pantheory

dmaiski,

.........9. that something had to come from nothing

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."

...so the million dollar question is what is nothing

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.

//

A physics professor at the university of Waterloo has a hypothesis that the universe evolves and has natural selection through black holes. Where a new universe begins.

 

Personally I really like the idea, actually had though of it myself then I saw it on through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman. I felt compelled to email Mr. Smolin, no reply but i'm sure he is a busy man and probably thinks i'm just a nut lol.

 

Anyways I really like the concept of a multiverse and had pondered if black holes could give birth to new universes as well.

 

What do you think about all this?

 

here is a link -

http://evodevouniver...nd_universes%29

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.

I can see how it could be asserted that time in the observable universe began with the observable universe but other possibilities are being considered, one of these called the ekpyrotic universe model that considers that time may pass in a greater bulk space that our universal membrane exists within along with other membranes.

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,

Thanks that has made it a little clearer. What I'm still having trouble grasping is how, with a specific origin of time at the Big Bang, there is not one linear universal progression of time that would come out of it.

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.

//

But this is only with respect to "our" reference frame. There isn't really a 'cosmic timeline'; so how can we say time had a starting point as if to suggest space-time appeared and started ticking away. Yet GR tells us time does not just 'tick-away' in the background. (Note! I'm not rejecting the fact of the Big Bang here).

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,

.....An example of a theory that does not begin from basic principles is special relativity as originally expressed by Einstein. He postulated the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames. His mistake is that light is not fundamental, but a consequence of Maxwell's Equations, ME. The correct way to develop this theory is to postulate that ME is valid in all inertial frames.....

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.

(Physics) is not, however, self-sufficient as a field, in that its own foundations— (even) those first principles upon which it depends—are insecure without a few (more basic) assumptions. Perhaps these assumptions will some day be measured and quantified, but those measurements will surely rely on even more assumptions. In the meantime, and perhaps as an inherent restriction, these assumptions themselves cannot ultimately be answered by physics without appeals to philosophy.

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.

While Maxwell's equations are consistent within special and general relativity, there are some quantum mechanical situations in which Maxwell's equations are significantly inaccurate: including extremely strong fields (see Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian) and extremely short distances (see vacuum polarization). Moreover, various phenomena occur in the world even though Maxwell's equations predicts them to be impossible........

http://en.wikipedia....l%27s_equations

too-open-minded,

So is it an attraction between objects with mass or is it a distortion in space-time caused from objects with mass?

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.

What do you mean by as a limit?

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 .

In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value.

//

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,

Witness the "God particle." Why are people calling it that?

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.

Can a theory of quantum gravity unify physics for mankind? Your opinions please.

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 understand the idea that there could have been a vast amount of mass packed in a very tiny space, and that it then rapidly expanded. But when you say that large mass and small space resulted in the Big Bang, it sounds as if the Big Bang was inevitable, due to the large mass/small space.

 

Is that correct? Is that the scientific thought on the process, or is it unknown what caused the expansion/explosion. In other words, if we packed enough material in a small enough space, would we expect an explosion/expansion to be inevitable?

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 guess is that you'll be waiting longer than a couple of days, given the Illusio has been suspended (again, IIRC)

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 have blueprint for setup which demonstrates ether. I can't reveal it yet because patent application rules. But finally we can stop arguing whether there is ether or not Wait couple of day...

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.

Wait couple of day...

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 .

I'm sorry, Pantheory. I see you responded to my post again, but I really can't reply to the content seriously. You implied that you were a theoretical physicist while not knowing how the deceleration parameter worked. You thought the Hubble constant implied constant expansion over time. Your last post represents redshift as the sole indicator of expansion while referring to your "technical paper"... I'm sorry, but I would be incapable of responding as if we're having some kind of debate.

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.

//

What can be explained? The model's prediction can be explained? In no sense does the prediction of a model lack an explanation. I can't understand what you're on about.

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.

Nice of you to correct cosmologists. What is the correct formula for angular diameter distance?

My first technical paper on this can be found at pantheory.org (see technical papers)

//

That's right. I do recall now the previous conversation we had regarding Hubble's law where you asserted something rather telling. Let me see...

 

Ok... so, I'm sorry to say it is impossible to know the basics of relativistic cosmology while mischaracterizing it such. Had I remembered where you were coming from I wouldn't have pressed you for details about how it was in error. I should just have said,

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

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.

//

What can be explained? The model's prediction can be explained? In no sense does the prediction of a model lack an explanation. I can't understand what you're on about.

 

Nice of you to correct cosmologists. What is the correct formula for angular diameter distance?

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

//

What can be explained? The model's prediction can be explained? In no sense does the prediction of a model lack an explanation. I can't understand what you're on about.

 

 

Nice of you to correct cosmologists. What is the correct formula for angular diameter distance?

