Before The Big Bang

reply to post by spy66

When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?

What do you mean by flat?

Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

There was no primeval atom. No super-dense photon (by which you must mean a photon containing the entire energy of the universe). If there were, it would have formed a black hole.

Actually, after some further consideration, you're dealing with two different situations here. The primeval atom is just fantasy because, as I said, it would have collapsed to form a black hole rather than exploding in a Big Bang.

But, the super-dense photon... for a semi-complicated reason, and theoretically speaking, a single photon won't gravitationally collapse at super-high energies, so it won't form a black hole (photon beams focused on a single spot can form a black hole, but not some rogue high-energy photon all by itself).

So, if you had just a single photon in an otherwise empty universe, floating around... and if it had an extremely high energy (extremely high frequency)... and if it happened to encounter a random quantum fluctuation... that single photon would "explode" into an assortment of matter and energy particles equal in total mass/energy to the initial energy of the primordial photon.

You might call that a Big Bang.

reply to post by CLPrime


Alright, I recognize now I should not had phrased what I stated in stating "creating time." How about gravity "creating movement through time?" It is creating a well that allows us to travel through time which is all of the entirety of the fourth dimension. Light after all appears static to us, but it moves. Probably due to the frame of reference that light travels in it is static.

If something moves faster across space, time slows within its frame of reference compared to other things in space traveling at different rates, and it gains mass while it does requiring more and more energy to increase velocity as it stores mass which is volatility in essence as the gravity well it is digging so to speak deepens. Meaning in short it increases its gravity making an ever deeper indention in the fabric of space, a well, affecting its frame of time reference. Meanwhile everything else is speeding by in time if not being consumed for energy by this abstract theoretical "something." The question is now, "How fast is light moving in the other frames compared to it when it reaches light speed?" What is the differential? It should be closing. The movement through time is coming to a standstill for both light and this "something." Same should be true for your lone photon out in space by itself somewhere in the far off future.

Here on Earth traveling through space and thus time with our g1 we are traveling through time much faster compared to this something and any lone photon. We can move through time in a very efficient rate because we have a great balance between gravity and our velocity. We are in a Goldilocks zone of forward time travel.


If there is too much gravity, time will stop. If there is too much vorticity time will stop.

reply to post by CLPrime


Right, you don't believe in the Big Bang theory.


Now our discussion has met an impasse.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Moving/changing energy doesn't create space, and I still have no clue what you're trying to say about gravity creating time. Gravity is subject to time like everything else. And movement isn't indicative of the passage of time, 'cause an object can stop moving altogether and time will still keep going. Besides, these particles in a super-stretched universe...they're still moving at the speed of light. Even if you equate movement with time, they're all moving at the same constant speed, so time is still unchanged.

Please cite me an example where something has been stopped moving across space?

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


The last thing you said actually contradicts your whole post before it. Too much gravity will stop time. No gravity allows time to pass at the rate it wants to. What gravity does is slow the local passage of time. Also, it doesn't create movement, it curves space-time, which affects an objects path through that space-time, giving the appearance of acceleration.

Also, in the theory I presented, there's more than just one photon left in the whole universe. The universe would contain just as much matter/energy as it does now, it's just spread over a far larger volume.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


I might believe in the Big Bang theory if it had a sensible cause.



reply to post by LilDudeissocool


I was speaking theoretically. An object can be moving or at rest, it doesn't matter. In fact, as you state, it's velocity that slows time... by your own admission, no movement allows time to pass freely, while movement is the thing that stops it.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

There was no primeval atom. No super-dense photon (by which you must mean a photon containing the entire energy of the universe). If there were, it would have formed a black hole.

How does a black hole form without space?

And I am sure it would have been a black hole at the very end before the primeval atom was recreated. After the primeval atom, the one you believe never existed, was at zero time containing all energy.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Why is there no space?
How does it go from being a black hole to a primeval atom?

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Wow lil dude,your the best !

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

The last thing you said actually contradicts your whole post before it.

Too much gravity will stop time. No gravity allows time to pass at the rate it wants to. What gravity does is slow the local passage of time. Also, it doesn't create movement, it curves space-time, which affects an objects path through that space-time, giving the appearance of acceleration.

It affects the local frame of reference is what I had explained.

How can gravity curves space-time when the whole dynamic depends on movement to occur? Gravity and time seem to be one in the same in essence.

"appearance of acceleration." Could it be the rapidly expanding universe is just an allusion, you are suggesting?

Also, in the theory I presented, there's more than just one photon left in the whole universe. The universe would contain just as much matter/energy as it does now, it's just spread over a far larger volume.

But they will be separated by vast distances you stated? What gravity will each possess to be able to curves space-time. Without such influences how will they move through time? Will vorticity be enough? The visible universe, the area we are in creates in its entirety a great massive indentation in the fabric of space. this is a massive gravity well making it also a time well. No well means no ability to travel through time.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

I might believe in the Big Bang theory if it had a sensible cause.



reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

I was speaking theoretically. An object can be moving or at rest, it doesn't matter. In fact, as you state, it's velocity that slows time... by your own admission, no movement allows time to pass freely, while movement is the thing that stops it.

