Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Space before Big Bang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,648

    Space before Big Bang

    Some of you proposed there was something before Big Bang.
    In my idea is also an another kind of the space with its energy before Big Bang. It collapsed like a Black Hole and we have our Observable Universe now.
    My website http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

    Space.com reported todey an idea of Bojowald. He shows a possibility that there was another kind of Universe and our Observable Universe have lost any connection to the older.
    Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible
    http://bcast1.imaginova.com/t?r=2&ctl=15D73:4303A

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    Some of you proposed there was something before Big Bang.
    In my idea is also an another kind of the space with its energy before Big Bang. It collapsed like a Black Hole and we have our Observable Universe now.
    My website http://www.blackholes.int.pl/
    czeslaw, try imagining there was no Big Bang! Imagine that COBE's 'smooth, hot soup' Early Cosmos collapsed (like a Black Hole?) and we have our 'warm aggregate' Observable Universe now.

    Space.com reported todey an idea of Bojowald. He shows a possibility that there was another kind of Universe and our Observable Universe have lost any connection to the older.
    Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible
    http://bcast1.imaginova.com/t?r=2&ctl=15D73:4303A
    The Big Bang was only 13.something billion years old - believe me, there was as much going on before that time as after it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    I doubt our technology will avail any evidence for pre-bang theories for some time but it is of course fascinating to ponder. The best hope for any revolutionary supportive evidence - such as gravitons to lend any physical credence to these types of theories may be the new LHC at CERN.

    You might enjoy the following publications, if you have not already read them:

    The Elegant Universe….Brian Greene
    The Cosmic Landscape….Leonard Susskind
    Warped Passages…..Lisa Randall

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    It is strange for me that there are so many different theories and every of them have a proper math. It is because we do not know exactly all parameters. For example Lisa Randall write about the hidden dimensions - do thy exist ? If they exist our physics will change completely, if they doesn't exist we have to look for special space's structure.

    Any way we are in the begining of our knowledge.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    I really enjoyed Ms. Randall’s work too and the dimensions are very real, albeit only theoretically and mathematically at this point. But isn’t that where all the great theories begin? On a chalk board? You are going to have a lot of free parameters whenever you try to model something beyond which we can observe. What sets these theories apart from pure speculation and philosophy is the math. They are elegant, symmetrical, follow entropy, agree with known laws of physics; and have gained a great deal of peer respect.

    We can only guess at where the next true paradigm shift will come from but I would wager karats to carrots, it will have a strong theoretical basis in physics and mathematics.

    Afterthought: I need to stop using "Paradigm Shift" in so many posts or CM is going to start deducting 10 points!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    630
    Quote Originally Posted by jamini View Post

    Afterthought: I need to stop using "Paradigm Shift" in so many posts or CM is going to start deducting 10 points!
    How would you define the paradigm that now exists? What parameters currently known would have to shift to achieve such distinction?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    It is strange for me that there are so many different theories and every of them have a proper math. It is because we do not know exactly all parameters. For example Lisa Randall write about the hidden dimensions - do thy exist ? If they exist our physics will change completely, if they doesn't exist we have to look for special space's structure.

    Any way we are in the begining of our knowledge.

    Once again I must point out...czeslaw, You don't even believe in true Black Holes, and so full gravitational collapse to one for you is out of the question.

    I have pointed this out NUMEROUS times!!!

    Lisa Randall (As are ALL String/"M" theorists) is 'Relegated' to the unfathomable 'extra macro/micro dimensions' IE; Parallel Universes, because the 'real' answer...that the 'Gravity is Leaking' from that 'other universe' in a simple Macro way IE; E-R Bridges is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN!!!

    The "Exotic Matter"/Gravity/Point Particles that IS 'Leaking to our universe', IS the 'Strings' of "M" theory and those 'Strings' do have the 6 micro dimensions!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit View Post
    How would you define the paradigm that now exists? What parameters currently known would have to shift to achieve such distinction?
    Paradigm Shift is probably one of the most misused or at least overused terms in science. I think it was first used in the 60’s by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. He felt that scientific advancement was not an evolutionary cycle but instead:
    "A series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".
    So in that context - changing the conceptual view of the world, I feel that GR would qualify as our current paradigm state, if you want to call it that.

