Jump to content

An Idea for a Paradox


Noa V.
 Share

Recommended Posts

     So, this is new for me. Recently I have been thinking on something that bugs me a tiny bit, and I suppose it has just gotten my gears turning to the point where I'd even want to coin a paradox of it. The "Veer" Paradox, if you will. This is somewhat hard to compose in a manner for you as a reader to understand. Let me try this though. 13.8 Billion years back, let's say we are at the point of the Big Bang, moments before it's grand eruption. What made the very fabric of Space Time? What happened before this point? What happened before that point? What about before that point? This sounds stupendously simple, however, I have spent entire nights elaborating, just trying to settle the chain of questions. If you think very long and hard about it, it is truly thought provoking, because there logically HAS to be an answer, but you know you'll never quite get there. I wish to start a fun, brain teasing buzz in the community, and hear what people think actually happened before the point of the Big Bang, and if they get equally as frustrated with the magnitude of questions that follow trying to even barely comprehend it. I also want thoughts and feedback of my idea on me coining the phenomenon. (Disclaimer: I am aware that this is more of a Universal topic, but I figured it can be philosophical seeing that it touches on the beginning, and the potential point of existence, because you'll be left questioning it if you truly think about what I have stated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Noa V. said:

because there logically HAS to be an answer

Actually no, there doesn’t. The questions you pose tacitly assume that notions such as “before”, “after”, “here”, “there” etc are physically meaningful at and around the BB event; in other words, you assume that there was a well-ordered causal structure in place back then. The trouble is that there is nothing to suggest that this is actually the case - quite the contrary actually, because if we look at modern approaches to quantum gravity, then you will find that in many of these models there simply was no classical spacetime with a well-ordered set of events present back then. To put it differently - if you go back far enough to towards the BB, the concepts of a metric and causal structure increasingly begin to loose their meaning. Eventually, the question “what came before...” becomes simply meaningless, because there is no longer any ordering of events either in time nor in space. Going back even further then, the very notions of “time” and “space” as traditionally understood loose their meaning as well, so you end up with a scenario that may still exhibit dynamics, but in a background-independent manner without any classical spacetime.

So I think the skill here is not so much to find answers, but to ask the right questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Noa V. said:

     What made the very fabric of Space Time? What happened before this point?

Don't forget the end as well. As our current universal physics models don't recognize any location outside the bb singularity or the expansion border of the universe, mainly because if there was anything there it couldn't be scientifically observed anyway,  we cannot conceive anything pushing back on our 'universe' beyond the bb expansion sphere.

Considering that the ratio of total calculated universal matter (Lambda CDM) divided by total universal visible matter is extremely close to 2*pi we should probably adopt a new paradigm as our inability to measure/observe anything outside the visible universe does not necessarily mean that something does not actually exist out there.

The real paradox is something like dark matter, which is not made of anything we can identify under our our current physical laws, that 'exists' within the confines of our visible universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Noa V. said:

     So, this is new for me. Recently I have been thinking on something that bugs me a tiny bit, and I suppose it has just gotten my gears turning to the point where I'd even want to coin a paradox of it. The "Veer" Paradox, if you will. This is somewhat hard to compose in a manner for you as a reader to understand. Let me try this though. 13.8 Billion years back, let's say we are at the point of the Big Bang, moments before it's grand eruption. What made the very fabric of Space Time? What happened before this point? What happened before that point? What about before that point? This sounds stupendously simple, however, I have spent entire nights elaborating, just trying to settle the chain of questions. If you think very long and hard about it, it is truly thought provoking, because there logically HAS to be an answer, but you know you'll never quite get there. I wish to start a fun, brain teasing buzz in the community, and hear what people think actually happened before the point of the Big Bang, and if they get equally as frustrated with the magnitude of questions that follow trying to even barely comprehend it. I also want thoughts and feedback of my idea on me coining the phenomenon. (Disclaimer: I am aware that this is more of a Universal topic, but I figured it can be philosophical seeing that it touches on the beginning, and the potential point of existence, because you'll be left questioning it if you truly think about what I have stated.)

Your question is sort of like wondering to oneself "what was I doing before I existed". It is a conflicting thought. Before I existed I did not exist and therefor couldn't have been doing anything. If you accept space time didn't exist, that time didn't exist, prior to the big bang than you accept time wasn't. The word "before" relates to time or at least a linear order on events. Prior to the big bang there was no time and thus a word like "before" has no relevant meaning. Big Bang theory is about the Big Bang. The theory doesn't address a universe without the Big Bang. Likewise for me to question what I am doing there must be an I, me.