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

How can the universe expand if space is not expanding and preserve isotropy and homogeneity (or don't you think so?)? Your apparent alternative implication is an expanding 'island universe' in a sea of pre-existing space. Also, if redshifting galaxies are accepted, they can't physically move at superluminal speeds (Re: SR), so, space expansion is the only other option or do you assert physical objects can move FTL into a pre-existing space?

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

Also, if redshifting galaxies are accepted, they can't physically move at superluminal speeds (Re: SR), so, space expansion is the only other option or do you assert physical objects can move FTL into a pre-existing space?

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.

//

//

In the present (Lambda-CDM) model the angular size increases beyond z=1.5. The wikipedia quote I gave is correct, any cosmology calculator that includes angular diameter would show.

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.

...and if the James Webb space telescope doesn't disprove everything we've learned about expansion there will always be things that remain unobserved. Bias does live in the margins of knowledge after all.

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.

Dear pantheory,

 

I'm very sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

 

My assertion is that

1. Space does not expand. (I agree that Universe is expanding.)

 

2. Hubble's law is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in space.

 

3. [math]R = \frac{1}{z}[/math] is derived from assumption that space is expanding. R=1/(1+z) is wrong because of that space does not expand.

...

 

--Icarus2

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.

Very distant galaxies should appear large in the current model.

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.

Bjarne,

This video, your link, is now 10-15 years old. I agree that many of these arguments are still valid and that the video is still good.

One theorist that remains active, pro other models and against the BB model, is the mathematician and cosmologist Jayant Narlikar. Also Erik Lerner, in the video, is an active plasma physicist and theorist contrary to the BB model.

Jayant Narlikar, Vijay Mohan, European Southern Observatory

http://www.indianexp...-stars/756519/2

What are the problems with the BB model? (rhetorical).

The first problem is that it has a few ad hoc hypothesis hung onto it, which are needed by the model for it to survive.

The first is the Inflation hypothesis.

There seems to be no possible way to confirm this hypothesis. It is a ad hoc hypothesis proposing seemingly forever unobservable new physics. Without it such perceived problems like the Horizon problem and the Flatness problems, seem insurmountable.

The next ad hoc hypothesis is called dark matter. Without this hypothesis Einstein's theory of gravity and cosmological equations fail to a very large degree at the galactic and larger scales. There is thought to be both evidence that supports the existence of dark matter, and evidence which contradicts its existence.

http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter

The dark energy hypothesis is not needed by the BB model since its primary purpose is simply ad hoc to explain observations. It is not predicted by most other models as well and its existence denied by some. In my opinion there is very little evidence to support the dark energy hypothesis, but for the same reason I think it will be difficult to disprove.

Is the universe expanding as the explanation of galactic redshifts? The BB model and Hoyle's SS models say yes, some other models propose a non-expanding SS universe concerning the observable universe.

Unlike many questions in physics this one concerning the age of the universe could be solved in the foreseeable future. The James Webb infrared space telescope is going up about 2018. The BB proposes that vary distant galaxies will be dense in numbers, relatively small, and very young. Most other cosmological models believe such distant galaxies will run the gamut of appearances just like local galaxies. They accordingly will appear to be both old and young, large and small. There colors and densities accordingly will be the same as for local galaxy clusters.

So by about 2024 either the BB will be firmly entrenched with its only competition being different versions of itself, or I think it will be on its way to the graveyard of discredited/ disproved theories.

Of course if the universe is not expanding at all, the conjecture of this thread, It might not be realized until after the Big Bang's demise.

//

Icarus 2

Hubble's law doesn't result from the expansion of space, but is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in space.

We have never observed the expansion of space.

We don't know(or observe) velocity of distant galaxy. We observed only redshift and then , we estimate the scale factor, velocity, distance….

-------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, Hubble's law is valid.

Therefore, red shift comes from the Doppler shift of light and implies that the existing equation of red shift should be revised.

---------------------------------------------

Icarus 2

What is your position on all of this? Do you ascribe to the expansion of the universe? Galaxies expanding away from each other? Space expanding? etc. Do you ascribe to the Hubble formula or only in certain domains?

//

I thought that the last paragraph of the article was rather insightful:

" Meanwhile, Alexander Gurevich, a theorist at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, cautions that previous claims of high-temperature superconductivity have come unstuck when scrutinized. The magnetic response could have been generated by impurities that were introduced during the sample treatment, he says"

 

As the researchers concede, they aren't actually observing superconductivity, but magnetic effects consistent with a superconducting state.

I've been a skeptic of these types of reports since the days when claims of "cold fusion" were the big topic of conversation.

I guess skeptism will not seriously come to play until an actual claim of superconductivity is made. Then there will rightfully be a million eyes on the research and claims