    What parameters currently known would have to shift to achieve a new paradigm? I’d say it would have to be something at least as revolutionary and ingenious as Einstein’s contributions. If the predictions of multi-dimensional theories could be tested by the detection of their massless particles, I’d say that would certainly qualify as a paradigm shift. But that’s just my own personal view; I’m sure everyone has their own opinions of what would qualify as a paradigm shift. Perhaps my expectations are a bit high; some people would probably be satisfied with a published paper demonstrating that birkeland currents may be capable of moving matter in space.

    That's actually a good question and probably worthy of a topic of its own.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    the 'real' answer...that the 'Gravity is Leaking' from that 'other universe' in a simple Macro way IE; E-R Bridges is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN!!!
    RussT - I think you need to re-read Warped Passages. Gravity "leaking in" from other dimensions is one of the postulates of the theory she presented in that book, and it does not encompass any ER bridges.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, with a corresponding page number. I have the book right here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by jamini View Post
    RussT - I think you need to re-read Warped Passages. Gravity "leaking in" from other dimensions is one of the postulates of the theory she presented in that book, and it does not encompass any ER bridges.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, with a corresponding page number. I have the book right here.
    Please Re-Read what I wrote! Do you understand what 'Relagated' means?

    She is NOT allowed to give the E-R Bridge answer!!! It is career SUICIDE!

    NOTHING can go through Black Holes!!!

    GR, when applied to the Big Bang FLRW expanding universe paradigm,Violates the Laws of Thermodynamics right out of the box, and anywhere else in GR they deem it necessary, as long as it adheres to the Big Bang Paradigm. It is also being justified at the QM level as long as it adheres to said Paradigm, BUT because the Big Bang closes the universe at T=0 naked singularity, and at the singularities in the SMBH's, They steadfastly and tightly hold on to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because if they didn't the Big Bang would be falsified!

    SO, NOTHING can go 'through' MBH's and...

    Just as black holes swallow things irretrievably, so also do white holes spit them out. White holes cannot exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics.
    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

    And that is without even getting into the 'Flip Time and Space' issue inside the event horizon or at the singularity!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Please Re-Read what I wrote! Do you understand what 'Relagated' means?
    Do you mean relegated?

    Are you sure we’re talking about the same book?

    The Randall-Sundrum model (the theory Ms. Randall proposed in Warped Passages) has absolutely nothing to do with Black Holes, Wormholes, E/R Bridges or naked singularities. It’s an attempt to unify Quantum and GR theories and she does not mention anything about White Holes or violate any laws of thermodynamics. The basic postulate of her unification theory is similar to M-Theory in that fields subject to gauge interactions are confined to branes, leaving only gravity to propagate in the extra dimensions. It’s a Kaluza-Klein based theory of extra spacetime dimensions using Calabi-Yau manifolds and multi dimensional Riemannian geometry.

    I am not really sure what point you are trying to make but I don’t think it has anything to do with Lisa Randall’s book.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    746
    I have to admit - and I am the ultimate layman in these matters - I don't get how there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. I just cannot conceptulise it.

    Mind you, I'm reading "Codebreakers" (by F.H. Hinsley and Alan Stripp) and cannot conceptulise the mathematical techniques they explain in the book.

    Can someone give a really dumbed-down explanation of the pre-Big Bang? I mean Homer Simpson style.

    (Spare me your medical mumbo-jumbo!)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by jamini View Post
    Do you mean relegated?

    Are you sure we’re talking about the same book?

    The Randall-Sundrum model (the theory Ms. Randall proposed in Warped Passages) has absolutely nothing to do with Black Holes, Wormholes, E/R Bridges or naked singularities. It’s an attempt to unify Quantum and GR theories and she does not mention anything about White Holes or violate any laws of thermodynamics. The basic postulate of her unification theory is similar to M-Theory in that fields subject to gauge interactions are confined to branes, leaving only gravity to propagate in the extra dimensions. It’s a Kaluza-Klein based theory of extra spacetime dimensions using Calabi-Yau manifolds and multi dimensional Riemannian geometry.

    I am not really sure what point you are trying to make but I don’t think it has anything to do with Lisa Randall’s book.
    Are you reading what I am saying, OR are you just trying to be obtuse???

    I have already thoroughly explained why String/"M" theory and Lisa's Gravity Leaking to 'our universe' 'from that other universe' SHOULD be the E-R Bridges, and why current Second Law of Thermodynamics FORBIDS it, thus 'relegating', Lisa and ALL String/"M" theorists to "OTHER DIMENSIONS"
    where NO answer can ever be found!

