This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Here is a paradox that I interpret from expansion of space. It assumes a constant expansion rate. I use "m" to stand for the metric size of each cube to some minimum size; "s" is just the least unit of time in kind. So velocity represented by "m/s" will just be anywhere greater than 0 but less than the maximum speed of light.

EDIT: I accidently erased part of what I wrote IN the previous attachment and so cropped it out. As such, the major paradox I see is that from the time B is at the original place where D was at when it started to move, B's velocity is smaller relative to what D's was. If this represents the speed of light, then this shows how the speed of light going back to the singularity must necessarily decrease going forward. Thus, a singularity would represent an infinite approach and thus no actual origin in time either.

Acceleration MUST be also considered.

I'll let this image and explanation stand as an opening.

For Burt, I refer to the acceleration as an instant one of each block in kind to the Escher 3D version you reference from what might be better thought of as A, B, C, D overlapping as a 'singularity'. I find the "inflation theory" post hoc because of this and this should have been noticed from the start. That is, a Big Bang theory from the start required a INSTANTANEOUS, not merely 'rapid' expansion from no space at all. Also, from any size at all greater than zero, that should be reasonably understood as an instantaneously infinite space.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Your representation does not really differ from my Infinite Lattice analogy, except that mine is an analogy for cosmic expansion (which IS spacetime), while you are apparently trying to make it into a physical situation that plays out inside a background spacetime. This is a vastly different concept, because our best cosmological models do not have background spacetimes. Any model that needs a background spacetime might run into the sort of problems that you have described. But they become less and less relevant today.

A couple of (perhaps relevant) comments:

There are no singularities in any modern cosmology theory. The Planck scale (in terms of distance and energy density) limits how small we can make a "cube" and how close they can be to each other. This is where quantized gravity must be at work and it should give rise to a Quantum Cosmology, which is studied in parallel. As you know, this is still a work in process, but there are partial theories that do a remarkable job, e.g. the modern inflation theory of the very early expansion. In popular terms we tend to include both in the LCDM and QC in the words "BB theory", but there is actually no unified theory available yet that includes both.

The LCDM model, for which the balloon and the lattice analogies are applicable, does have recession rates (not speeds) that may far exceed the value 'c', because we are not talking about an inertial reference frame - there exists no such thing for the universe at large. The LCDM model does have an expansion rate, which is nothing more than the % increase of distances per unit time, in whatever units we prefer. The present value is 1/144 % per million years, but this value is slowly reducing over time. It has been very much higher in the distant past.

If you have ever read anything like the "speed of expansion exceeds the speed of light", it was either a poor popularization, maybe by a scientist being careless in his choice of words, or it was simply wrongly reported by journalists. Expansion does not have a "speed", just an expansion rate. The Hubble constant is expressed as a recession speed per unit distance for historical reasons. That was the astronomical view before the whole business was understood as well as it is today. And remember, the distances observable in Hubble's time was tiny compared to today.

Today we do understand that the redshift's that Hubble observed are not Doppler shifts. They may include a tiny fraction of Doppler shift, i.e. peculiar velocity in any direction, but at larger distances this effect is swamped by the expansion of space.

So frankly, I think the 'paradox' that you refer to is more imaginary than real... ;)

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2488
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Burt,

Perhaps this thread may help in conjunction with your pedagogical thread using Escher's Lattice. I want to be convinced that I can understand from bottom up. And this might help others too. What I'd like to try is to see if I can find a paradox, apparent or not, then have it 'debunked' if possible based on what I can understand of the definitions of things like space and time as we go along.

If we find a definition that also runs into conflict, then we can 'adjust' or update it then see if we have any new contradictions. Then we repeat the process narrowing it down based on models alone. If you are okay with this, then as a start, ...

I need to know if you understand what my illustration is representing. You DID already notice it is your lattice. That image is precisely how I interpret expansion. This is a version in one dimension from the perspective the 'block' A in the Lattice. But you mentioned that I'm thinking of some background and while I agree, I'm not sure how you can avoid it. So, my first question is, (1) is "space" a something and does "matter" occupy it?

The constant rate of expansion in one dimension in my image is the blue bars between the red blocks of your lattice. So, (2), is this image not an EXACT replication of the model with exception to the mention of anything else above?

[P.S. I can redraw the image where necessary to check if it agrees with your idea. I see that you like setting up graphs too and this would be as much value for me. Also, I don't know if you have access to the images I upload directly, but you or others are free to use this also and try to point out adjustments. ]
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Diagramming, I use,

(fig 1.0) Definition of illustration of "space" and "matter" as a model.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

At the moment all cosmological theories that are verifiable are "top-down" types, because they must reproduce the conditions that we observe today. Now this requires a bit of elaboration. We do have beautiful bottom-up schemes, but all of them suffers from an "origin" problem.

