Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
FQXi FORUM
September 2, 2010
I interviewed some non-mainstream cosmologists last year for an article, such as those at the Alternative Cosmology Group who hosted the Crisis in Cosmology conference in Portugal in 2005. These are credible folks who think the Standard Model (the Bang, not particle physics SM) is a bad mistake, the data have been misinterpreted, and that cosmology needs to be fundamentally revamped as a result. Different people had different alternative models to propose, but the general consensus among a good number was that the SCM is just wrong.
Here's the thing that struck me most in having those conversations, and what I want to open up as a thread: several folks I spoke with were completely at ease with a model that has no beginning in time.
There are variant versions. Some saw the universe is oscillatory, undergoing mini-crunches that erase previous conditions, so that if it even had an actual beginning it is no longer meaningful to speak of it. Others simply accepted temporal infinity extending into the past as quietly as most folks do when the arrow is pointed toward the future (or as many accept spatial infinity).
I must confess, I myself am completely comfortable with temporal infinity pointing toward the past. But in fairness, it has to be noted that this goes against centuries of insistent philosophical argument--not only that such a thing doesn't exist, but that it isn't even properly *conceivable.*
Armchair philosophers, I admit, don't carry as much weight in the modern day as they once did, pronouncing on what was or was not possible in that conveniently a priori way. But they at least show us something about how people think. How could we be "here, now" if an infinite number of "nows" would have to have occurred before this one? How can there be effects in the present of causal chains that extend forever? Isn't that an effect without an origin?
An infinite past just seems wrong -- literally inconceivable -- like words being put together in a meaningless way. But is it?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
post approved
Here's the thing that struck me most in having those conversations, and what I want to open up as a thread: several folks I spoke with were completely at ease with a model that has no beginning in time.
There are variant versions. Some saw the universe is oscillatory, undergoing mini-crunches that erase previous conditions, so that if it even had an actual beginning it is no longer meaningful to speak of it. Others simply accepted temporal infinity extending into the past as quietly as most folks do when the arrow is pointed toward the future (or as many accept spatial infinity).
I must confess, I myself am completely comfortable with temporal infinity pointing toward the past. But in fairness, it has to be noted that this goes against centuries of insistent philosophical argument--not only that such a thing doesn't exist, but that it isn't even properly *conceivable.*
Armchair philosophers, I admit, don't carry as much weight in the modern day as they once did, pronouncing on what was or was not possible in that conveniently a priori way. But they at least show us something about how people think. How could we be "here, now" if an infinite number of "nows" would have to have occurred before this one? How can there be effects in the present of causal chains that extend forever? Isn't that an effect without an origin?
An infinite past just seems wrong -- literally inconceivable -- like words being put together in a meaningless way. But is it?
 |
| image:fdecomite |
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
post approved
This attachment is a possible dark energy model developed decades ago. Just to see what comments(if any)are generated
attachments: possible_candidate_for_dark_energy.doc
post approved
attachments: possible_candidate_for_dark_energy.doc
post approved
sir,i am a student studying in class 9 in India having a passion for physics.in this message i want to send one of my theories supporting the inflationary big bang.frankly speaking i have other theories of my own but cannot convey to you due to lack of time. when i read brief history of time you have mentioned that if there exists a super string theory and a multi dimensional space then some amazing gravitational phenomenon will occur. also for example you have given that if there are any 2 bodies in a five dimensional space and if one body is brought nearer to another body by 2 units, then the gravitational force between those two bodies will increase by 16 times. similarly if there was a six dimensional space then the force between those two bodies must increase by 32 times and so on. but according to me if we go backwards then we can notice that in two dimensional space the force between those two bodies will increase by a mere 2 times , similarly in one dimensional space the force between the two bodies will not depend on the distance between the bodies. now comes the major part of my theory IF THERE WAS A ZERO DIMENSIONAL SPACE THEN THE FORCE BETWEEN THOSE 2 BODIES WILL DECREASE BY TWO TIMES CAUSING THEM TO REPEL. therefore we can say that a zero dimensional space shows inflationary gravitational effects and that our universe must have taken birth from a zero dimensional space or a point. but if we are speaking regarding a whole universe then a zero dimensional space must not have been enough but rather THERE MUST EXIST A NEGATIVE DIMENSIONAL SPACE WHICH BROUGHT THE REPELLING GRAVITATIONAL FORCE TO EXTREMES. therefrom this theory i want to give a new definition that A SINGULARITY IS A ZERO OR A NEGATIVE DIMENSIONAL SPACE WHICH SHOWS INFLATIONARY GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS. i would like to conclude my theory but if you notice carefully then the UNIVERSAL GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT IS NOT A CONSTANT BUT RATHER INCREASES WITH DECREASING NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS AND ALSO MY THEORY LINKS WITH BLACK HOLE RADIATIONS CONSIDERING THAT THE SINGULARITY IN A BLACK HOLE IS THAT OF A ZERO OR ANY OTHER NEGATIVE DIMENSIONAL SPACE VERY MORE THAN OUR BIG BANG SINGULARITY. do send your valuable replies on my theory. MY NAME IS M.SAI VARUN REDDY. THANKING YOU
post approved
post approved
That's a great question about whether the past could be infinite. We often consider the future to be infinite but I think what we mean is that for any fixed time T1 we can find later events than T1. It doesn't mean that we expect that there would be a time T2 in the future such that for any finite time T1 from the present, T2 is later than T1 - in other words, that there would be times an actual infinity later than the present.
Some of the same considerations could apply to an infinite past. Do we mean that for any finite time T1 in the past, there would be events before that? Or do we mean that there is a time T2 in the past such that for any finite time T1 in the past, T2 is before T1? Times an actual infinity earlier than the present?
We might call these the potentially infinite past (PIP) and the actually infinite past (AIP). As implied above, the same considerations apply to the future, since the future and past are relative.
The AIP is certainly more interesting and challenging. It raises the question, could there be objects that are infinitely old, whose creation time is before any finite time in the past? Black holes can last forever, if their inflow is faster than their Hawking radiation. However over an infinite time period we might expect random fluctuations in inflow rate which could eventually cause the size to drop to zero, whereby the hole would disappear.
We could model the size of the black hole as a 1 dimensional biased random walk where the hole disappears if the path ever crosses zero. If the probability of getting smaller is >= 1/2 then eventually the path will cross zero. If the probability is < 1/2 then the hole can avoid this fate. However in that case the size will grow without limit and the hole will be infinitely large after an infinite time. I think the probability of finding a finite-size, infinitely old black hole would be zero.
post approved
Some of the same considerations could apply to an infinite past. Do we mean that for any finite time T1 in the past, there would be events before that? Or do we mean that there is a time T2 in the past such that for any finite time T1 in the past, T2 is before T1? Times an actual infinity earlier than the present?
We might call these the potentially infinite past (PIP) and the actually infinite past (AIP). As implied above, the same considerations apply to the future, since the future and past are relative.
The AIP is certainly more interesting and challenging. It raises the question, could there be objects that are infinitely old, whose creation time is before any finite time in the past? Black holes can last forever, if their inflow is faster than their Hawking radiation. However over an infinite time period we might expect random fluctuations in inflow rate which could eventually cause the size to drop to zero, whereby the hole would disappear.