    The interpretations of what T=0 and T=10^-43 really mean are so 'Unreal' and the naked singularity being 'everywhere' the center of the universe, with critical density collapse then being 'EVERYWHERE", shrinking the universe to a point, to justify...everything must have been smaller and smaller and closer together to get to...all the baryonic matter was once so condensed, it MUST have been HOT, is absolutely MOOT.

    That is not even close to how the universe is working!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Are you reading what I am saying, OR are you just trying to be obtuse???
    I guess I was just obtuse. Since we were talking about Lisa Randall's book, I assumed that was what you were discussing. I now see that instead, you are injecting your own ATM ideas into someone else's topic. Isn't that against the rules?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Russ T and me have different ideas about Black Holes but I like to discuss with him. He is a good fellow.

    I do not believe there is a super dense Singularity in a Black Hole because my idea of the Gravity. The gravitational field is built of oscillating vacuum and this oscillations could warp the space in higher dimensions at Planck length. That way we have a space curvature.

    Every oscillation of the particle due to deBroglie wave length causes oscillation in a hidden dimension of Planck length / alfa. This relation between the wave length and space curvature (Planck length /alfa) is like EM / gravitational force.

    I have seen many physicists using hidden dimensions for space curvature and Gravity.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    czeslaw - Your ideas sound interesting. Is your curvature tensor Riemannian?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by jamini View Post
    czeslaw - Your ideas sound interesting. Is your curvature tensor Riemannian?
    Yes. I have a link from Wikipedia about it in my website. I made also a simple calculation why gravity is much weaker then EM.

    In modern geometry, the extra fifth dimension can be understood to be the circle group U(1), as electromagnetism can essentially be formulated as a gauge theory on a fiber bundle, the circle bundle, with gauge group U(1). Once this geometrical interpretation is understood, it is relatively straightforward to replace U(1) by a general Lie group. Such generalizations are often called Yang–Mills theories. If a distinction is drawn, then it is that Yang–Mills theories occur on a flat space-time, whereas Kaluza–Klein treats the more general case of curved spacetime. The base space of Kaluza–Klein theory need not be four-dimensional space-time; it can be any (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold, or even a supersymmetric manifold or orbifold or even a noncommutative space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza_Klein

    My knowledge about tensors is weak but I see here a possibility how oscillations in a hidden dimension may warp the space and create matter-antimatter vacuum substance at once.

    The gravitational field would be just oscillating vacuum. There is a density gradient of the oscilations between two energetic particles and it causes an attractive gravity.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    My knowledge about tensors is weak but I see here a possibility how oscillations in a hidden dimension may warp the space and create matter-antimatter vacuum substance at once.The gravitational field would be just oscillating vacuum. There is a density gradient of the oscilations between two energetic particles and it causes an attractive gravity.
    No one likes tensor math; it’s probably the most difficult part of any modeling especially when using curved (non Euclidian space). Even Einstein struggled with the covariance of his gravitational field equations and ultimately sought the advice of his friend Grossman who suggested he use the Riemann and Ricci metric tensors, which he did to ultimately solve his field equations.

    The more dimensions you are working with, the more complex the tensors become, which is one of the reasons I have an enormous amount of respect for the physicists who work on string theory. If a 4-D tensor is a vector on steroids, an 11-D tensor is a tensor on methamphetamines! I would start with the Riemann curvature tensor; it only uses three inputs and can be derived to any number of dimensions.

    Yang–Mills manifolds do not work with curved space so you will be better off using a Calabi-Yau manifold, which will function nicely with a Riemann tensor.

    I have to say it’s refreshing to see an ATM proponent willing and able to actually do some work and run through the actual math and physics before just spouting out a lot of unsupported analogies.

    I wish you all the best in your quest towards a better understanding of the workings of our universe.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Very useful is an Introduction to mathematics of general relativity
    on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_i...rved_spacetime

    I had a bad mathematics course in my University, so I have to learn again.

Similar Threads

  1. The Biggest Bang (amendment to the Big Bang)
    By RWFinFW in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-19, 09:05 PM
  2. First Post: What is beyond the limits of space, and what was outside the big bang....
    By cje001 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-12, 02:32 AM
  3. Expanding Space, Time and Big Bang?
    By Tom Cod in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2010-May-10, 10:59 AM
  4. What if the Big Bang wasn't the first Big Bang?
    By JPSG1 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2008-Jun-25, 07:25 PM
  5. Was there space before the big bang?
    By Bogie in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 2006-Jul-10, 03:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •