pantheory

Michel123456, First time I've heard that expression. I will us it in the future, thanks. And it would seem that "what started the universe," or "was there a beginning to the universe," were the bottom-line questions concerning this posting, as you suggested Again this being the Speculation Forum: I think that some understand time perfectly well. I think that it is just some mainstream concepts of time that are goofed up. When all of the kinks are removed from today's theories I believe time will be simply understood as "an interval of change" and nothing more. But discussions on this thread should not diverge on this topic. //

The question then becomes: if within the Torricellian vacuum virtual particles can be found, can we really say there is nothing there? I like the way you phrased it, "supposedly nothing." We know that within any vacuum of space there exists what we call "the Zero Point Field (ZPF)," also called "Zero Point Energy." It has been estimated that there is more energy within the totality of space than there is energy in all of the matter within the universe, including hypothetical dark matter. So is the contents of this vacuum really "nothing?" From the perspective of its whole it may be the farthest thing away from being nothing as possible. When Stephen Hawking proposed that the universe was created from nothing, what he really meant was that he thinks the universe was created from the Zero Point Field. Since this thread is now in the Speculation Forum: Theorists today have proposed the existence of many yet undiscovered types of particles within the vacuum: particulate dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc. They have proposed several different types of yet undiscovered energies in this field: dark energy, quantum foam, etc. If any of these hypothetical particles, energies, or other hypothetical entities exist within this vacuum it could also be called an aether. To be called an aether its constituents would seemingly need to have relative motions within it, as well as a frame of least motion (a rest frame concerning EM radiation). //

dmaiski, Your first statement is not necessarily true according to the consensus version of the standard Big Bang model. According to the standard model, the universe started as a Big Bang entity, from a point or volume of some size. Many or most theorists believe this volume had the potential energy within it to change into the universe we now see. Many or most theorists also believe there was no such thing as a time before the Big Bang which itself was accordingly the beginning of the universe. The first interval of change can be used to define the word "time" thereafter, and the first volume which matter/ energy occupied, can be used to define volumes of space. Matter/energy were at the beginning without the possibility of time or change before the first change. This is not just semantics but the foundations for the definitions of both words "time" and "space." The word "nothing," like time and space, is based upon a definition as it relates to the universe. The word "nothing" itself is a combination of two roots, "no" and "thing." For the word "thing" we may refer to something made of matter or comprised of energy. Now we can define space as the distance between matter and the volume both matter and energy encompasses. The universe is generally considered to be finite in volume concerning the extent of its matter and energy, therefore NOTHING could exist outside these confines, which therefore could be used to define the word "nothing" as it relates to the universe. Semantically speaking, there would accordingly be no such thing as "nothing" inside the confines of the universe. Within the volume of the universe the absence of something would be called space. Although there are many other ideas concerning the beginning of the universe, I believe this is the current consensus opinion concerning the beginning of the universe which can be used to define the word "nothing" as it relates to the universe. //

Since this is a mainstream forum, what you are asking for or considering is either alternative mainstream theory, alternative cosmology, or opinions and conjecture. This idea has been proposed before by more than just one author. The most well known idea, I think, is on the other side of some or all Black holes exists a white hole which can create a new universe. The idea was proposed to answer the question, "what happens to matter falling into black holes?" The present answer, that I recall, is that the matter destroyed falling into the black hole, is conserved in the form of the gravitational and other energy of the black hole. The main purpose of conjecture is most often to solve problems that are considered not-well-answered. What problems would a new theory solve? What problems might multi-verse theory solve? Why do you think black holes are a better source for the creation of multiverses than somewhere else? Why is this increased complexity of theory needed in the first place? The answers to these questions presently could only be conjecture. What evidence is there to support such an idea? None that I know of. So even if you like the idea there should be a very clear reason for your "liking it" in the absence of any evidence for its existence.

You are right. Outside the consensus Big Bang model, there are many proposals concerning older ages of the universe, an infinite age of the universe, different time progression rates, a different time of beginning, etc. Of the alternative BB models, and all other alternative cosmological models that I have heard of, the present consensus Big Bang model proposes the youngest age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. //

_heretic, Your statement is valid but first consider the progression of time outside the influence of gravity. Light through the largest known void might travel a billion years without the influence of gravity. This would accordingly be 1 billion light years in distance and one billion years of the fastest possible progression of time. If at the end of the void a counter was set that observed such sequential light pulses, one might have a standard time clock to count the age of the universe. But much simpler, we can do the same thing here on Earth. Since time moves only slightly slower here on Earth because of the gravitational influences of the Earth and sun, and because of our relative motion by by the rotation of the Earth, the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the sun's motion around the galaxy, etc. Our time in fact is slower, but only by a very little bit. Big changes of time only occur as velocities represent a substantial portion of the speed of light, by strong gravitational influences close to black holes, etc. Time as measured here on Earth still would be more than 99% accurate concerning its relation to the fastest possible progression of time, and even then we can probably make very good estimations of the remainder. So if the Big Bang model is correct in all regards, the beginning of the universe started about 13.7 billion years ago, concerning a type of "absolute time," which accordingly would be the fastest possible progression of time, as in the "great void" clock example -- but still very close to our measurement of time here on Earth via atomic clocks. //