We could model the size of the black hole as a 1 dimensional biased random walk where the hole disappears if the path ever crosses zero. If the probability of getting smaller is >= 1/2 then eventually the path will cross zero. If the probability is < 1/2 then the hole can avoid this fate. However in that case the size will grow without limit and the hole will be infinitely large after an infinite time. I think the probability of finding a finite-size, infinitely old black hole would be zero.
post approved
William:
I'm hopeless biased in favor of past-eternal universes being possible, based on some work I've done on the subject with Steven Gratton.
What I love about applying physics to 'philosophical' questions is how they can sometimes be resolved in a way that you would never have guessed based on pure thought. For example, anyone before general relativity (or really Riemannian geometry) would have been utterly baffled at how the universe could be finite, yet have no boundary. But it's utterly simple once you understand the geometry of a 3-sphere.
I think this may be another case, particularly in terms of what you
nicely called the 'endless chain of causation'. What Steven and I found is that if you try to really understand a fully steady-state model (like the classic steady-state cosmology, or an eternally-inflating cosmology that is statistically independent of time), then there are indeed boundary conditions that define the cosmology, but that these are not applied at any particular *time* -- rather, they are placed on a 'null' spacetime surface that is 'earlier' than all times -- even through times go arbitrarily early. It's a bit hard to explain this without the mathematics, I'm afraid, and in some sense that's precisely the point -- the structure of these models is something I at least would never have come up with any way other than following the mathematics where it went.
That being said, I also think 'philosophical' thinking is quite important. What led Steven and I (or at least I, he can speak for himself) to do this project at all was the conviction that if we can define a cosmology that approaches a steady-state (as eternal inflation does), then we should be able to make that steady-state exact, which is to say past-eternal.
post approved
I'm hopeless biased in favor of past-eternal universes being possible, based on some work I've done on the subject with Steven Gratton.
What I love about applying physics to 'philosophical' questions is how they can sometimes be resolved in a way that you would never have guessed based on pure thought. For example, anyone before general relativity (or really Riemannian geometry) would have been utterly baffled at how the universe could be finite, yet have no boundary. But it's utterly simple once you understand the geometry of a 3-sphere.
I think this may be another case, particularly in terms of what you
nicely called the 'endless chain of causation'. What Steven and I found is that if you try to really understand a fully steady-state model (like the classic steady-state cosmology, or an eternally-inflating cosmology that is statistically independent of time), then there are indeed boundary conditions that define the cosmology, but that these are not applied at any particular *time* -- rather, they are placed on a 'null' spacetime surface that is 'earlier' than all times -- even through times go arbitrarily early. It's a bit hard to explain this without the mathematics, I'm afraid, and in some sense that's precisely the point -- the structure of these models is something I at least would never have come up with any way other than following the mathematics where it went.
That being said, I also think 'philosophical' thinking is quite important. What led Steven and I (or at least I, he can speak for himself) to do this project at all was the conviction that if we can define a cosmology that approaches a steady-state (as eternal inflation does), then we should be able to make that steady-state exact, which is to say past-eternal.
post approved
Hal:
I think you're probably right that any given object will be impermanent, even if the universe goes on forever.
I think the 'bias' that it is reasonable for the universe to be future-infinite but not past infinite is that we can easily imagine the universe continuing infinitely into the future -- what would stop it?
But actually I think it's a bit tricker than this. If we were to take a finite system, it could indeed go on 'forever' but by attaining equilibrium. After that, the system would become *timeless* in that there would be no thermodynamic arrow of time defined by entropy increase. Thus I don't think it's quite right to say it is 'continuing into the future'.
Going toward the past we can also worry about entropy. Very crudely: if we go into the past, entropy must decrease. What happens when it hits zero? There is nowhere to go. This leaves the possibilities that:
(a) we change the rules (this is the standard approach, wherein we invoke a strong gravitational singularity, which our theories cannot treat), or
(b) entropy starts to increase again (i.e. the arrow of time 'reverses'), or
(c) entropy was always infinite, so that no matter how far back we go, we never run out.
The past-eternal models I've studied have some aspects of both (b) and (c).
post approved
I think you're probably right that any given object will be impermanent, even if the universe goes on forever.
I think the 'bias' that it is reasonable for the universe to be future-infinite but not past infinite is that we can easily imagine the universe continuing infinitely into the future -- what would stop it?
But actually I think it's a bit tricker than this. If we were to take a finite system, it could indeed go on 'forever' but by attaining equilibrium. After that, the system would become *timeless* in that there would be no thermodynamic arrow of time defined by entropy increase. Thus I don't think it's quite right to say it is 'continuing into the future'.
Going toward the past we can also worry about entropy. Very crudely: if we go into the past, entropy must decrease. What happens when it hits zero? There is nowhere to go. This leaves the possibilities that:
(a) we change the rules (this is the standard approach, wherein we invoke a strong gravitational singularity, which our theories cannot treat), or
(b) entropy starts to increase again (i.e. the arrow of time 'reverses'), or
(c) entropy was always infinite, so that no matter how far back we go, we never run out.
The past-eternal models I've studied have some aspects of both (b) and (c).
post approved
Have a look to my threat (model) appearing in the topic:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/391
according
to this the slice (of "conceivable space universe") is moving like a pendulum from one pole to the other of a spherical unchasnged "space universe".
report post as inappropriate
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/391
according
to this the slice (of "conceivable space universe") is moving like a pendulum from one pole to the other of a spherical unchasnged "space universe".
report post as inappropriate
Can anyone speculate when the pendulum started and when it will stop?
For an answer the "physical laws" of a super-universe is needed.
In other words, NO answer is possible whithin our universe.
report post as inappropriate
For an answer the "physical laws" of a super-universe is needed.
In other words, NO answer is possible whithin our universe.
report post as inappropriate
The question of an infinite past or future relies on what is ultimately possible of configurations or states. Is the space of all possibilities definite, bounded by extremes, or indefinite. Big bang or not, an expanding universe in reverse eventually collapses into a singularity (Alpha). As the previous post remarks, once at Alpha there is no where to go (but expansion). In the future of expansion, even more evident with accelerating expansion, conditions move ever nearer toward a physical state of absolute zero, or a perfectly flat and empty universe. One can claim the big bang didn't happen in the past or that time can never reach zero in the future, but the two extremes are plainly boundaries in the space of all possibilities. Like fractions between 0 and 1, the space of all possible configurations is infinite, but it is bounded by extremes, and therefore not indefinite. Consequently neither the past or future can be infinite without eventual repetition. Time could oscillate between the two extremes forever but eventually all the possible arrangements of configurations would be used up, and the course of time would have to repeat. In an infinitely extended flat universe they could all be used up in one journey from Alpha to zero. Fortunately for us it appears time is more selective than that.
I don't believe past or future is infinite, and agree that once an equilibrium is reached there is no meaning to the idea of ordinary time. What I don't agree with is the notion that an equilibrium exists somewhere between Alpha and zero. Zero is the equilibrium. Just as time begins at Alpha, time ends at zero.
http://everythingforever.com
post approved
I don't believe past or future is infinite, and agree that once an equilibrium is reached there is no meaning to the idea of ordinary time. What I don't agree with is the notion that an equilibrium exists somewhere between Alpha and zero. Zero is the equilibrium. Just as time begins at Alpha, time ends at zero.
http://everythingforever.com
post approved
Challenging the Standard Model of the origin of the universe could be difficult because many people are attempting to use science as a substitute for religion. Religion has tradionally attempted to explain the origin of the universe. Religious concepts are doctrines which are to be accepted without question. Those who claim a "scientific" explanation for the origen of the universe want the same certainty that they have the one and only possible explanation as those who rely on traditional religion. They ignore the fact that empirical science concepts are always subject to change as more information becomes available.
