S: The Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning, After All

7,763 Views | 60 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by amercer
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#41fa94755df6
Quote:

The Universe began not with a whimper, but with a bang! At least, that's what you're commonly told: the Universe and everything in it came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Space, time, and all the matter and energy within began from a singular point, and then expanded and cooled, giving rise over billions of years to the atoms, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies spread out across the billions of light years that make up our observable Universe. It's a compelling, beautiful picture that explains so much of what we see, from the present large-scale structure of the Universe's two trillion galaxies to the leftover glow of radiation permeating all of existence. Unfortunately, it's also wrong, and scientists have known this for almost 40 years.
Quote:

n expanding Universe doesn't just mean that things get farther apart as time goes on, it also means that the light existing in the Universe stretches in wavelength as we travel forward in time. Since wavelength determines energy (shorter is more energetic), that means the Universe cools as we age, and hence things were hotter in the past. Extrapolate this back far enough, and you'll come to a time where everything was so hot that not even neutral atoms could form. If this picture were correct, we should see a leftover glow of radiation today, in all directions, that had cooled to just a few degrees above absolute zero. The discovery of this Cosmic Microwave Background in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson was a breathtaking confirmation of the Big Bang.
Quote:

It's tempting, therefore, to keep extrapolating backwards in time, to when the Universe was even hotter, denser, and more compact. If you continue to go back, you'll find:
  • A time where it was too hot to form atomic nuclei, where the radiation was so hot that any bound protons-and-neutrons would be blasted apart.
  • A time where matter and antimatter pairs could spontaneously form, as the Universe is so energetic that pairs of particles/antiparticles can spontaneously be created.
  • A time where individual protons and neutrons break down into a quark-gluon plasma, as the temperatures and densities are so high that the Universe becomes denser than the inside of an atomic nucleus.
  • And finally, a time where the density and temperature rise to infinite values, as all the matter and energy in the Universe are contained within a single point: a singularity.
This very final point this singularity that represents where the laws of physics break down also is understood to represent the origin of space and time. This was the ultimate idea of the Big Bang.
Quote:

Except, that is, in a few regards. Three specific things you would expect from the Big Bang didn't happen. In particular:
[ol]
  • The Universe doesn't have different temperatures in different directions, even though an area billions of light-years away in one direction never had time (since the Big Bang) to interact with or exchange information with an area billions of light-years in the opposite direction.
  • The Universe doesn't have a measurable spatial curvature that's different from zero, even though a Universe that's perfectly spatially flat requires a perfect balance between the initial expansion and the matter-and-radiation density.
  • The Universe doesn't have any leftover ultra-high-energy relics from the earliest times, even though the temperatures that would create these relics should have existed if the Universe were arbitrarily hot.
  • [/ol]Theorists thinking about these problems started thinking of alternatives to a "singularity" to the Big Bang, and rather of what could recreate that hot, dense, expanding, cooling state while avoiding these problems. In December of 1979, Alan Guth hit upon a solution.
    Quote:

    Instead of an arbitrarily hot, dense state, the Universe could have begun from a state where there was no matter, no radiation, no antimatter, no neutrinos, and no particles at all. All the energy present in the Universe would rather be bound up in the fabric of space itself: a form of vacuum energy, which causes the Universe to expand at an exponential rate. In this cosmic state, quantum fluctuations would still exist, and so as space expanded, these fluctuations would get stretched across the Universe, creating regions with slightly-more or slightly-less than average energy densities. And finally, when this phase of the Universe this period of inflation came to an end, that energy would get converted into matter-and-radiation, creating the hot, dense state synonymous with the Big Bang.
    Quote:

    The conclusion was inescapable: the hot Big Bang definitely happened, but doesn't extend to go all the way back to an arbitrarily hot and dense state. Instead, the very early Universe underwent a period of time where all of the energy that would go into the matter and radiation present today was instead bound up in the fabric of space itself. That period, known as cosmic inflation, came to an end and gave rise to the hot Big Bang, but never created an arbitrarily hot, dense state, nor did it create a singularity. What happened prior to inflation or whether inflation was eternal to the past is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!
    Interesting article. Nothing new, but the visuals are pretty good and it's interesting to think about the transition between cosmic inflation and the "explosion" of energy to matter in the Big Bang.
    bmks270
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    ... it says...:

    All of the energy in the universe was bound up in the "fabric of space" itself...?