They either require fine-tuning of initial conditions, so that they can match the conditions that we observe, e.g. modern (quantum) inflation theories. OR they predict a multiverse where all possibilities exists and we live in one that just happen to have the conditions that we observe today. An example is the string/brane type of quantum cosmology.

I must admit that I do not understand enough quantum physics to really make a contribution, so I'm in essence just a reporter on those ideas. But I can understand that neither of these types are satisfactory. The quest is for a theory that is testable, but does predict the initial conditions from first principles in itself. This is obviously very difficult, hence decades of searching has not yet been successful.

But I can participate in talks about some more mundane stuff, like what is space all about... ;)

Scott Mayers » 26 Nov 2016, 03:27 wrote: But you mentioned that I'm thinking of some background and while I agree, I'm not sure how you can avoid it. So, my first question is, (1) is "space" a something and does "matter" occupy it?

The answer is yes, because this what GR is all about. But, take all matter and radiation out of space and in the cosmological sense, it must still have a form of energy left - in fact lots of it. From lots of observations, we deduce that it must have about three times the energy density of the average density of all other forms of energy in the universe.

So, that's cosmological space - energy in its "purest form", whatever that may mean. And conceptually, that energy must be spread out uniformly in possibly an infinite space. And perhaps over infinite time as well... We can come to that later, but first: Is it a backgound? In a way, yes, but it is not the type of background that you can find your location in, never-mind your velocity relative to it.

Is this just philosophy? Or speculative? Maybe, but we do have the equations for that and they are an exact solution of Einstein's Field Equation (EFEs), solved specifically for a universe devoid of matter and radiation, but with a cosmological constant (Lambda). And we have observations supporting this to a reasonable degree.

Lambda mimics a dark energy whose density is constant over space and time. And it can make space expand or contract, depending on initial conditions... Argh!!! Those words again!

This is enough for one post, so we must allow this to sink in a bit and then see if it fails somewhere.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2488
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

I think it may be about language on the 'background' interpretation. I used the word 'wall' before to describe a limit of some sort to which I refer to as a background when there is nothing else behind it. That's why I spoke of the Zeno paradox. The one of the Tortoise and Achilles is only paradoxical when one pretends that the end goal has a limit on both the distance AND time, and why it seems tricky. We think that the goal is like a wall without realizing there IS actually more behind it. If it was like a real wall where both distance and time ended at that goal post, it would have the effect of one running full force at a wall without simply slowing down to touch it (decelerating to zero).

But now think of the 'wall' as bent into a sphere. Then we make that sphere into a point. It is THAT to which is ALSO a kind of wall. For the matter or space thing, it is either the space OR the matter that is necessary to act as a reference reality. While we treat matter as 'unfixed', the relativity interpretation is to use matter as the 'fixed' reality. But to define it better, it needs more than one point (at least three) to define one of them in respect to the other two. THAT is what I mean by a background reference to matter as opposed to space (Mach's interpretation). It would be the approach to 0K (absolute zero) for space when you look at what your treat as the ever-present energy throughout space. If you slow matter down until it gets to just above the 'speed of dead coldness', do we treat this 'wall' as meaning that if we were that cold, we'd still feel as we do and perceive a further -273 Celsius to absolute zero from that perspective?

If you don't think so, ....if you think that there is an absolute 0K, even though we can't actually reach it, this is the place of the spatial background I'm referencing. This was my comparison to the singularity. We can definitely interpret an absolute zero temperature AND realize that while it exists, nothing can actually get there. This is true of EVERY spot in space. It's exact opposite is the apparent singularity. We'd never get there even if we could travel back in time. But where infinite points of background exist, only ONE exists that appears to hold ALL points, ...the singularity.

By the way, I got creative with the drawings and made others. Here's one where I noticed it was like the one in another thread I used to show a background with you but was completely misunderstood. Maybe you could see from this how it relates. You mentioned that there is no singularity. The next image is the same as the other except I show how the red 'matter' only acts as a material singularity that today's science assumes on BB. If you extend matter to be crushed from the point where there is no space, there is a further singularity, I labeled "T=-0", that represents this. We could 'blow up' the picture between T=-0 and 0 and it would be like a whole universe of only ONE concept. This to BB is a 'hot' place because it is matter crushed to be one. The SS theory by contrast inverts how space versus matter exists and so from the T=0 back to -0, is all absolute empty space prior to matter.

Expansion with inferred 'singularity' and how it is linearly pointing to it...

The next image takes the above concept to represent a 'fixed' universe perspective rather than from our local perspective of spatial growth AS represented by the Big Bang versions. The top 'singularity' point is a full space with all matter and no space. You can see in this how from top to bottom, this is like matter itself shrinking everywhere. To me this would be like making EACH 'matter' (/mass) a mini-black hole:

Same expansion treating space as a whole 'fixed' by perspective...

I made the boxes two-dimensional, but this is still just a line but adds the 2-D feature to give it a feel of what it is like.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Hi Scott,

I think I understand your diagrams, but not quite your interpretations, or for that matter your definitions of e.g. background and singularities.

Scott Mayers » 26 Nov 2016, 13:00 wrote:....if you think that there is an absolute 0K, even though we can't actually reach it, this is the place of the spatial background I'm referencing. This was my comparison to the singularity. We can definitely interpret an absolute zero temperature AND realize that while it exists, nothing can actually get there. This is true of EVERY spot in space. It's exact opposite is the apparent singularity. We'd never get there even if we could travel back in time. But where infinite points of background exist, only ONE exists that appears to hold ALL points, ...the singularity.

This is not how modern physics define the "BB singularity" - it used to be unlimited energy density in an unlimited space, but presently it is defined as the Planck density everywhere - not unlimited or 'infinite'. It is just that the math of all current theories become undefined and probabilistic at (or even near) the Planck density, so it loses predictive power at that point (either forward, or backwards in time). I.e. it cannot be used to predict the evolution of the cosmos over time.

So in this sense, there is still a singularity, but it has nothing to do with one single point. It is just everywhere, like "turtles all the way down". Even our observable universe (a small part of the whole) must have had a minimum volume of 1 cubed Planck length. Actually scientists do not believe this density to be ever reachable - but rather that if gravitating matter (or empty, energetic space in the case of the BB) contracts to near Planck density, quantum gravity takes over, stops the contraction and things start to expand again. In the case of black holes, they become "Planck stars", with no singularity at the center.

So, no singularities, just a background spacetime which, like in Einstein's SR, is undetectable, because it is the same everywhere. Matter is still "concentrated energy" and as such sits in spacetime and if one have more than one such entities, they do provide some form of observable background - just speckle an observably large space with such concentrations of energy and you can detect you relative motion.

So I do not quite follow how the "Scott-analogy", if I may call it that, will help us advance understanding of the cosmos. Or how it may resolve a 'paradox' that does not exist... ;)

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2488
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

I notice another thread opened called "Is the speed of light variable?" That is an example of how my illustrations above prove that the Big Bang version cannot logically be true. But I have no doubt that whether they prove it or not, they are going to allow another 'blur' to occur to obscure that as a disproof of the Big Bang model.

You admit here that the singularity is NOT today's model. But the Big Bang model IS founded on that assumption. And proof to dislodge that initial assumption completely makes all what it is based upon collapse. In contrast, the Steady State based its assumption that the singularity was an illusion and that everything derives from space...as evidenced by the very FACT of expansion. Each point in space is what and where information begins with and even in light of you not accepting a 'background' locally like this, the SS model is FOUNDED again on THAT but is a disproof of the singularity.

My point is that today's science is more political and rules what is ALLOWED to be FOUNDATIONALLY questioned as it threatens most of people's religious beliefs that get used to justify morality and rights to those using those arguments to justify their actions. As such, the Steady State had to go! But while we've come full circle to prove these things, instead of having the logic dislodge the old ideas, its just compartmentalized and blurred with convenience.

There ARE many paradoxes above that can be noticed.

(1) fixing the 'universe', matter/energy is treated as magically popping into existence WHOLE; the shrinking matter illustration of the last drawing allows room for a God to place the universe in a starting position to create the ATOM (ADAM) as a seed. Removing our right to question the nature of the BB NOW to its foundation based ON that seed, the singularity, is a contradiction of that model as its trying to have its cake and eat it too. The shrinking of matter illustration (by perspective) shows how this reduces to treating matter as corporeally 'dying' as per the interpretation of our 'curse' of death. We always point out how the SS theory in most introduction has oddly suggested that matter and energy derives from everywhere due to expansion. Yet the shrinking of matter and energy everywhere to nothing is identical and this is hidden.

(2) The illustrations above show THAT when you begin with a singularity WITH substance that material singularity is treated as "moments after the Big Bang" in another convenient unwillingness to attend to the illogical nature of the fact that it breaks the very laws of physics in that it goes from a zero velocity to an instantaneous fixed speed (no acceleration, just as you interpreted expansion). The SS model treats acceleration as what space must do and so doesn't have that logical problem for what the Zeno paradox points to IF the goal post is a wall that ALL factors remain constant. BB treats time as fixed WHILE you space is changing. Thus, only if the appearance of the speed of light is constant, it also dislodges the BB. And now, just as Vivian her just introduced here, this is another reason why they need to find a reason to show that that the speed of light altered going back in time.

The illustration shows that when T for time is equally incremented, space is NOT. Thus this must imply that the speed of light is NOT constant at different times, CONTRADICTING that it is by the standard model. Notice how they are picking on Relativity in that linkded article (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161125084229.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29? They don't want you to notice that relativity CAN still hold but requires making time as well as space change in sync going back to the singularity. This logically would show that the universe is infinite and needs no post hoc acceleration (inflation theory) because that WOULD be in sync with Steady State cosmology AND, again, be another disproof of the Big Bang.

So there doesn't seem to be a way to disprove BB while it only took one highly insignificant assumption about what the Background radiation was to close the door on Steady State. That article again mentioned another paradox. It is as if deeming it 'paradoxical' rather than a 'contradiction', privileges it to not allow such to be used as a disproof unfairly.

(3) Space from nothing to an expanding factor also means that the 'size' of the universe pops into existence. So that matter at T=0 ("a few moments after") evades explaining whether matter itself was infinite but can then be 'saved' from scrutiny because of the very horizon that creates the other contradictions. By treating space this way, they need to FIX the quantity of matter but bias this to only what is within our horizon, ignoring conveniently that we cannot prove not disprove specific matter beyond it.

Do you not notice these as 'contradictions'? Or do you prefer assigning them as 'paradoxes' (True contradictions)? That would seem like a God-works-in-mysterious-ways kind of treatment.

"Background" is ANY fixed referent(s). As such, if matter is where you start with but no space, it is MATTER that IS the background. It just treats space as the 'Spirit of God' as that which is not allowed to be 'fixed' (ineffable). Just because such 'background' gets split into independent points of matter, doesn't mean we have not REAL reference points.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Scott, I'm really not sure what to make of this thread and how it would survive in the Cosmology subforum, but for now let's debate it a bit further.

Scott Mayers » 27 Nov 2016, 03:56 wrote:You admit here that the singularity is NOT today's model. But the Big Bang model IS founded on that assumption. And proof to dislodge that initial assumption completely makes all what it is based upon collapse. In contrast, the Steady State based its assumption that the singularity was an illusion and that everything derives from space...as evidenced by the very FACT of expansion.

The originators of the Steady Sate Model (SSM) themselves denounced it as "dead". Unless there surface convincing evidence that it should be resurrected, in some form or another, I suspect it will remain in its denounced state. There have been attempts to so so by others, but all failed on observational grounds.

Contrary to that, there is not a single confirmed observation today that falsifies either Inflation or LCDM cosmology (collectively known as the standard BB model). The problem is that neither is intellectually satisfying, in that Inflation needs initial conditions (not theory) to be set to match observations and it also does not mesh seamlessly into the LCDM model.

Do you not notice these as 'contradictions'? Or do you prefer assigning them as 'paradoxes' (True contradictions)? That would seem like a God-works-in-mysterious-ways kind of treatment.

Scientifically, there are no contradictions or paradoxes in the standard BB model. Do you really think scientists are plain stupid? They are a real honest bunch that tell the world where their theories break down, or are uncertain, as long as we do not rely on the popular press for that information! And attempts are always made to map a path for solving these issues. This is the purpose of real science.

There have been literally hundreds of papers published on Inflation and related topics since the 1990's, all taking small steps in the direction of the unification of the physics of the 'origin' and the physics of the 'now'. The most promising probably are (IMO) those theories with no beginning or end, almost "steady state", but in a very different scenario than the original SSM. The "bounce", "brane" and "Loop Quantum Cosmology" are examples of theories in this category. They are all partial and all have problems to be resolved.

I'm a bit reluctant to continue along the lines that this thread has taken, where you make claims that are not supported by the physics of today and then I'm supposed to refute them (otherwise they may be taken as current science by other members). I welcome questions being asked on the mainstream science and will do my best to supply brief answers or references.

If this is not the intention, the replies might have to go to the Alternative Section.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2488
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

I do not 'support' a "Steady State (TM)" model and so cannot literally comment nor care whether those favoring some aspect of it I'm unaware of is anything I hold or not in some complete way. My point is to the underlying logic regarding a singularity versus no singularity. To me, there are two KINDS of models. You mentioned a 'steady state'-like set of theories but seem to encapsulate them under the umbrella of the standard model that is still called, the Big Bang. It is the contradiction of this that I'm questioning. I'm NOT 'positing' here and so it is not appropriate to think that my questioning is itself a 'theory'. If I am defaulted to be considered 'positing' here when I'm 'negating', I feel as though I'm being forced to accept that I have to be considered either with you or against you in the way those who might treat the word "atheism", for instance, to mean "denying a position" versus "lacking a position". I both lack a position of favor of the Big Bang AND deny it, just as I do with my atheism. But I separate these issues. My present question is of the a-BigBangist (absent of belief) questioning the POSITION of the present standard model as I'm finding it difficult to trust it based on what is GIVEN. All I can do though is to show where I at least PERCEIVE the confusion and ask if you or others can point out my supposed error(s).