For these individuals, the idea that the universe began with a perfect linear explosion of a black hole with matter moving away at or above the speed of light. Then this matter supposedly changed its mind and decided to clump together to form stars and planets. I don't see any way the universe could have begun in this fashion without the intervention of some higher dimension intelligence (ie, God).
They ignore the possibility that the idea that the universe has always existed would be more consistent with a theology that the universe exists because of natural processes than the Standard Model.
If there was a Big Bang resulting from a natural process it is more likely that it would have involved a spinning black hole releasing jets of material in a spiral fashion. I support this particular model, but the idea of an infinite past is a possibility. The two might even be combined with galaxies collapsing and coming back with Little Bangs.
post approved
For these individuals, the idea that the universe began with a perfect linear explosion of a black hole with matter moving away at or above the speed of light. Then this matter supposedly changed its mind and decided to clump together to form stars and planets. I don't see any way the universe could have begun in this fashion without the intervention of some higher dimension intelligence (ie, God).
They ignore the possibility that the idea that the universe has always existed would be more consistent with a theology that the universe exists because of natural processes than the Standard Model.
If there was a Big Bang resulting from a natural process it is more likely that it would have involved a spinning black hole releasing jets of material in a spiral fashion. I support this particular model, but the idea of an infinite past is a possibility. The two might even be combined with galaxies collapsing and coming back with Little Bangs.
post approved
I though of the following just after I hit the submit post button.
Are you aware of the flaw in the reasoning that claims that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate? This claim falsely suggests that the greater red shifts in light from the more distant galaxies indicates that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. In fact, it would indicate the exact opposite if the red shift isn't a result of what some have called "lazy light".
The flaw becomes apparent by looking at the information in four dimensions. Light left a distant galaxy at time "T" when the galaxy's relative velocity in respect to earth was "V". At time T + 1 light left a closer galaxy at V - x. At time T + 2 light left an even closer glaxy at V - x - y. Examined in this fashion it is obvious that the rate of expansion slowed over time rather than increased.
Images of distant galaxies moving toward each other would tend to support some form of "lazy light" theory.
post approved
Are you aware of the flaw in the reasoning that claims that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate? This claim falsely suggests that the greater red shifts in light from the more distant galaxies indicates that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. In fact, it would indicate the exact opposite if the red shift isn't a result of what some have called "lazy light".
The flaw becomes apparent by looking at the information in four dimensions. Light left a distant galaxy at time "T" when the galaxy's relative velocity in respect to earth was "V". At time T + 1 light left a closer galaxy at V - x. At time T + 2 light left an even closer glaxy at V - x - y. Examined in this fashion it is obvious that the rate of expansion slowed over time rather than increased.
Images of distant galaxies moving toward each other would tend to support some form of "lazy light" theory.
post approved
A lot of good comments here, and I want to respond to a couple --
Anthony -- taking a look at your and Steven's work (well beyond my meager ken, to be sure) it seems that your model arrives through the math at a version of "block time‚" or "the block universe," whereby all events embedded in time coexist in some unspecified higher dimension. The abstract says, for example, that "The model...
view entire post
Anthony -- taking a look at your and Steven's work (well beyond my meager ken, to be sure) it seems that your model arrives through the math at a version of "block time‚" or "the block universe," whereby all events embedded in time coexist in some unspecified higher dimension. The abstract says, for example, that "The model...
view entire post
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
post approved
William it depends what you mean by infinite past. The time embedded observer evaluates time as duration, as a series, as change. For time to regress infinitely without repetition there would have to exist an absolutely indefinite measure of unique configurations to match the infinite regress of time. However, our collapsing past reveals that the space of possible configurations is bounded by the extreme of collapse or the point of the big bang. If we turn to the question of the future being infinite, again we run into the extreme of absolute zero. The space of all possibilities is not indefinite or unbounded.
The angel observer outside of time evaluates the time of existence itself, not change, which is one enormous moment. It doesn't have a past or future. It just is. The angel sees all possibilities simultaneously, and only can evaluate time as something embedded in the whole of existence, like a direction in space. The angel sees any repetition of states as the same series of time. So the angel's question is, why does this direction in space follow a particular path or course through the space of possibilities? If possibilities were bounded in only one direction, say the future, then the reason could be that time is searching for a balance that doesn't exist, moving away from the definite group of possibilities in its past toward the forever larger group of possibilities in its future. But if the space of possibilities is bounded in both directions by extremes, then a direction in space that is guided by a computation of what is probable would only be able to travel away from imbalance toward a distinct overall position of balance in state space. Time (probabilistic space) would begin at the extreme of imbalance, such as positive or negative, and end at an extreme of balance, such as absolute zero. The positive or negative states would be seen as two halves of the balanced whole.
attachments: allpossiblestates.jpg
post approved
The angel observer outside of time evaluates the time of existence itself, not change, which is one enormous moment. It doesn't have a past or future. It just is. The angel sees all possibilities simultaneously, and only can evaluate time as something embedded in the whole of existence, like a direction in space. The angel sees any repetition of states as the same series of time. So the angel's question is, why does this direction in space follow a particular path or course through the space of possibilities? If possibilities were bounded in only one direction, say the future, then the reason could be that time is searching for a balance that doesn't exist, moving away from the definite group of possibilities in its past toward the forever larger group of possibilities in its future. But if the space of possibilities is bounded in both directions by extremes, then a direction in space that is guided by a computation of what is probable would only be able to travel away from imbalance toward a distinct overall position of balance in state space. Time (probabilistic space) would begin at the extreme of imbalance, such as positive or negative, and end at an extreme of balance, such as absolute zero. The positive or negative states would be seen as two halves of the balanced whole.
attachments: allpossiblestates.jpg
post approved
William:
Thanks for bringing up this interesting idea of the 'block universe'. Probably that deserves its own whole blog and thread (maybe I'll work on one). But briefly, and in relation to past-infinite universes, yes, I think there is a sense in which the 'eternal' boundary conditions suggest a block universe at some fundamental level. (Amusingly, my early talks on this even included an Angel that could move backward in time:)
But at the same time I'm not convinced this is really any different than any other cosmological model, in which you assume that at some early time the universe was in a precise physical state. My opinion is that questions surrounding the meaning of time, 'now' or free will could all be asked in either context equally easily (and answered with equal difficulty!).
Gevin:
I don't think we have to assume that there a finite number of elements of the configuration space. And as I've said above, I also don't think we have to believe in an initial singularity, especially if inflation occurred. In particular, the classical 'singularity theorems' all make assumptions that either (a) simply do not apply to inflating universes, or (b) apply, but nevertheless allow models in which there is no singularity.