    What the hell is "the fabric of space?"

    So there is this equation E=mc2. where does "fabric of space" fit into that.
    Athanasius
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Two things:

    The article takes care to mention some scientists, but does not mention Father Georges Lemaitre, who is credited with putting forth the Big Bang Theory itself. Just a quibble.

    Also, this sounds a lot like creation ex nihilo.
    dds08
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I speculate for the big bang to indeed have happened a higher order of space and time had to exist for the big bang to occur in.
    Post removed:
    by user
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    So this is just saying that inflation happened. Yeah... we knew that for a while. It's nothing new. It explains a lot anyways, but more confirmation would be good.
    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    bmks270 said:

    ... it says...:

    All of the energy in the universe was bound up in the "fabric of space" itself...?

    What the hell is "the fabric of space?"

    So there is this equation E=mc2. where does "fabric of space" fit into that.
    Space itself (actually spacetime) is a thing that has properties, has vacuum energy, makes motion and entropy possible and provides an arena for matter of the universe and physical laws to play out. The "fabric" is that thing. So if you removed all matter from the universe, you wouldn't be left with 'nothing'.
    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    Woody2006
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    TexAgs91 said:

    So this is just saying that inflation happened. Yeah... we knew that for a while. It's nothing new. It explains a lot anyways, but more confirmation would be good.

    Nothing new in this article, just well-explained and cool visuals.
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    bmks270 said:

    ... it says...:

    All of the energy in the universe was bound up in the "fabric of space" itself...?

    What the hell is "the fabric of space?"

    So there is this equation E=mc2. where does "fabric of space" fit into that.
    also... the fabric of spacetime is what scientists recently detected vibrations in when two black holes collided.
    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    bmks270
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    TexAgs91 said:

    bmks270 said:

    ... it says...:

    All of the energy in the universe was bound up in the "fabric of space" itself...?

    What the hell is "the fabric of space?"

    So there is this equation E=mc2. where does "fabric of space" fit into that.
    Space itself (actually spacetime) is a thing that has properties, has vacuum energy, makes motion and entropy possible and provides an arena for matter of the universe and physical laws to play out. The "fabric" is that thing. So if you removed all matter from the universe, you wouldn't be left with 'nothing'.


    I guess this is just my ignorance of the "fabric
    of space." But to me it doesn't sound like a thing.

    Are you saying that without the bang there would still be "space"... rather there would still be something that exists but it's not matter or energy?

    is the claim that "space" existed before the bang? Like it is eternal? What is the origin of time? the bang? Time can only exist after the first cause is my understanding.

    Where does E=mc2 fit into this "fabric"

    Star Wars Memes Only
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    In general relativity there is something known as the metric. It is a mathematical structure that describes the geometry of spacetime. In other words it tells you how to measure the distance between two points in spacetime, how to measure the curvature, and other geometric properties. A fabric is a decent metaphor to describe these things. A fabric can be flat, or it can take on a particular shape (curvatre), it can be stretched or compressed (distance). Another way this analogy is typically extended is that the metric of spacetime is usually "distorted" by the presence of energy. Stretched fabric will similarly be distorted if you place a mass on it. In other words, as far as I can tell, the fabric of spacetime is merely a simplified metaphor for the metric of spacetime. Pehaps it can help some people visualize what is meant by the metric. That being said, I've only ever heard that phrase be used as a metaphor. I've never heard someone talk about the fabric of spacetime in a scientific context unless they were deliberately trying to be poetic or something.
    Post removed:
    by user
    Dumpster Fire
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Sounds familiar:

    "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Heb. 11:3)
    Star Wars Memes Only
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Dumpster Fire said:

    Sounds familiar:

    "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Heb. 11:3)