It's crushing gravity would be the cause. That also being a time well creating space to occur. Space is the vehicle we travel in across time.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Why is there no space?
How does it go from being a black hole to a primeval atom?

Because the black hole is collapsing space.

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Wow lil dude,your the best !

Same back to ya.

reply to post by reddwhite

If matter and space had an equivelence, than I am sure it would have been noticed, when space was being created as we released energy.

What do you mean by "as we released energy"? Release energy how? From what? Via what process? And the creation of energy (not release) does not "create space"... energy arises via fluctuations in the fabric of space-time, in such a way that it 'braids' existing space and creates the illusion of matter. The only way we can possibly prove this is via particle colliders such as the LHC... when they dig deep enough and rip apart the most fundamental particles, what I would expect to see is that the remaining 'particles' will literally decay and disappear before their very eyes as the braided space comes undone and neutralizes. They will be left with nothing. No magical fundamental particles from which everything else is constructed, because everything is constructed from warped space.

Also if matter and space were the same thing, then I would in theory be able to transmute, all space into matter and trap it inside a singularity right? One of say infinite mass? Like the one at the start of the big bang maybe? Which is one of the reasons for our current state of understanding. So how do you acount for the apparent separation of space/time as understood in general relativity from matter/energy?

You could not turn all space into 'matter' because space is infinite and also because quantum fluctuations will undo some of your changes and return some of matter to neutral space (although very rarely but common in an infinite universe). And my theory does not really suggest there was a singularity at the start of the Big Bang. Matter and space only appear to be separated because of the illusion which results when you tie up space into a dense knot of braided space. Massive clusters of knotted space-time (objects of large mass) appear to exert an effect/warpage on space-time because they are made of space-time. I don't really know the technical details of LQG but I'm fairly certain there are solid mathematical theories which explain how that process works.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

The only issue with that is, the Big Bang wasn't really an explosion. The "birth" of the universe was (theoretically, at least) a period of extreme expansion in the first fraction of a second.

So, might I suggest that, instead of looking at the Big Bang being caused by a dense region of matter (which would just create a black hole), you consider the effects of the negative energy side on the expansion of space-time. Since the positive energy is just on the other side of space-time as the negative energy, any expansion caused by the negative energy will also occur on the positive energy side (between positive particles, since they will locally counteract the expansion with their own gravity...but only locally).

Exactly what i was thinking everyone thinks the big bang was created by matter.I see it as a creation of space which causes matter to be created.The only thing that would allow these particles to remain if spacetime expands quicker then they can pop back out of existence.So the real question is what can cause space time to expand.The only explanation i can think of is there is a positive and negative universe and at some point they connected allowing positive on one side negative on the other.

reply to post by dragonridr

I see it as a creation of space

That is not what CLPrime was saying, he believes infinite flat space already existed before the Big Bang (or before his vacuum collapse) from what I can tell. The theory that the Big Bang created space-time seems outdated and redundant to me.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Physically, energy is photons. Energy can also be a quantity contained by objects (such as kinetic and thermal energy - kinetic energy is force acting to move an object over a distance, and thermal energy is the kinetic energy of vibrating particles).

In this case, however, the vacuum energy is all potential. It's "contained" by the vacuum, but it doesn't yet physically exist. This "hidden" vacuum energy is also called zero-point energy, and people want to tap into it as an energy source. The risk here, of course, is that getting the vacuum to release its potential energy in one location could cause the vacuum everywhere to collapse, causing another Big Bang.

Thought you didn't believe in the Big Bang?

reply to post by CLPrime

The energy released by the vacuum collapse is actually sufficient to explain the entire formation of the universe:

1) the energy release is uniform throughout the entire universe, leading to the isotropy we see today

I actually have a quick question concerning your quantum vacuum collapse theory. If the energy release was uniform throughout the entire universe, then how can you explain the patterns within cosmic background radiation which indicate all the energy must have come from a single compact point?

I don't really believe a singularity is required to explain the Big Bang or why there was inflation, but I still believe the Big Bang theory is roughly correct in indicating all the energy came from a common point.

Like you said, it might be possible to tweak my theory using the nature and effects of negative gravity to explain inflation without resorting to things like black holes / singularities.

reply to post by CLPrime


"Pure energy would be photons. That's a compact ball of light "


but photons do not have mass....

But everything material /physical we know of is made of energy and has mass....

where does that mass come from?


does it happen because the energy that materialized in large sizes has the large quantities of energy react together and head towards the center of the celestial body, and the cores of planets and stars are the way they are out of a complex reaction with massive amounts of energy moveing towards a denser and tighter center space...