Much of people's thinking about this question relies on the classic big-bang model. But if inflation happened (and there is good reason to think that it did), then this thinking just does not apply.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
Thanks for bringing up this interesting idea of the 'block universe'. Probably that deserves its own whole blog and thread (maybe I'll work on one). But briefly, and in relation to past-infinite universes, yes, I think there is a sense in which the 'eternal' boundary conditions suggest a block universe at some fundamental level. (Amusingly, my early talks on this even included an Angel that could move backward in time:)
 |
But at the same time I'm not convinced this is really any different than any other cosmological model, in which you assume that at some early time the universe was in a precise physical state. My opinion is that questions surrounding the meaning of time, 'now' or free will could all be asked in either context equally easily (and answered with equal difficulty!).
Gevin:
I don't think we have to assume that there a finite number of elements of the configuration space. And as I've said above, I also don't think we have to believe in an initial singularity, especially if inflation occurred. In particular, the classical 'singularity theorems' all make assumptions that either (a) simply do not apply to inflating universes, or (b) apply, but nevertheless allow models in which there is no singularity.
Much of people's thinking about this question relies on the classic big-bang model. But if inflation happened (and there is good reason to think that it did), then this thinking just does not apply.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
Having only recently read paper by Anthony, I need to digest some of it's content further, but I do believe on what is basically the concept of descriptive "finite" size, embedded into an "infinity" Time, relatively speaking of course. One can arrive at a continuum 2-d mobius pathway, but then one asks which is "inside" and which is "outside"?
Asking the question:is the past smaller (size) than the future?, the same as asking, is the past_time equivilent to the future_time, regarding "timescales"?
A finite "length" can be bounded across in an infinity amount of "time" (one can cross a road at different speeds?), but a finite "time" cannot be circumvented by an infinity speed length, or particle?
post approved
Asking the question:is the past smaller (size) than the future?, the same as asking, is the past_time equivilent to the future_time, regarding "timescales"?
A finite "length" can be bounded across in an infinity amount of "time" (one can cross a road at different speeds?), but a finite "time" cannot be circumvented by an infinity speed length, or particle?
post approved
William:
My father (Sam) has looked through the posts and wanted me to throw this up there to add to the discussion.
Up until the 1960s there was a conflict between those who maintained that, in some way, the universe always was and always will be, worlds without end. These were the steady state boys (and some girls.) There were those, who since the late 1920s, believed that some sort of gigantic explosion generated the universe. Given the lack of hard data, the conflict simmered R.W. Wilson and Arno Penzias, accidentally in one of those bits of serendipity came up with an important bit of evidence (for which they later received the Nobel Prize). While cleaning up a radio telescope--literally removing bat guano and pigeon excrement which they thought had corrupted the data--they kept on hearing the same noise. The pigeons were short, though each denies doing the deed. The noise was steady and coming from all areas of the universe. New York, oddly enough, was ruled out as the source. There was also measurable heat which couldn't be accounted for. What could account for this steady noise? They decided that it was the left over sound of an explosion. The term "Big Bang," which laypersons could glaum on to easily, was coined. Thus, the Big Bang theory replaced or rather out-competed the Steady State theorists. The Big Bang is the standard version of the origins of the universe. Further research--over 20+years--revealed that the best date for this explosion was 13.8 billion years ago. So, the standard version is that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and accounts for the totality of the universe as we now know and see it.
However, the half-life of any theory, no matter how well thought-out, how much data support it, is not long. Individuals kept on coming up with both logical and empirical questions, which, they felt, were not answered by proponents of the standard version. In easy terms, What came before the Big Bang? One answer, created by some guys with one foot in quantum mechanics is this: an event created by another universe accidentally brought this universe into existence. This presupposed not one universe but many--separated by what? An infinity of space-time? But how can you have an infinity of space time with finite universes? Aha!
Meanwhile, let me work on the problem that is raised by the concept of infinity and its relation to the space-time continuum, i.e., if space and time end, so does infinity, no matter how defined. If infinity ends, so does space-time.
So more later...
Michael
post approved
My father (Sam) has looked through the posts and wanted me to throw this up there to add to the discussion.
Up until the 1960s there was a conflict between those who maintained that, in some way, the universe always was and always will be, worlds without end. These were the steady state boys (and some girls.) There were those, who since the late 1920s, believed that some sort of gigantic explosion generated the universe. Given the lack of hard data, the conflict simmered R.W. Wilson and Arno Penzias, accidentally in one of those bits of serendipity came up with an important bit of evidence (for which they later received the Nobel Prize). While cleaning up a radio telescope--literally removing bat guano and pigeon excrement which they thought had corrupted the data--they kept on hearing the same noise. The pigeons were short, though each denies doing the deed. The noise was steady and coming from all areas of the universe. New York, oddly enough, was ruled out as the source. There was also measurable heat which couldn't be accounted for. What could account for this steady noise? They decided that it was the left over sound of an explosion. The term "Big Bang," which laypersons could glaum on to easily, was coined. Thus, the Big Bang theory replaced or rather out-competed the Steady State theorists. The Big Bang is the standard version of the origins of the universe. Further research--over 20+years--revealed that the best date for this explosion was 13.8 billion years ago. So, the standard version is that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and accounts for the totality of the universe as we now know and see it.
However, the half-life of any theory, no matter how well thought-out, how much data support it, is not long. Individuals kept on coming up with both logical and empirical questions, which, they felt, were not answered by proponents of the standard version. In easy terms, What came before the Big Bang? One answer, created by some guys with one foot in quantum mechanics is this: an event created by another universe accidentally brought this universe into existence. This presupposed not one universe but many--separated by what? An infinity of space-time? But how can you have an infinity of space time with finite universes? Aha!
Meanwhile, let me work on the problem that is raised by the concept of infinity and its relation to the space-time continuum, i.e., if space and time end, so does infinity, no matter how defined. If infinity ends, so does space-time.
So more later...
Michael
post approved
Responses to other folks coming, but Reason McLucus' post got me thinking, and I'd like to hear people's thoughts on a cultural issue (side point to our main discussion, perhaps, but related). I don't think we need invoke gods to understand an infinite past, myself, though clearly this is a foundational question of the first order, and I do wonder about the influence of the religious impulse on its expression. The SCM, for example, was first proposed by a Jesuit priest. At the time of Lemaitre's "primeval atom" suggestion, most other folks -- including Einstein -- weren't reading the data that way. It has been argued that religious thinking was imposed (I don't mean with malevolence) on cosmological model-building at this point, and that, as UCSD cosmologist and staunch anti-SCM advocate Geoffrey Burbidge said when I spoke to him last year, "People liked a beginning. It's in the religion."
The suspicion is that an infinite past universe would obviate the need for a creator god, and thus would be harder to accept for certain cultures than a model that has an "in the Beginning" moment. (I can't help but remember that when I was in high school, Jesuit instructors argued to us exactly this -- that the Big Bang confirmed what was described in Judeo-Christian tradition.) Clearly science is different than religion: it's data-driven, amenable to disconfirmation, and so on--but exactly which data are relevant and how they are to be interpreted is indeed a matter in which cultural expectations will come into play.