There are several points that could be made here. Time in modern physics is generally considered a complicated concept yet what would be the meaning of time without matter or energy? Essentially time is an interval of change in matter or energy. According to the consensus version of the Big Bang model, all mass and energy in the universe began with the Big Bang. If this is so then what would be the meaning of time, concerning the idea "before the Big Bang." "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein) The meaning of this sentence, in the context of this discussion, is that there is no possibility of the existence of time or space before the existence of matter. It would follow that if matter began its existence at the time of the Big Bang, then neither time or space could have had existence before then. The existence of Time and Space, therefore, is a function of matter/energy. //

Sanford, I understand your point but think that any approach or derivation could have problems concerning derivation based upon "basic principles" aka "first principles." For instance Maxwell's equations may not be valid in all inertial frames in all circumstances, and therefore may not necessarily be justifiable as a "first principles" derivation of SR. I agree that this assumption might be more acceptable as being of first principles than the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Concepts from "first principles": "The idea for the physicist is to see where such a relationship comes from, beginning with "basic physics" principles—Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Equations, for example. Such first principles are generally well-established and ubiquitously accepted within the physics community, and are sometimes thought of as the most basic concepts in physics, from which all the other laws of physics can be derived." http://www.niceneguys.com/science/fi...entific-limits The point, I think, is that nothing in physics is based upon a certain foundation of validity. (parenthesis added) First Principles and Scientific Limits | The Nicene Guy Maxwell's equations and Newton's Mechanic's equations are most often given as examples of equations from "first principles." But even they have "soft assumptions" that someday might be proven to be wrong under certain circumstances. http://en.wikipedia....l%27s_equations

too-open-minded, This is a mainstream section of the Forum, Classical Physics. Only mainstream answers should be given here. The mainstream answer is that gravity is caused by non-linear distortions of space by matter, commonly called a warp of space-time. Is this ultimately the correct answer? There are alternative ideas so it depends upon who you are asking and in what format or forum. If you want to discuss other ideas/ possibilities, other than mainstream, you could maybe ask the same question in the Speculation Forum but there maybe you don't need the "I'm confused" part. You may get lots of different opinions of possibilities and maybe you might want to argue your favorite hypothesis. A limit is a mathematical term. For instance: the sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 etc. Complete the series with many additional fractions, add them together and their sum approaches the number 1, and their "limit" is equal to 1 . Wiki//

Glad to realize that somebody is presently working on such an idea but surprised to see it make the science news because of its seeming far stretch from present theory and technology.

JvNrocks, When Lederman submitted his book to his editor, they thought the title he submitted, "The G D Particle" was a little bit too controversial, so they dropped the "Damned" from the book title. His idea was based upon all the trouble particle physics were going through trying to find this key piece of the standard model. Since we are in the Speculation Forum and you are asking opinions, mine is simply NO. Quantum Gravity is an attempt to join principles and equations of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics in a unifying theory of gravity. If GR and QM are both fundamentally wrong concerning their premises, which I think they are, then I think there could be no chance for either theory surviving in the long run, or for any theory attempting to unify them.

I think the consensus opinion is that the initial BB condition provided the potential energy needed for the inflation that accordingly resulted. The beginning of hypothetical inflation and its cause(s), are generally considered speculative concerning the details. //

My expectations for the use of many more emoticons was high Maybe Illusio will only have a couple of days off and an asylum will not catch either of us before his next postings here? //

I hope you're not going for a "free energy" type invention. If so I suggest not to get your hopes too high. There have been, and continues to be many ether proposals. Only those that can test their models have the best chance for fame. Looks like you're also going for fortune -- concerning a patent. Your ether, like all the countless other ether proposals, needs to be explained before you find it, predicting what exactly will be observed from experiment and why. Michelson & Morley (M & M) were looking for a luminiferous ether with a speed great enough that their equipment could detect it. Ether can be defined as an unknown background particle/string/entity field. Dark matter, Higgs, gravitons, etc. could fall under that definition. It could also be defined as an energy field like the dark energy hypothesis. So you need to explain the details of "your" ether model which seemingly should be explainable without giving away any secrets. Dark matter as a source of gravity, I think has similarity to the idea that ether is the source of mass and/or gravity. A luminiferous ether is what M & M were looking for -- ether accordingly being the supposed carrier of EM radiation. They got the Nobel for not finding it -- so it would seem hard to deny someone who really did find it, if in fact it exists. Such a discovery could revolutionize all of physics depending upon what kind of ether is discovered. It could eventually cause major changes or replacements of much of the theories in physics formulated within the last 100 years or so -- maybe SR, GR, Quantum Theory, the standard model, etc. The task is certainly formidable. I think I can wait a couple more days, god willing and the well don't run dry //