While much existed before I existed it confuses time to asked what I was doing during time prior to my existence. Rather than asking what came before the Big Bang a better question would be, as @LaurieAG alluded,  to ask the less paradoxical  "what is beyond our observable Universe". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Actually no, there doesn’t. The questions you pose tacitly assume that notions such as “before”, “after”, “here”, “there” etc are physically meaningful at and around the BB event; in other words, you assume that there was a well-ordered causal structure in place back then. The trouble is that there is nothing to suggest that this is actually the case - quite the contrary actually, because if we look at modern approaches to quantum gravity, then you will find that in many of these models there simply was no classical spacetime with a well-ordered set of events present back then. To put it differently - if you go back far enough to towards the BB, the concepts of a metric and causal structure increasingly begin to loose their meaning. Eventually, the question “what came before...” becomes simply meaningless, because there is no longer any ordering of events either in time nor in space. Going back even further then, the very notions of “time” and “space” as traditionally understood loose their meaning as well, so you end up with a scenario that may still exhibit dynamics, but in a background-independent manner without any classical spacetime.

So I think the skill here is not so much to find answers, but to ask the right questions.

I pretty much came to the same conclusion when I rationalised that: if time and space emerged with the BB, then prior to that, the universe could do what it likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another answer. However not in the frame of accepted physics.

My point of view is fully, fundamentally relativistic. It consists of meaning that if we are observing a phenomena like the BB about 14 BY ago, and if the Theory that gives us this result is Relativistic (with a big R), then any observer, anywhere in the Universe (and at any time), will observe the same thing as we do: a BB 14 BY ago. It means that the BB is not an absolute event, but a relative one. Which means that the BB is not the begin of the universe, nor the begin of Space & Time. It is the horizon that forbids us to see farther in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

I have another answer. However not in the frame of accepted physics.

My point of view is fully, fundamentally relativistic. It consists of meaning that if we are observing a phenomena like the BB about 14 BY ago, and if the Theory that gives us this result is Relativistic (with a big R), then any observer, anywhere in the Universe (and at any time), will observe the same thing as we do: a BB 14 BY ago. It means that the BB is not an absolute event, but a relative one. Which means that the BB is not the begin of the universe, nor the begin of Space & Time. It is the horizon that forbids us to see farther in the past.

Doesn't the BB only apply to the observable universe?

 What we do know with reasonable confidence is that there was a time at t+10-43 seconds when our visible universe was incredibly small, much hotter and unimaginably dense. The BB wasn't a "point", it was just an event at which we actually have no knowledge, when the whole universe/space/time apparently started expanding and which we are able to reasonably make sense of at the aforementioned t+10-43 seconds. Perhaps the term singularity is misleading as many take it to mean a point of infinite density, when in actual fact, speaking physically , it need not actually be infinite but may lead to infinite qualities. Speaking mathematically of course, it is simply where our models, equations and laws simply don't compute.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/08/2018 at 8:16 AM, Noa V. said:

     So, this is new for me. Recently I have been thinking on something that bugs me a tiny bit, and I suppose it has just gotten my gears turning to the point where I'd even want to coin a paradox of it. The "Veer" Paradox, if you will. This is somewhat hard to compose in a manner for you as a reader to understand. Let me try this though. 13.8 Billion years back, let's say we are at the point of the Big Bang, moments before it's grand eruption. What made the very fabric of Space Time? What happened before this point? What happened before that point? What about before that point? This sounds stupendously simple, however, I have spent entire nights elaborating, just trying to settle the chain of questions. If you think very long and hard about it, it is truly thought provoking, because there logically HAS to be an answer, but you know you'll never quite get there. I wish to start a fun, brain teasing buzz in the community, and hear what people think actually happened before the point of the Big Bang, and if they get equally as frustrated with the magnitude of questions that follow trying to even barely comprehend it. I also want thoughts and feedback of my idea on me coining the phenomenon. (Disclaimer: I am aware that this is more of a Universal topic, but I figured it can be philosophical seeing that it touches on the beginning, and the potential point of existence, because you'll be left questioning it if you truly think about what I have stated.)

Yes, I have answers, having thought about the same thing, as you, I and everyone else...

[1] It simply was. Instead of not being, there it was. Instead of nothing, something, yes?

[2] The big bang was a result of 'realization,' things struggling to be. As soon as they conceived of a thought, there it was. This was like a spark.