It's worth noting, also, that some forms of Hinduism posit not only past-infinite but an infinite number of past-infinite universes, while other religious systems have conceived of cyclic universes, dream universes, egg-universes, and so on -- so it would be hard to argue that a religious perspective in general allows, or disallows, one particular type of model-building. No?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
post approved
 |
The suspicion is that an infinite past universe would obviate the need for a creator god, and thus would be harder to accept for certain cultures than a model that has an "in the Beginning" moment. (I can't help but remember that when I was in high school, Jesuit instructors argued to us exactly this -- that the Big Bang confirmed what was described in Judeo-Christian tradition.) Clearly science is different than religion: it's data-driven, amenable to disconfirmation, and so on--but exactly which data are relevant and how they are to be interpreted is indeed a matter in which cultural expectations will come into play.
It's worth noting, also, that some forms of Hinduism posit not only past-infinite but an infinite number of past-infinite universes, while other religious systems have conceived of cyclic universes, dream universes, egg-universes, and so on -- so it would be hard to argue that a religious perspective in general allows, or disallows, one particular type of model-building. No?
 |
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
post approved
Dear William,
The main problem for all cosmological theories is whether or not there exists quantum gravity. It is believed that this problem is related to the cosmological constant problem i.e. the dark energy problem, as well as the problem of time arrow, etc.... Now, there is no fully satisfactory quantum theory of gravity and one of the candidates (string/M-theory) has a lot of problems to predict known facts as well as to solve the above mentioned problems. It is true that the Standard model or the GUT coupled with classical gravity does not predict the observational value of the cosmological constant because SM is put in classical curved space-time background where there the problem of its vacuum energy i.e. unitarity, is evident. Therefore, wedding between QFT and clasical gravity produces a bad marridge. Because of that, it is very important to marry quantum mechanics and gravity in sence of noncommutative (quantum) geometry of space-time which is an old physical arena of the Universe. Philosophically, even QFT possesses classical space-time background as well as string theory so that the main problem for me is to find such theory of the Universe which will be background free and free parameter independent i.e. without the put-by-hand assumptions. It seems that such kind of theory (quantum loop gravity) already exists but it has a free parameter and its relationship with well known facts is tiny (see literature about relationship between loop gravity and entropy of black hole). Historically, our progress to understand misteries of the Universe is so far closely connected with our knowledge of the structure of space-time i.e. geometry from Euclid to Einstein and I think that future progress still lies there.
Best regards,
aca
post approved
The main problem for all cosmological theories is whether or not there exists quantum gravity. It is believed that this problem is related to the cosmological constant problem i.e. the dark energy problem, as well as the problem of time arrow, etc.... Now, there is no fully satisfactory quantum theory of gravity and one of the candidates (string/M-theory) has a lot of problems to predict known facts as well as to solve the above mentioned problems. It is true that the Standard model or the GUT coupled with classical gravity does not predict the observational value of the cosmological constant because SM is put in classical curved space-time background where there the problem of its vacuum energy i.e. unitarity, is evident. Therefore, wedding between QFT and clasical gravity produces a bad marridge. Because of that, it is very important to marry quantum mechanics and gravity in sence of noncommutative (quantum) geometry of space-time which is an old physical arena of the Universe. Philosophically, even QFT possesses classical space-time background as well as string theory so that the main problem for me is to find such theory of the Universe which will be background free and free parameter independent i.e. without the put-by-hand assumptions. It seems that such kind of theory (quantum loop gravity) already exists but it has a free parameter and its relationship with well known facts is tiny (see literature about relationship between loop gravity and entropy of black hole). Historically, our progress to understand misteries of the Universe is so far closely connected with our knowledge of the structure of space-time i.e. geometry from Euclid to Einstein and I think that future progress still lies there.
Best regards,
aca
post approved
Looking for the Big-Bang in our distant past, is analogous to an observer trying to locate a single Electron, using a single Eye as the only detection impliment!
It is Here, There and Everywhere.
post approved
It is Here, There and Everywhere.
post approved
It first occurred to me that the BBT might not be the best explanation upon reading that Omega=1. If the force of gravity and the expansion of space are in equilibrium, where is the additional expansion for the universe as a whole to beexpanding? It seems like a big convective cycle of expanding radiation and collpsing mass. This suggests black holes are the eye of gravitational storms and the CMBR is the dew point of radiation in space. To the extent gravity curves space in and mass radiates its energy back out, does radiation effectively curve space back out? There are hills between those gravity wells? That way, the further light travels, the more it's spectrum is stretched and the faster the source appears to be receding, but this doesn't account for all that does fall into gravitational wells, keeping the pressure from actually causing the galaxies to be moving apart. This external pressure might also account for the effect on the Pioneer spacecraft, as well as causing the outer rims of galaxies to spin faster then is accounted for by the amount of mass in them, thus solving the need for dark matter.
Also redshifting appears to equate to a cosmological constant, which is fixed to balance gravity, so this would explain why the redshift doesn't slow as standard BBT assumed and hense needed dark energy to fill in the gap.
Inflation Theory was added to make BBT work, yet it assumes that space itself is expanding, not just that the galaxies are moving apart in space. If this is so, why doesn't the speed of light increase proportionally, since it is our most stable measure of space?
post approved
Also redshifting appears to equate to a cosmological constant, which is fixed to balance gravity, so this would explain why the redshift doesn't slow as standard BBT assumed and hense needed dark energy to fill in the gap.
Inflation Theory was added to make BBT work, yet it assumes that space itself is expanding, not just that the galaxies are moving apart in space. If this is so, why doesn't the speed of light increase proportionally, since it is our most stable measure of space?
post approved
I thought it might be of interest to add that the Alternative Cosmology Group has another conference coming up;
http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/
I think time can be best understood as a consequence of motion, rather than a dimensional projection.
While physical reality goes from past events to future ones, the information of these events goes the other way. First...
view entire post
http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/
I think time can be best understood as a consequence of motion, rather than a dimensional projection.
While physical reality goes from past events to future ones, the information of these events goes the other way. First...
view entire post
post approved
hi all,
I had an idea about the infinite past. Suppose the following thought experiment with a Markov chain: each day there is a random variable x_i (for example the position of an electron) which depends only on the previous day's variable x_(i-1). Assuming that there are infinite random variables before this day x_i, x(i-1), x_(i-2). The question that arises is what is the probability of a configuration of the variables. It is
p(x_i,x_(i-1),x_(i-2))=p(x_i|x_(i-1))p(x_(i-1))p(x_(i-2))...
The result is the product of infinite terms smaller than one (and positive), so the result is always zero!
What is the problem with that? It is impossible for the electron to be at any time at any place given that there was inifinite time before that.
I am looking forward for comments
post approved
I had an idea about the infinite past. Suppose the following thought experiment with a Markov chain: each day there is a random variable x_i (for example the position of an electron) which depends only on the previous day's variable x_(i-1). Assuming that there are infinite random variables before this day x_i, x(i-1), x_(i-2). The question that arises is what is the probability of a configuration of the variables. It is
p(x_i,x_(i-1),x_(i-2))=p(x_i|x_(i-1))p(x_(i-1))p(x_(i-2))...
The result is the product of infinite terms smaller than one (and positive), so the result is always zero!
What is the problem with that? It is impossible for the electron to be at any time at any place given that there was inifinite time before that.