All I'm getting in reflection is that "There are no contradictions" (by definition) and so while I try to show some, you are saying that either I "...just don't understand" in some way or am being "defiant". But you are not willing to actually point out my own error here with what I'm presenting.

I don't mind if you place this in the "personal theories" section if you think I'm being defiant and plan to uproot or replace accepted science with my own positive ideas as you interpret it. But even if you do, I still am asking what it is, GIVEN what I understand and illustrated above, that I am making some error? Am I only allowed to question the abstract model as a pretense without being allowed to mention how it is connected to reality?

I feel like I'm only allowed to speak in units of "meters" if it accords to some consensus or be forced to use units of "unicorns" otherwise. If you don't like interpreting my questions as relating to fact, then translate "meters" to "unicorns" in your mind if you like. But I'm not going to personally choose to use the terms that I happen to personally understand is real to me as "meters" in terms of "unicorns" that would only be self-deprecating and self-defeating of my sincerity. I DO believe there is logical problems with the model and why I am trying to prove my sincere skepticism on this. If I am wrong, so be it. But I believe that the reality MUST fit as much with the logic as the logic MUST fit to the reality. I'm questioning how the reality fits with logic here. I don't see how the reality fits with the explanations given on a fundamental level.

So the logic I'm seeing is that there are two CLASSES of interpretations: One is based on a 'singularity' at one point versus an infinite set of singularities everywhere in present space and time. The Steady-State-types are ones based on the infinite set of points in space because it assumes what is 'steady' is the appearance of physical reality through time, whereas the Big-Bang-types are ones based on a singularity at one point in time and is referenced as a 'big bang' because it implies a sudden pop into existence of all matter, then space, at an instant (or two, as my distinction of a material-only singularity versus not-even-matter singularity). Regardless of what you may claim has changed, this is the logical class distinction and if a 'singularity' is now NOT questioned, it is a cheat to class this as a Big-Bang-type except if we are simply TABOOED against being allowed to raise a question of it by some authority. And when modern versions ARE arguing for a non-singularity concept, I find this cheating if we still deny that this is still non-contradicting of the Big-Bang-types of interpretation. It's like having your cake and eating it too. I perceive rationally that there is some hypocrisy to this behavior and it is NOT scientifically sound.

On your own interpretation of modern cosmology, were you not supporting a 'cold' dark matter version, for instance? The distinction between model extremes are of either a cold origin or a hot origin of ALL matter in space. Yet while this only deals with a subset of all 'matter', it supposedly covers a larger quantity to the matter we see. Also, the theory proposes acceleration. Both of these factors go against the original fundamental idea of the Big Bang and so seems to be retrofitting modern findings that would prevent disproof of the original definitions by a trick. Steady-State-types default to "acceleration" because it doesn't assume a singularity as 'real' but only an appearance. When we bring in acceleration, going backwards in time, it is deceleration. So keeping time and space consistent with each other, this assures that one could never reach it making the universe infinite. Then how is this not a denial of the Big Bang interpretation?

You could still accept a 'hot' place and time infinitely backwards and this only defeats a particular extended interpretation of the Steady-State-types that demand a cold origin. But an accelerating universe definitively dislodges a Big-Bang type because acceleration assures you can't have a singularity because the 'wall' I keep referring to is the apparent point at which neither time nor space can get past. As such the temperature of the universe that is also 'apparent' based on the CMBR is not a disproof of all Steady-State-types.

Also, given the CMBR IS interpreted as our universe at least being 'hotter', if potentially infinite, then the present heat may only represent a possible limitation of perceiving space any cooler than that at all times. Certainly there is nothing that actually CAN be reduced to 0 Kelvin. So it shouldn't be a surprise that space should contain an average density of heat everywhere closely greater than 0 Kelvin. The lowest recorded temperatures go lower than the CMBR, but only when forced to in a lab limited to a time.

So the graph representing the singularity of space above also equally applies to the temperature limit. 0 Kelvin could be just the 'illusive' natural lowest temperature that the T=0 point represents. And the 'real' singularity of temperature is the 0 Kelvin at T = -0. We can approach it but never get there which makes sense because mass is itself energy. At some point the lowest temperature of matter only represents the energy of its movement or vibrations. If it reaches absolute zero, it would no longer BE matter just as objects cannot meet to the speed of light without losing its information of itself AS matter.

Do you see what I'm getting at in all of this?
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Scott, it seems to me that there is a total miscommunication here. Whether it is just semantics, or just totally different backgrounds, I'm not sure. I'm trying to use the standard terminology of current physics, as it has evolved over the last century. It's clear that we tend get stuck due to different meanings of terms like singularity, 'background' , 'hot Big Bang', "steady state", etc.

As a specific example: you seem to view a temperature of 0 K as a singularity, because it is probably impossible to reach it in practice. This is not a singularity in physics, because it is a physically and mathematically well defined state. A physical singularity is where the math "blows up" in a way that cannot be "renormalized" by a change of coordinate system. An example is the singularity that Einstein's GR predict at the center of a black hole. Science treat it as a sign that GR is incomplete and needs an extension to cater for the quantum effects that must prevail at such densities.

Scott wrote:On your own interpretation of modern cosmology, were you not supporting a 'cold' dark matter version, for instance? The distinction between model extremes are of either a cold origin or a hot origin of ALL matter in space.

You seem to have a perception that the "cold" in LCDM model is somehow in conflict with the observational fact that the present universe evolved from a hot, dense state. They have nothing do do with each other. The "cold" has to do with the relative speed of dark matter particles relative to the other particles after nucleosynthesis. The CMB and later structure formation analysis point towards relatively slow particles, which are called "cold dark matter". The overall temperature at CMB epoch was still hot (~3000 K) and much hotter before that - hence a "hot BB".

Here is a picture of the scale evolution of the observable universe according to the standard hot BB cosmological model, i.e. Inflation followed by nucleosynthesis, followed by LDCM.

It is pictured using a log-log scale, so that the early epochs are expanded - they would be invisible on a linear plot.

This is old news, but I show it becasue it encapsulates the idea that the BB does not require a singularity. Age = 0 at the left simply means here quantum gravity must take over. Today it is most likely that it is not really T=0, but that there was a 'bounce' of some sorts. There could have been an "infinite past" to the left. The fuzz-ball labeled 'Big Bang' simply says here current models lose their predictive power because initial conditions must be chosen to fit later observations.

There are models with a bounce, but no inflation. None of them have reached a mature state yet, but they make various preliminary predictions that differ from the predictions of Inflation, mainly in terms of the density waves and gravitational waves of Inflation. We do not have enough sensitivity in the technology to detect those differences yet.

If you want to have the 'whole picture', the Scott-analogy must go a little further than just a linear expansion with a 'singularity' (undefined spot) at the beginning. Note that my "infinite lattice" analogy does not include anything earlier than 3 minutes, i.e. it starts after nuclear fusion, from where the LCDM is valid. It is just a 'tutorial' on the LCDM, not the whole shebang.

All the above is just about our observable universe and the whole must be very much larger, possibly infinite, with the conditions in any other observer's 'observable patch' highly likely to be just the same as ours. This may be similar to your infinite number of singularities, but I'm too confused about your analogy to really say that.

Finally, anyone who takes the time to properly study the full model from inflation onward, will not find a contradiction or a paradox in there. There is essentially just one remaining problem with it - we would like to solve the initial conditions problem so that the model becomes completely predictive.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2488
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

I respectfully disagree Burt. The way theory has come full circle on this suggests that there is actually no way to 'disprove' the Big Bang in principle because it cheats by relabeling terms to 'fit' in without discrediting the past institutional wisdom. It only allows those that disprove (and rather arrogantly quick) those theories that is threatening to the whole.

I illustrated TWO singularity points. The ONE you are supporting that you call (3 minutes plus) is the T = 0, when the logical nature of the foundational DEFINITION of the Big Bang necessarily starts at that definite T = -0 I indicated. That is when we extrapolate further, this is indistinguishable from how we also determine an absolute zero locally. You can't say that absolute zero exists in temperature when you can't actually have direct evidence of this any more than you can to the Big Bang T=-0 singularity. This is a perfect example of retrofitting where is suits your desires. To be consistent, you have to accept that either both do not exist or both DO.

Either way, the abandonment by SOME (and I assure you not everyone agrees with your own interpretation) to the literal 'singularity' for the T=0 one, what you defer is just NOT a singularity is begging. This is because what your position holds IS the Steady State version and is just 'hidden' to preserve the Big Bang ones.

The only major distinction was TO the 'hot' versus 'cold' versions. Personally, I believe the timing of 'discovery' in the 1960s was only too convenient politically. All the old scientists who DID understand the logic were gone by then and so this could easily hide how others before then understood the distinction. I am not surprised that there is now literally very little information on the Steady State theory online anywhere. It is clear that given its actual stronghold up to 1960s, that there WAS a book burning kind of event. It is also taboo to even raise it by most and we are begged to require to DISPROVE the present contradictions.

You keep repeating that there is NO 'contradictions'. How can you even logically assert this without being burdened to exhaust all possibilities personally? I only give you a few and don't get credit for demonstrating that even THESE are valid contradictions demonstrated fairly.

Is there any way that you could possibly disprove the Big Bang theory? And be aware that not all supposed claims of 'disproof' are eligible. I could, for instance, argue that a 'disproof' of a Christian heaven merely requires dying to learn of this. But then, regardless of what that evidence could be, I'd either not be able to inform anyone here of some other POSITIVE reality NOR, should I actually be dead, could I even have HOPE to do so in some way.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Frankly Scott, I think this tirade against some of our best scientific theories has gone on for long enough now. It shifts to Personal Theories and let's see what other people make of it, where things like this "roam free". Hopefully more members will club in there, because I'm out of this.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2488
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Burt Jordaan, may I ask a question from your picture of the History of the Universe - for which thank you. I think that's the best I've seen. Very explanatory.

My question concerns "light". I am translating that in the way I know light which may not be what is meant scientifically at all. If I'm wrong, I'd best find out now. You have electrons scattering light in the CMB. Then follows Earliest Time With Visible Light. Does this mean that everything that happened before that point was happening in total darkness - that if someone with some magic imagination were out there, he'd see nothing? Remembering how I am interpreting "darkness" and "light", have I gone astray in understanding? As I said, better find out now before I begin to call my notion fact.

Thank you.
vivian maxine
Resident Member

Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014

BurtJordaan » November 29th, 2016, 2:56 am wrote:Frankly Scott, I think this tirade against some of our best scientific theories has gone on for long enough now. It shifts to Personal Theories and let's see what other people make of it, where thing like this "roam free". Hopefully more members will club in there, because I'm out of this.

That's cool. I can't do anything about it regardless. But just don't think that I'm not actually being the 'scientific' one on this. Just because you agree with the present most populous consensus mean I haven't appropriately argued here.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

This would derail my own discussion Vivian. Can you ask it in his thread on that?
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

vivian maxine » 29 Nov 2016, 10:24 wrote:You have electrons scattering light in the CMB. Then follows Earliest Time With Visible Light. Does this mean that everything that happened before that point was happening in total darkness - that if someone with some magic imagination were out there, he'd see nothing?

No, not darkness, just opaqueness, like inside a cloud or fog. Lots of light around, but well scattered by the water droplets. Wikipedia does a fairly good job of explaining it for the CMB:
The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4] Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2488
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)
 vivian maxine liked this post

Thank you for that. I understand.
vivian maxine
Resident Member

Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014

Scott Mayers » November 29th, 2016, 7:46 am wrote:Either way, the abandonment by SOME (and I assure you not everyone agrees with your own interpretation) to the literal 'singularity' for the T=0 one, what you defer is just NOT a singularity is begging. This is because what your position holds IS the Steady State version and is just 'hidden' to preserve the Big Bang ones.

If the model depicted in Burt's diagram (with inflation but no singularity) were to dispense with the term 'Big Bang', would you accept it? If it were to be regarded as a type of Steady State theory (allowing the possibility of an infinite series of 'bounces'), or some other kind of non-Big-Bang theory, would it overcome your objection? Are you just saying that 'Big Bang' is a misnomer for the fuzzy area in the diagram?

Regardless of any earlier interpretations of the terms 'Big Bang' and 'singularity', do you think the model shown in the diagram stands up on its own merits?
Positor
Member

Posts: 999
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

Positor » November 29th, 2016, 9:57 am wrote:
Scott Mayers » November 29th, 2016, 7:46 am wrote:Either way, the abandonment by SOME (and I assure you not everyone agrees with your own interpretation) to the literal 'singularity' for the T=0 one, what you defer is just NOT a singularity is begging. This is because what your position holds IS the Steady State version and is just 'hidden' to preserve the Big Bang ones.

If the model depicted in Burt's diagram (with inflation but no singularity) were to dispense with the term 'Big Bang', would you accept it? If it were to be regarded as a type of Steady State theory (allowing the possibility of an infinite series of 'bounces'), or some other kind of non-Big-Bang theory, would it overcome your objection? Are you just saying that 'Big Bang' is a misnomer for the fuzzy area in the diagram?

Regardless of any earlier interpretations of the terms 'Big Bang' and 'singularity', do you think the model shown in the diagram stands up on its own merits?