[3] The gases of nothing were compressed, and, they exploded?

[4] There is a manic cycle of repeated 'universal heartbeat.' This resembles a star emerging, becoming a black hole, and exploding into a star again, through a heart beat function. This is where the cycle repeats, always losing density as the black hole sucks less in that it sheds every so often. The universe is expanding now, but it is getting 'thinner,' okay? This means it will eventually stop getting bigger and begin compressing again, crushing us and everything, as a star blue print. All scientific methods are interchangeable, as they follow logically through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/08/2018 at 8:46 PM, michel123456 said:

My point of view is fully, fundamentally relativistic. It consists of meaning that if we are observing a phenomena like the BB about 14 BY ago, and if the Theory that gives us this result is Relativistic (with a big R), then any observer, anywhere in the Universe (and at any time), will observe the same thing as we do: a BB 14 BY ago.

The evidence shows that you are wrong.

On 12/08/2018 at 8:16 AM, Noa V. said:

Let me try this though. 13.8 Billion years back, let's say we are at the point of the Big Bang, moments before it's grand eruption.

We don't really know that there was such an original "point". By using General Relativity alone, you can extrapolate back and get to a singularity at t=0. But there is little reason to think that represents reality. None of our current theories can go back that far. Some attempts to include quantum theory in the model result in the universe being infinitely old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

The evidence shows that you are wrong.

No.*

*this answer is referenced by the same material as yours.

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

Some attempts to include quantum theory in the model result in the universe being infinitely old. 

That is a good reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

No.*

*this answer is referenced by the same material as yours.

I thought anyone with a vague interest in the subject would be familiar with the multiple lines of evidence for the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state.

For example:

https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

37 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

That is a good reference.

For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2018 at 2:16 AM, Noa V. said:

     So, this is new for me. Recently I have been thinking on something that bugs me a tiny bit, and I suppose it has just gotten my gears turning to the point where I'd even want to coin a paradox of it. The "Veer" Paradox, if you will. This is somewhat hard to compose in a manner for you as a reader to understand. Let me try this though. 13.8 Billion years back, let's say we are at the point of the Big Bang, moments before it's grand eruption. What made the very fabric of Space Time? What happened before this point? What happened before that point? What about before that point? This sounds stupendously simple, however, I have spent entire nights elaborating, just trying to settle the chain of questions. If you think very long and hard about it, it is truly thought provoking, because there logically HAS to be an answer, but you know you'll never quite get there. I wish to start a fun, brain teasing buzz in the community, and hear what people think actually happened before the point of the Big Bang, and if they get equally as frustrated with the magnitude of questions that follow trying to even barely comprehend it. I also want thoughts and feedback of my idea on me coining the phenomenon. (Disclaimer: I am aware that this is more of a Universal topic, but I figured it can be philosophical seeing that it touches on the beginning, and the potential point of existence, because you'll be left questioning it if you truly think about what I have stated.)

There are other schools of though that do not include a "BB" 

https://physicsworld.com/a/ekpyrotic-cosmology-resurfaces/

 

Quote

In ekpyrotic cosmology — which was proposed in 2001 by physicists Paul Steinhardt, Justin Khoury, Neil Turok and Burt Ovrut — there is no beginning of time. Instead, our visible universe exists on one of two four-dimensional “branes” floating in a five-dimensional space. These two branes are locked in an endless oscillatory motion in which they creep together, “bounce” through each other, withdraw and then creep together again (see animation: Branes collide). At each bounce, which is like a fresh Big Bang, ripples in the branes collide and liberate energy at different places to produce the initial density perturbations. And because energy conservation would favour a flat brane, the theory explains why our visible universe is flat too. “It’s like the antichrist to inflation,” says Khoury.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Strange said:

I thought anyone with a vague interest in the subject would be familiar with the multiple lines of evidence for the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state.

For example:

https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

Let me try to explain why I do not get the BBT.

As stated in your links:

"At 13.8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had a temperature of over a trillion degrees."

"Because light takes time to travel from one place to another, we don't see stars and galaxies as they are now, but as they were thousands, millions or billions of years ago. That means that looking deeper into the universe is also looking deeper into the past."

My point is when we look into our telescope Eastward, looking very far away in the beginning of time, we are observing galaxies (E). At the same time, if we look Westward, looking into the depth of the universe, we see again galaxies (W).

And we see that E galaxies are further remote from W galaxies as much we look back in time.  The farther we look in the Universe, the more large it is: our observable universe is a sphere around us, getting bigger & bigger as we look in the past. And then we have this BB Theory that explains us exactly the contrary.