I am looking forward for comments
post approved
Sorry for the mistake, the equation is p(x_i,x_(i-1),x_(i-2))=p(x_i|x_(i-1))p(x_(i-1)|x_(i-2))p(x_(
i-2)|x_(i-3))...
post approved
i-2)|x_(i-3))...
post approved
past is not infinite, universe is an atemporal phenomena, past and future belongs to the human mind
attachments: THE_THEORY_OF_ATEMPORALITY__SORLI_2008.pdf
post approved
attachments: THE_THEORY_OF_ATEMPORALITY__SORLI_2008.pdf
post approved
yes past is infinite
and is all contained in the present moment
present moment is the only one that exists,
humans we experience atemporal space as a present moment
ETERNITY IS NOW
attachments: 2_ETERNITY_IS_NOW_sorli_2009.pdf
post approved
and is all contained in the present moment
present moment is the only one that exists,
humans we experience atemporal space as a present moment
ETERNITY IS NOW
attachments: 2_ETERNITY_IS_NOW_sorli_2009.pdf
post approved
according to my research universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, no beginning, no end
see more on web site of CRONOS INSTITUTE - LOMONOSOV UNIVERSITY
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dynami
c.html
post approved
see more on web site of CRONOS INSTITUTE - LOMONOSOV UNIVERSITY
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dynami
c.html
post approved
In a top-to-bottom approach, if we consider universe as a triplet cluster of Heterogeneous matters with embedded such sub-clusters of Heterogeneous matters up to a stratum at infinity, we can perceive that the past and future of the Universe are infinite, though there is oscillation of inflation and deflation of the Universe.
post approved
post approved
Because time is a perception we put a measurement on. Based on changes in matter by physical and chemical reactions applied to a frame of reference. Time would not have exised before the creation of the first particle of matter. Therefore the past is not infinate.
post approved
post approved
Some very interesting concepts here. I developed Fractal Physics Theory, soon to be published In CS&F.
Please see my Infinite universe theory.
Regards,
Len
attachments: CSNuclear_Explosion.doc
post approved
Please see my Infinite universe theory.
Regards,
Len
attachments: CSNuclear_Explosion.doc
post approved
Time, as a dimension or line of measurement, along which past, present and future all exist as physical reality in the space-time continuum is imaginary or fictional. This is a "artificial" concept derived from brain function and storing of memories, imagining those things still exist in reality and imagining the future. It makes for interesting paradoxes and fantasy films.
A 3+1n spatial continuum, in which our universe moves along the 4th dimension, gives rise to the subjective experience of time. But time does not exist of itself within objective reality. There is no past or future only space that has been passed through or is yet to be passed through.
This incidentally solves the time travel paradoxes.
This does not conflict with relativity since relativity only applies to subjective reality and not objective reality. Subjective reality obeying the rules of relativity, objective reality being Newtonian. Separated by the Prime reality interface.
Einstein showed that time is an emergent phenomenon but did not then go on to explain what the 4th dimension actually represents. Although he did have doubts about the fundamental necessity of time.
post approved
A 3+1n spatial continuum, in which our universe moves along the 4th dimension, gives rise to the subjective experience of time. But time does not exist of itself within objective reality. There is no past or future only space that has been passed through or is yet to be passed through.
This incidentally solves the time travel paradoxes.
This does not conflict with relativity since relativity only applies to subjective reality and not objective reality. Subjective reality obeying the rules of relativity, objective reality being Newtonian. Separated by the Prime reality interface.
Einstein showed that time is an emergent phenomenon but did not then go on to explain what the 4th dimension actually represents. Although he did have doubts about the fundamental necessity of time.
post approved
Hello Georgina. I agree with your sentiment, though as I speak I don't know if I would concur with your detail. But meanwhile can I offer this:
You don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. IMHO the 13.7 billion years since the beginning of the universe is a measure of how much motion has occurred. It's 13.7 billion light years worth, compounded by the expansion of the universe. That's not to say the Big Bang was the absolute beginning. For all I know it might be a local phenomenom. It is otherwise for me a puzzle, because I don't know how to get something from nothing.
post approved
You don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. IMHO the 13.7 billion years since the beginning of the universe is a measure of how much motion has occurred. It's 13.7 billion light years worth, compounded by the expansion of the universe. That's not to say the Big Bang was the absolute beginning. For all I know it might be a local phenomenom. It is otherwise for me a puzzle, because I don't know how to get something from nothing.
post approved
John,
Yes we agree, you don't need time to have change in position in space, that is objective reality. You do need motion to have time as experienced in subjective reality.
If there is no time in objective reality the structure giving rise to the universe is eternal.
In my opinion there are two possible beginnings for the universe, either a big bang when the universe has contracted to a critical mass, which re inflates the universe for a new cycle or there is a process of continuous recycling. That would release the energy of the universe gradually back to the exterior of the hypersphere rather than all in one big bang.
If this is mathematically possible, matter would reach the centre of the hypersphere and continue on to arrive back at the outside of the hypersphere having been disintegrated. The centre of the hypersphere would be akin to the singularity and the arrival back at the exterior of the hypersphere the elusive rapid inflation of the universe. From there it would be another cycle of coming together due to motion along the 4th dimension, as seen in the manifestation of gravity, development into matter and structure of greater complexity.Increasing order not entropy.
All energy is change of position in space. Therefore the distances observed reflect the energy of the universe at the time the light was emitted rather than directly reflecting age.
Also it is an electromagnetic image of the universe that is observed not the objective material universe itself, which can not be observed. That image is prone to distortion of various kinds. The age of the universe is based on the big bang cosmology model and dating of stars from observed luminosity. If either is an incorrect model or if distortion of the electromagnetic image gives incorrectly interpreted data, then it will effect the estimated age of the universe.The age of the universe is therefore a calculation informed by currently accepted models, which may or may not be correct.
post approved
Yes we agree, you don't need time to have change in position in space, that is objective reality. You do need motion to have time as experienced in subjective reality.
If there is no time in objective reality the structure giving rise to the universe is eternal.
In my opinion there are two possible beginnings for the universe, either a big bang when the universe has contracted to a critical mass, which re inflates the universe for a new cycle or there is a process of continuous recycling. That would release the energy of the universe gradually back to the exterior of the hypersphere rather than all in one big bang.
If this is mathematically possible, matter would reach the centre of the hypersphere and continue on to arrive back at the outside of the hypersphere having been disintegrated. The centre of the hypersphere would be akin to the singularity and the arrival back at the exterior of the hypersphere the elusive rapid inflation of the universe. From there it would be another cycle of coming together due to motion along the 4th dimension, as seen in the manifestation of gravity, development into matter and structure of greater complexity.Increasing order not entropy.
All energy is change of position in space. Therefore the distances observed reflect the energy of the universe at the time the light was emitted rather than directly reflecting age.
Also it is an electromagnetic image of the universe that is observed not the objective material universe itself, which can not be observed. That image is prone to distortion of various kinds. The age of the universe is based on the big bang cosmology model and dating of stars from observed luminosity. If either is an incorrect model or if distortion of the electromagnetic image gives incorrectly interpreted data, then it will effect the estimated age of the universe.The age of the universe is therefore a calculation informed by currently accepted models, which may or may not be correct.
post approved
It seems nature, by it's very nature, cannot be 'finite' as we understand it. I've been developing a 'triple helix' analysis and model development technique from morphology and other sources, and working on interlinked models with interesting results. They mainly rely on no 4th vectors or higher dimensions.
If space is expanding the more time light spends within it the greater it must be red shifted. Reason McLucas wrote above of the logic that increased red shift with distance did NOT demonstrate acceleration. Even without the 'greater time spent' element simple geometry proves it. Acceleration is purportedly over time. The light we see from a galaxy 10bn light yrs away left it just as light from one 12bn yrs away was coming past it. It therefore takes 2bn yrs longer to reach us from it's source. Let's say it's twice as red shifted as the light from the closer galaxy. This means that 2bn years AFTER the first light was emitted the rate of expansion as indicated by the 2nd galaxy is actually much LESS.
Assuming the expansion rate is even and geometry finite, like the expanding balloon, the expansion rate will increase with distance. Using our two galaxies we can then calculate the 'gradient' of increased expansion with relative distance. This in no way demonstrates 'acceleration' any more than it does with the inflating balloon.
If the dark energy field of space itself is also expanding, and the speed of light remains constant, the additional red shift element due to this must be added. Again, the longer light travels through the field the greater the red shift. It's nothing to do with 'tired light' as I propose energy wave information can only logically be propogated at a constant rate over that time/space using energy from the the medium itself.
This has a good number of other implications which it seems could address some of our remaining key paradoxes. Or, to paraphrase Einstein, perhaps I'm going mad. Is it me or them?
post approved
If space is expanding the more time light spends within it the greater it must be red shifted. Reason McLucas wrote above of the logic that increased red shift with distance did NOT demonstrate acceleration. Even without the 'greater time spent' element simple geometry proves it. Acceleration is purportedly over time. The light we see from a galaxy 10bn light yrs away left it just as light from one 12bn yrs away was coming past it. It therefore takes 2bn yrs longer to reach us from it's source. Let's say it's twice as red shifted as the light from the closer galaxy. This means that 2bn years AFTER the first light was emitted the rate of expansion as indicated by the 2nd galaxy is actually much LESS.
Assuming the expansion rate is even and geometry finite, like the expanding balloon, the expansion rate will increase with distance. Using our two galaxies we can then calculate the 'gradient' of increased expansion with relative distance. This in no way demonstrates 'acceleration' any more than it does with the inflating balloon.
If the dark energy field of space itself is also expanding, and the speed of light remains constant, the additional red shift element due to this must be added. Again, the longer light travels through the field the greater the red shift. It's nothing to do with 'tired light' as I propose energy wave information can only logically be propogated at a constant rate over that time/space using energy from the the medium itself.
This has a good number of other implications which it seems could address some of our remaining key paradoxes. Or, to paraphrase Einstein, perhaps I'm going mad. Is it me or them?
post approved
Pressed the button too early. Forget the 'twice as red shifted' bit! Just'more red shifted' will do fine.
And some among you will recognise the similarities with the luminiferous ether. Much more to follow, if anyone's the slightest bit interested!
PJ
post approved
And some among you will recognise the similarities with the luminiferous ether. Much more to follow, if anyone's the slightest bit interested!
PJ
post approved
I see inflation as a process of transformation of space energy into energy of matter. In the universe energy cannot be created and not destroyed; universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium.
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dyna
mic.html
yours amrit
post approved
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/discussions/sorli_dyna
mic.html
yours amrit
post approved
William Orem said "An infinite past just seems wrong, but is it?"
Yes.
What is changing is energy and position of matter in the 4 dimensional spatio-energetic continuum.Potential energy is being changed into mass energy and kinetic energy. Matter is coming together as it moves along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.Structures are forming. Potential energy is continually being transformed, giving a direction of change that has been called the "arrow of time".
Time is not a parameter of the universe itself. The universe exists without time, not eternally. There is an origin in 4D space and end state in 4D space. Not a beginning and end in time.The end state of the universe is the origin of its successor.The mind demands that time is applied to the concept of universe because that is how the mind processes information to build its subjective reality.
There is no past as a physical reality. Only space. There can be no time travel, so there is no paradox there.The energy changes that happened when the matter of our universe was at a particular 4th dimensional position in the spatio-energetic continuum have no continued existence, as the position of the matter of the universe moves afore wards towards the centre of the hypersphere.
William, I think the Perimeter Institute would actually like more academic hoop jumpers to sit in an armchair and think for them. I hear that concerts and pleasant non academic environment is provided to aid inspiration.
post approved
Yes.
What is changing is energy and position of matter in the 4 dimensional spatio-energetic continuum.Potential energy is being changed into mass energy and kinetic energy. Matter is coming together as it moves along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.Structures are forming. Potential energy is continually being transformed, giving a direction of change that has been called the "arrow of time".
Time is not a parameter of the universe itself. The universe exists without time, not eternally. There is an origin in 4D space and end state in 4D space. Not a beginning and end in time.The end state of the universe is the origin of its successor.The mind demands that time is applied to the concept of universe because that is how the mind processes information to build its subjective reality.
There is no past as a physical reality. Only space. There can be no time travel, so there is no paradox there.The energy changes that happened when the matter of our universe was at a particular 4th dimensional position in the spatio-energetic continuum have no continued existence, as the position of the matter of the universe moves afore wards towards the centre of the hypersphere.
William, I think the Perimeter Institute would actually like more academic hoop jumpers to sit in an armchair and think for them. I hear that concerts and pleasant non academic environment is provided to aid inspiration.
post approved
Yes Georgina, universe has no past and no beginning. Universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilbrium. Change of density of quantum space generates expansion and contraction of the universe.
You can read more on my article on file attached.
yours amrit
attachments: Timeless_Quantum_Universe_in_Dynamic_Equiilibrium_FQXI.pdf
report post as inappropriate
You can read more on my article on file attached.
yours amrit
attachments: Timeless_Quantum_Universe_in_Dynamic_Equiilibrium_FQXI.pdf
report post as inappropriate
sir,i am a student studying in class 9 in India having a passion for physics.in this message i want to send one of my theories supporting the inflationary big bang.frankly speaking i have other theories of my own but cannot convey to you due to lack of time. when i read brief history of time you have mentioned that if there exists a super string theory and a multi dimensional space then some amazing gravitational phenomenon will occur. also for example you have given that if there are any 2 bodies in a five dimensional space and if one body is brought nearer to another body by 2 units, then the gravitational force between those two bodies will increase by 16 times. similarly if there was a six dimensional space then the force between those two bodies must increase by 32 times and so on. but according to me if we go backwards then we can notice that in two dimensional space the force between those two bodies will increase by a mere 2 times , similarly in one dimensional space the force between the two bodies will not depend on the distance between the bodies. now comes the major part of my theory IF THERE WAS A ZERO DIMENSIONAL SPACE THEN THE FORCE BETWEEN THOSE 2 BODIES WILL DECREASE BY TWO TIMES CAUSING THEM TO REPEL. therefore we can say that a zero dimensional space shows inflationary gravitational effects and that our universe must have taken birth from a zero dimensional space or a point. but if we are speaking regarding a whole universe then a zero dimensional space must not have been enough but rather THERE MUST EXIST A NEGATIVE DIMENSIONAL SPACE WHICH BROUGHT THE REPELLING GRAVITATIONAL FORCE TO EXTREMES. therefrom this theory i want to give a new definition that A SINGULARITY IS A ZERO OR A NEGATIVE DIMENSIONAL SPACE WHICH SHOWS INFLATIONARY GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS. i would like to conclude my theory but if you notice carefully then the UNIVERSAL GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT IS NOT A CONSTANT BUT RATHER INCREASES WITH DECREASING NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS AND ALSO MY THEORY LINKS WITH YOUR BLACK HOLE RADIATIONS CONSIDERING THAT THE SINGULARITY IN A BLACK HOLE IS THAT OF A ZERO OR ANY OTHER NEGATIVE DIMENSIONAL SPACE VERY MORE THAN OUR BIG BANG SINGULARITY. do send your valuable replies . MY NAME IS M.SAI VARUN REDDY. THANKING YOU
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Sai,
It is wonderful that you have a passion for physics and that you like to speculate about it. I would strongly encourage you to keep learning physics and math. I do not want to discourage you by criticizing your speculation, but as you learn more and more, your speculations will become better and better; the key is to never forget to speculate and dream big. However, speculation alone is never enough. Hard work is required in learning what other people did before you.