    Are you comparing your theology to a metaphor?
    Star Wars Memes Only
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    I have no computer for the time being. Posting from a phone sucks. Combine autocorrect and a little indcision about what I want to say and you get six edits.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    How can you believe in the metric and not be a Platonist? At the minimum a mathematical Platonist?
    Star Wars Memes Only
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    I don't really know enough to answer that question. Might be helpful in starting the conversation by describing what you mean by platonist (i have a philosophy 101 idea but it might be helpful if you expounded), and why what I've said implies that I am one, and how platonist relates to this conversation.
    Dumpster Fire
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    dargscisyhp said:

    Dumpster Fire said:

    Sounds familiar:

    "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Heb. 11:3)


    Are you comparing your theology to a metaphor?

    It was tongue in cheek (but not really). I am a believer who is fascinated by the depths of knowledge we have on where we came from. I don't necessarily think this is in contrast to creation by God. I just now think we are understanding and discovering "the ways of God", if you will, about the creation of our universe.

    There have been many discussions about literal 6 day creation and old-earth creation. As I get older I am learning to rest well in the mysteries of God/scripture and the realities/theories of discovery that we have made and how they don't have to be at odds with one another (Also knowing that I can't try to make them fit together perfectly either).

    I don't dismiss this "science" nor do I believe it disproves God and I am perfectly content sitting right in the middle of science vs God for the rest of my days trusting in Jesus for life.
    Tamu_mgm
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Whether it's the big bang or this theory that's been known for 40 years, God made it happen by those means. God and science are not mutually exclusive by any means.
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    bmks270 said:

    TexAgs91 said:

    bmks270 said:

    ... it says...:

    All of the energy in the universe was bound up in the "fabric of space" itself...?

    What the hell is "the fabric of space?"

    So there is this equation E=mc2. where does "fabric of space" fit into that.
    Space itself (actually spacetime) is a thing that has properties, has vacuum energy, makes motion and entropy possible and provides an arena for matter of the universe and physical laws to play out. The "fabric" is that thing. So if you removed all matter from the universe, you wouldn't be left with 'nothing'.


    I guess this is just my ignorance of the "fabric
    of space." But to me it doesn't sound like a thing.

    Are you saying that without the bang there would still be "space"... rather there would still be something that exists but it's not matter or energy?

    is the claim that "space" existed before the bang? Like it is eternal? What is the origin of time? the bang? Time can only exist after the first cause is my understanding.

    Where does E=mc2 fit into this "fabric"
    Good questions, and we can't really say yet what's outside the universe.

    As the article says, and as I've read elsewhere, inflation occurs before the big bang.

    The big bang is initiated with the end of inflation. Inflation is a period of very rapid expansion where due to a trick of general relativity, the negative pressure that exists during inflation causes free expansion of mass without requiring extra energy. Negative pressure creates a strong repulsive gravitational force and it blows itself apart.

    But I don't think we consider this spacetime to be connected to whatever type of space exists "outside" our universe.

    E=mc2 was from special relativity, before general relativity which got into the "fabric". E=mc2 just relates energy and mass. They are not converted from one form to another, they are two sides of the same coin.

    The fabric is governed by this equation:




    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    dds08
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    AstroAg17 said:

    What does that mean?
    Hieararchy
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    dds08 said:

    I speculate for the big bang to indeed have happened a higher order of space and time had to exist for the big bang to occur in.
    The logic used in your speculation requires an infinite number of hierarchies.
    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    dargscisyhp said:

    I don't really know enough to answer that question. Might be helpful in starting the conversation by describing what you mean by platonist (i have a philosophy 101 idea but it might be helpful if you expounded), and why what I've said implies that I am one, and how platonist relates to this conversation.


    A Platonist is a person who believes that abstract objects a real, as much as physical ones. If you go really far with it you may say that the objects here are actually less real than the abstract objects they represent. In this way you might say that a mathematical construct which defines a thing perfectly would be just as real as the thing (or more?).