When did it happen that W & E galaxies came close to each other in order to merge and get the size of a peach ? Against all observations.

 

I hope I was clear.

 

Edited by michel123456
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

And we see that E galaxies are further remote from W galaxies as much we look back in time.  The farther we look in the Universe, the more large it is: our observable universe is a sphere around us, getting bigger & bigger as we look in the past.

If you measure the distance between those distant galaxies, they are closer together than galaxies today. 

In the meantime, the universe has been expanding, carrying those galaxies (and the light from them) away from us. So they might have been a billion light years away when the light was emitted and are now 10s of billions of light years away.

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

When did it happen that W & E galaxies came close to each other in order to merge and get the size of a peach ?

According to your source, 13.8 billion years ago (long before there were any galaxies).

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Against all observations.

Against your intuition, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

I hope I was clear.

No.

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

When did it happen that W & E galaxies came close to each other in order to merge and get the size of a peach ?

Never.
The Galaxies didn't come together.

They (or, at least, the stuff they are made from) started off together and have been moving apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2018 at 9:35 PM, John Cuthber said:

No.

The objects that we are looking in the past are far away from us. In all directions. The further away, the more in the past. The more in the past, the more far away. In all directions.

We are never observing a situation where the objects come closer together as we look in the past.

 

 

On 8/15/2018 at 9:25 PM, Strange said:

If you measure the distance between those distant galaxies, they are closer together than galaxies today. 

Your reference?

I have other source that say this:

"But the question specifically related to what we observe in galaxy catalogs. Can you tell that the density of the universe was greater in the past than it is now by looking at the distribution of objects on the sky? No.(...)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

I have other source that say this:

"But the question specifically related to what we observe in galaxy catalogs. Can you tell that the density of the universe was greater in the past than it is now by looking at the distribution of objects on the sky? No.(...)"

As that page very clearly explains, that is because of the apparent separation that we see now. It also clearly says that they were denser then.

33 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Your reference?

The excellent article you linked to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Strange said:

As that page very clearly explains, that is because of the apparent separation that we see now. It also clearly says that they were denser then.

The excellent article you linked to.

That is probably the main difference between your approach and mine.

What I read is that EVIDENCE, aka what we are observing, what we are measuring, what is in the catalog, is LESS galaxies.

What I read is that because this evidence does not fit with the THEORY, then we proceed in explanations (the galaxies are fainter)

Summing the 2 above, what I read is that EVIDENCE does not fit with THEORY.

What you read is that THEORY is stronger than EVIDENCE.

Edited by michel123456
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably has to do with the square cells of graph paper.  If you measure the diagonal of a square 2d cell on the graph paper, it's longer than the edges.  Therefore if the cells start to blink on and off according to some rule, but they all update at the same speed, if you look at -apparant- diagonal motion across the graph paper, those apparant moving objects you see in the blinking lights (if you see anything moving diagonally that is a distinct shape), must travel faster than up-down or left-right movers in the random flicker, because THEY HAVE TO TRAVEL A GREATER DISTANCE.  That could lead to imbalances if a few of those cells are placed and rules are being cycled like in a cellular automata, diagonals being faster probably causes dark strings in the random flicker to curl back and form a figure eight whenever two holes equally spaced collapse inward, (for the black string to form the figure out around) and you have a clockwise or counterclockwise spinning oscillator in the middle of the two holes.  The oscillator, or repeating sequence of on and off cells would cause those strings to be able to EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.  So it's to generate strings, and specifically donuts or tori, that cavitate a closed dark string, but the pattern, with edges wrapped is somehow in the shape of a trefoil knot so upon cavitation, it turns into a donut, and then you have a quantum computer on a cellular automata running on the desktop.  If that is how the universe formed, I don't know.

Edit: I don't think the diagonal moving faster causes the figure eight to form around the two holes, but it's that imbalance versus up-down and left-right speed that is natural on the graph paper that IMAGES the presence of the figure eight within the flicker, as having two holes and an oscillator in and of itself would make such a thing form, but it's the breaking up of the square cells in the mind due to the speed imbalance that allows you to see that.  It's probably just a guidebook on how to make the pattern right.  It seems like a horrific timing problem (maybe to place "tiles" of repeating objects that have one diagonal longer of the tile than another), but the advantage is that this automata is in an expanding explosive rule, so things don't have to be engineered like most automatas.

Edited by t686
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.