Good luck in learning physics.
report post as inappropriate
It is wonderful that you have a passion for physics and that you like to speculate about it. I would strongly encourage you to keep learning physics and math. I do not want to discourage you by criticizing your speculation, but as you learn more and more, your speculations will become better and better; the key is to never forget to speculate and dream big. However, speculation alone is never enough. Hard work is required in learning what other people did before you.
Good luck in learning physics.
report post as inappropriate
thanks sir/madam for your valuable advice.but i request you to tell me what was wrong in my speculation so that in future i may take care of my mistakes. also do check one of my other speculation in the topic DR. EDT'S THEORY given in the major topic HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS which is about the speed of light. do send your replies again .
M.SAI VARUN REDDY
report post as inappropriate
M.SAI VARUN REDDY
report post as inappropriate
I speculate that the universe is analogous to one of the virtual particle pairs thought to appear in empty space (the quantum froth); where particle pairs appear (an alpha point), then mutually annihilate (an omega point). At a larger scale, perhaps our (and other) universe(s) are simply members of virtual particle pairs (at a far vaster scale). A universe appears as a quantum fluctuation along with its "anti" universe: both evolve (perhaps by accelerated expansion) until they mutually coalesce and annihilate retuning the vacuum to the zero state from which it began.
I envision a sort of fractal existence in which the quantum froth of our universe mirrors identical "froths" at vastly different scales perhaps extending in both "directions" of which we are aware of only the microscopic (quantum) and (for one pair member) the universal. Time then is a property reflecting the evolution of each "particle universe" independently. It may be interesting to investigate to what extent the quantum physics of virtual pair production could be applied on a universal scale.
As an aside, could the dark sector be related to the "anti" member of our "particle universe pair"?
report post as inappropriate
I envision a sort of fractal existence in which the quantum froth of our universe mirrors identical "froths" at vastly different scales perhaps extending in both "directions" of which we are aware of only the microscopic (quantum) and (for one pair member) the universal. Time then is a property reflecting the evolution of each "particle universe" independently. It may be interesting to investigate to what extent the quantum physics of virtual pair production could be applied on a universal scale.
As an aside, could the dark sector be related to the "anti" member of our "particle universe pair"?
report post as inappropriate
Dear Sirs,
From the nothing, nothing can emerge or arise. So, it's not intelligent thinking that from a past time where supposedly nothing existed, anything like our universe has come to light.
So, the idea of a starting of matter existence is a fake idea, without any basement. There are no reason to think that the intrinsic and perpetual nature of the cosmic fabric is not exactly what is shown.
Simple like that: The nature of the cosmos is what you see: energized matter. There has never been any past time when the "nothing" existed, so the past is really infinite.
report post as inappropriate
From the nothing, nothing can emerge or arise. So, it's not intelligent thinking that from a past time where supposedly nothing existed, anything like our universe has come to light.
So, the idea of a starting of matter existence is a fake idea, without any basement. There are no reason to think that the intrinsic and perpetual nature of the cosmic fabric is not exactly what is shown.
Simple like that: The nature of the cosmos is what you see: energized matter. There has never been any past time when the "nothing" existed, so the past is really infinite.
report post as inappropriate
THE ILLUSION OF TIME
In an essay in Scientific American (Sci.Am. 302,6; p 59-65; 2010) Craig Callender reports that some theoretical physicists suggest that time does not exist. Their conclusion comes from quantum mechanical considerations. I am presenting some observations of our macroscopic world that lead to the same suggestion.
The three domains of time are future, present and...
view entire post
In an essay in Scientific American (Sci.Am. 302,6; p 59-65; 2010) Craig Callender reports that some theoretical physicists suggest that time does not exist. Their conclusion comes from quantum mechanical considerations. I am presenting some observations of our macroscopic world that lead to the same suggestion.
The three domains of time are future, present and...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
TIME
I am as one would rightly have deduced after reading this post...just a voice in the wilderness.
My theory........
Time is the effect of a movement that spins back on itself while still moving in the same original direction.
The backward spin on a ball thrown forward, has a ball thrown with the same energy as one without a spin, yet the ball takes longer to get to its destination. The spin slows time and in the case of a googly cricket bowl...distorts distance/ time.
There is also a case for the shape of 'time' and the universe. The effect of movement dictates the shape of the Universe and all the laws within it.
Analogy........
The smoke ring a cigarette smoker can blow. The forward movement of the smoke ring is countered by the backward spin of the ring across its width (which is composed of the same forward movement) yet the smoke ring still moves forward because it is all the same force. I propose the ring and its contents are 3 dimensional time and space and the original forward movement one dimensional time, while everything else is a void. The forward motion gives rise to the expanding universe, because as the forward motion continues, the circumference of the ring gets larger. The ring has to accommodate the matter/mass so its width shrinks, until finally all movement stops and the mass/matter disappears.
These opposing movements within the same movement generate a continuum.
I often think that when a bullet is fired, time folds back on its future self to allow the bullet to hit its future target.
I hope this is not too much of a nonsense.
Thank you for your time.
attachments: time_mcdonald_28.8.jpg
report post as inappropriate
I am as one would rightly have deduced after reading this post...just a voice in the wilderness.
My theory........
Time is the effect of a movement that spins back on itself while still moving in the same original direction.
The backward spin on a ball thrown forward, has a ball thrown with the same energy as one without a spin, yet the ball takes longer to get to its destination. The spin slows time and in the case of a googly cricket bowl...distorts distance/ time.
There is also a case for the shape of 'time' and the universe. The effect of movement dictates the shape of the Universe and all the laws within it.
Analogy........
The smoke ring a cigarette smoker can blow. The forward movement of the smoke ring is countered by the backward spin of the ring across its width (which is composed of the same forward movement) yet the smoke ring still moves forward because it is all the same force. I propose the ring and its contents are 3 dimensional time and space and the original forward movement one dimensional time, while everything else is a void. The forward motion gives rise to the expanding universe, because as the forward motion continues, the circumference of the ring gets larger. The ring has to accommodate the matter/mass so its width shrinks, until finally all movement stops and the mass/matter disappears.
These opposing movements within the same movement generate a continuum.
I often think that when a bullet is fired, time folds back on its future self to allow the bullet to hit its future target.
I hope this is not too much of a nonsense.
Thank you for your time.
attachments: time_mcdonald_28.8.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post