    So your description seemed to imply that things we define as reality may underdefine actual reality as expressed by a mathematic equation. Or perhaps indeed the mathematics are the real thing and we participate in what they describe.
    dds08
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    TexAgs91 said:

    dds08 said:

    I speculate for the big bang to indeed have happened a higher order of space and time had to exist for the big bang to occur in.
    The logic used in your speculation requires an infinite number of hierarchies.
    To believers in Christ, God is infinitely higher.
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    dds08 said:

    TexAgs91 said:

    dds08 said:

    I speculate for the big bang to indeed have happened a higher order of space and time had to exist for the big bang to occur in.
    The logic used in your speculation requires an infinite number of hierarchies.
    To believers in Christ, God is infinitely higher.
    Just going by your logic above.
    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2aggie07 said:

    dargscisyhp said:

    I don't really know enough to answer that question. Might be helpful in starting the conversation by describing what you mean by platonist (i have a philosophy 101 idea but it might be helpful if you expounded), and why what I've said implies that I am one, and how platonist relates to this conversation.


    A Platonist is a person who believes that abstract objects a real, as much as physical ones. If you go really far with it you may say that the objects here are actually less real than the abstract objects they represent. In this way you might say that a mathematical construct which defines a thing perfectly would be just as real as the thing (or more?).

    So your description seemed to imply that things we define as reality may underdefine actual reality as expressed by a mathematic equation. Or perhaps indeed the mathematics are the real thing and we participate in what they describe.
    I see dargscisyhp's confusion...
    dargscisyhp said:

    In general relativity there is something known as the metric. It is a mathematical structure that describes the geometry of spacetime.
    Isn't 'describes' different than 'is'? He goes on to use words like 'metaphor' and 'analogy'. How is he implying any abstract objects are real?
    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Because the metric describes something that has never existed in an observable manner. Pre-matter existence is abstract by definition isn't it? Whether we're talking about a non-matter non-hot dense state or a mathematical representation of the same, it's still abstract.
    Post removed:
    by user
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2aggie07 said:

    Because the metric describes something that has never existed in an observable manner. Pre-matter existence is abstract by definition isn't it? Whether we're talking about a non-matter non-hot dense state or a mathematical representation of the same, it's still abstract.
    Never existed in an observable manner?


    > Pre-matter existence is abstract by definition isn't it?
    Unless you understand that there are other things than matter that exist. What warped those images of galaxies?


    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Sorry for being unclear - I meant the pre-matter state.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Sorry I didn't say very clearly what I was meaning.

    There was talk about an assumption of a mathematical relationship that held prior to now before a hot dense state or a non-matter energy state or whatever.

    This subordinates the universe to the descriptive capacity of mathematics. This seems to necessitate that the mathematical model exists without dependence upon the universe, as it can describe something that existed before the universe did.
    TexAgs91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2aggie07 said:

    Sorry I didn't say very clearly what I was meaning.

    There was talk about an assumption of a mathematical relationship that held prior to now before a hot dense state or a non-matter energy state or whatever.

    This subordinates the universe to the descriptive capacity of mathematics. This seems to necessitate that the mathematical model exists without dependence upon the universe, as it can describe something that existed before the universe did.
    Ah ok. Well yes, before the big bang, or as we get direct evidence of inflation, before inflation we will have to rely on the math. But I was just referring to what darg said which you responded to, which didn't mention anything about before the hot dense state or non-matter energy states.
    I identify as Ultra-MAGA
    dds08
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Matter is.



    If we are to have physical bodies, for us to exist in physical form, there must be a grand order of a physical being.

    The physical being must have a way to continue on existing. Breath, oxygen to breath. Before air, there must be atmosphere. Before atmosphere there must be barriers. Before barriers there must be space. How is this not hierarchy in the space dimension?

    Water to drink. Food to eat.


    People need laughter too or else life wouldn't be worth living!



    The Lord is the I AM! He is the grand order of the physical. He is the model.


    and no, I didn't steal this from CS Lewis. These are my own thoughts.

    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Clearly because CS Lewis would never have written something so heretical.

    The I AM is not made of matter. He created all things visible and invisible from nothing.
    Page 1 of 2
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.