If they have really discovered the primary insecticides that cause this big problem with bees, I expect they will soon find other chemicals that will do the job without harming bees as much, or not at all. There are also mite and mini-fly larvae that kill bee colonies in nature. They might have to breed stronger bees from similar types of honey bees, or actually genetically help them to also cope better with natural predators, or maybe even chemical cocktails sprayed on the hives or crops to help bees survive better in nature, and possibly more resistant to certain insecticides .

If there's no expansion of the universe, in answer to the OP question, then there would be no such thing as accelerated or decelerating expansion of the universe either. My explanation is simply that they have misinterpreted observations, which was the basis for my technical paper. I am suggesting that there is a different explanation for galactic redshifts other than the expansion of the universe, and that the dark energy hypothesis resulted from an incomplete Hubble distance formula -- my paper proposing an addendum to it. //

The big bang model asserts the universe is expanding. For that matter, the Steady State model also thought the universe is expanding. The basis for this proposed expansion is the observed galactic redshifting of EM radiation and the expansion of space, according to the standard model. There have been a number of other explanations proposed over the years to also explain this redshifting of galactic light. One of the more well known proposals was tired light. This was shown to be wrong by supernova time dilation, but other similar proposals such as aether drag/ dark matter drag, which would lengthen EM radiation cannot be disproved, as far as I know. There are other proposals such as gravitational redshifting which the OP mentioned, the diminution of matter, Dirac's expanding matter and expanding space, Compton redshifting, etc. Most of these other proposals seemingly cannot presently be disproved. If any of these are valid, instead of space expanding, then maybe the universe isn't expanding at all. This was the OP proposal or question. I, for one, believe in one of the other explanations for redshifts so therefore don't believe the universe is expanding or contracting. My first technical paper on this can be found at pantheory.org (see technical papers) //

Pretty cool that you could find those postings Yeah, I simply think that the Hubble formula miscalculates by about 11% for all redshifts greater than z = 1.5, based upon my analysis -- that such distances are somewhat closer causing galaxies to appear bigger and brighter at those distances. //

Iggy, we've been here for a wee bit of time. This is the problem. I can agree with the OP, or explain that the universe is not really expanding, but to explain an answer is again something different. I have talked to you for a long time now. If you cannot recall previous conversations please PM me. Once you answer my PM then probably we could continue on this thread // This has to be put on a different thread, please ask again and I will provide. I have a different formulation. OK best regards Forrest

String Junky, There is a fine line between agreeing with a proposal and proposing your own. In the context of the speculation, is space really expanding, I can simply state my opinion, which is simply no. In my case it's more that an opinion but an entire theory. I My own model is a diminution of matter model. whereby the the expansion of the universe is just a optical allusion. In my studies and mathematical evaluations it would take the reduction of about 1 millionth part every 6,000 years to observe what we are presently observing. // //

I believe this simply can be explained by errors in the Hubble formula. That galaxies are actually 11% closer at these distances than the Hubble formula indicates. I don't expect the James Webb to disprove everything , just the primary premise of the BB model that the universe started expanding about 13.7 B years ago, but instead is many times older than that. //

The original Big Bang idea was something like this. An almost infinite amount of mass packed into an almost infinitesimal point resulting in an explosion, BANG! The fireworks theory of Le Maitre was like this. Today they believe there are far too many problems with an explosion scenario to start the universe so they have replaced it with the superluminal expansion of space idea called the Inflation hypothesis of the Big Bang model.

I've read your material before and think you do quite well in English. I also think that space is not expanding like you have proposed, but go farther in believing that the universe is not expanding either. Some evidence to support this belief is that the local galaxy group and maybe local super-cluster Virgo, does not appear to be expanding. It is thought that gravity compensates for the expansion of space in the local group. There is no evidence that I can think of that the universe is expanding other than the observed redshift of galactic spectra. Although there are seemingly other possible explanations for these redshifts rather than expanding galaxies and space, none of these other possible explanations would be consistent with the Big Bang model. Hoyle's SS models also proposed an expanding but SS universe, so few other explanations of galactic redshifts have much of a following today.

You are right. But I believe this is unrelated to the present BB model. I believe it is simply a fact that is based upon the Hubble formula needing reformulation, which gives the false impression of dark energy. I was referring to the real size and forms of galaxies in the past being exactly the same as in the present. This would be based upon some galaxies exactly like the Milky Way existing as far back in time that we will ever be able to look.