical outside 3D abstract unknowns? If you would please explain in sort how anything infinite is contained within this 3D universe? You would have to claim that the primeval atom contained infinite energy, an infinite number of photons for anything to be infinite within our universe.

Because no matter what finite you take away from our existence, infinite space will never get smaller in size or cease to exist. It will always be there.

You know this how?

Even when finite is formed by the infinite dimension "space". The infinite space will never change. It wont stretch or be compressed. Because if it does, that space is not infinite, it will be a finite space "dimension". It will be a limited space.

Dark energy is pushing expanding the Universe comprising dark space. Beyond this dark space are other dimensions, not this universe which is finite.



What we are probable observing, and this is pure speculation on my part, is a mirror image of an imploding universe rather than an expanding universe. This where primeval atom never expanded. Everything is shrinking in traveling through time across its inner space from outside in. A place where convex is observed in terms of being concave. There is no relative frame of reference to tell one way or another so the subject is moot.

When it comes to a finite dimension. A finite dimension can never have the same properties as the infinite space. Thereby the fabric of a finite dimension will not be like the infinite. "Its a totally different dimension". Because the infinite can not form a dimension like it self. It can only form a different dimension with different properties.

Quit believing in infinite space, and there is no such thing as infinite dimensions. They are all finite. They my reciprocate or cycle continuously whatever their processes might me, but they all contain finite forms of energy just like this one. Where they touch can leak energy from one plane to the next, probably how the primeval atom first appeared, like a sea spry drop blown onto a dry beach, but that's about it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

do you hold this idea because you want to justify your lack of control over yourself or something?

That's the biggest misconception of predetermination and any beliefs in destiny. It's a Western religious and social order hangup. Get over it! Predetermination does not do away with social responsibilities. It does do away with judging others. Something btw the Bible mentions, but was lost when Europeans got a hold of it. Blame the peasant for being a peasant, a king is made because he is so great and deserving, God made him a king because he is so good etc etc. it's all Western establishment social order nonsense. It's why the BS of Randomness is popularized with no supporting evidence, but some shame mathematics that only a few people on the planet can understand. How convenient. Right if the truth ever gets out and dissimulated on a large scale everyone is going to turn into hedonists. The same smack was hawked about gay rights by its opponents. Here read up> en.wikipedia.org...

you have free will,,,,, your brain decides choices,,,,,,, you can sit in the corner right now,,, or hop on a plane,,, or get ice creamm...... multiple choices...... the universe is not deciding for you,,,,, you are...... i know these choices, and you and ice cream exist because the universe exists......... but star systems billions of light years away have no effect on you and you cannot ( right now) effect them..... locally,,,, in our world,,, what you are,,,, has some level of free will..

There are no free choices just chain of events linked back to the number of photon contained in the primeval atom that lead up to the choices made by man. Free choice is but an illusion, or delusion rather.

PS Will you be personally making me recant at the inquisition under threat of my being burned at the stake?