NO.

The "Big Bang" model is NECESSARILY defined as having an origin at SOME real point [singularity]. Otherwise, it is INFINITE in some way. The 'bang' indicates that assuming 'time' exists beyond its 'goal post', the rate of existence in either matter and/or space instantaneously pops into existence.

It is a bold faced lie to try to backtrack and assert that the Big Bang model is NOT one with a REAL singularity. All that Burt and others supporting this theory do is to obscure this contradiction today when this was precisely essential to differentiate the Big Bang versus Steady State model.

To illustrate, the following demonstrates how given a simple race, only if both time AND space exists beyond the goal post does it evade a real paradox. This is why Zeno's paradox is not real in a race.

Real Space per Real Time

But, IF that goal post IS real above, as in a wall with no actual REAL space beyond it while time continues, it meets at a singularity but contradicts the nature of constant measures of time to distances; at the goal, as the singularity, if we assume time continues beyond it at ANY reasoning, there is instantaneous existence, ....what is meant by a 'big bang' at that point that lacks rationality and is not even valid to our literal OBSERVATIONS locally. You cannot assume that some magical reality existed there.

Supporters of the Big Bang realized this and why those like Burt are purposely feigning obscurity at the point that distances end (moments 'after' the singularity). By merely distorting the original definition is intended to hide the fact that if we see the logic, it reverts BACK to the definition of the Steady State model. Since this was already deemed false (falsely) at the end of the 1960s, to preserve the integrity of those supporting the Big Bang model, it was necessary to obscure the nature of the singularity. One major attempt to retrofit this to try to repair the contradiction is the "Inflation theory" from a point where both time AND space begin.

To the Steady State theory, it was already assumed that both time and space are infinite because it doesn't bias either time nor space independently to end suddenly. That interpretation was HOW the Zeno paradox actually DOES work without contradiction because if both time AND space have the identical origin, the 'origin' would only be an apparent convergence like perspective parallel lines that appear to meet in our real local space and time.

The "inflation" addition was sought for to redress the contradiction of the Big Bang by treating both time and space existing at a point. Then one can assert that if there is acceleration from nothing, it seems valid as we see locally. BUT, for the actual acceleration to occur in ANY theory, both TIME AND SPACE change "in sync" with each other. So a second in time and distance in space to us looking back from here and now must be interpreted as INCREASING from our perspective.

The "inflation" post hoc addition is still false then because it cannot justify even an acceleration from zero space without having a measure of 'time' that stays CONSTANT while distance itself shrinks CONTINUOUSLY. These measures are not compatible. The rate of 'c' would still require to speed up and thus re-established the logic of the Steady State theory regardless. The following illustrates the way Big Bang tries to preserve itself at a real singularity but tries to obscure this:

A Convenient Repair..."Inflation theory"...

The Steady State Model lacks this retrofitting because it treats TIME and SPACE as perceptually being witnessed the same in all times and places (Perfect Cosmological Principle):

This PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT here that the Big Bang is NOT true. And to keep it by blurring what happens except at 'some' magical arbitrary moments afterwards is like saying that "God works in mysterious ways" rather than to face the contradiction. So keeping this interpretation also PROVES there is politics involved preventing the Big Bang theory from EVER being falsified in contradiction to the Scientific Method. It's hypocritical, dishonest, and stinks of a deliberate deception to appease the very religious thinking those authorities are trying to pretend they are also NOT serving.

Regardless of where you stand, the logic here is NOT an opinion. There is no possible means to allow adjustment of a theory that ADMITS that they do not hold to the strict Perfect Cosmological Principle. If physics "evolved" from some other past physics that we have no local means to experience directly, then observations based on our local means cannot be trusted. This is religion, not science.

Note that this is NOT problematic if you compartmentalize the sciences in a way that prevents unification without some other myth creating device.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Scott Mayers,

I want to pick up one point which I don't understand. You state that the inflation model "cannot justify even an acceleration from zero space...". But my understanding is that the modern version of the Big Bang model does not involve "zero space". There is no "wall".

BurtJordaan » November 26th, 2016, 3:54 pm wrote:This is not how modern physics define the "BB singularity" - it used to be unlimited energy density in an unlimited space, but presently it is defined as the Planck density everywhere - not unlimited or 'infinite'. It is just that the math of all current theories become undefined and probabilistic at (or even near) the Planck density, so it loses predictive power at that point (either forward, or backwards in time). I.e. it cannot be used to predict the evolution of the cosmos over time.

So in this sense, there is still a singularity, but it has nothing to do with one single point. It is just everywhere, like "turtles all the way down". Even our observable universe (a small part of the whole) must have had a minimum volume of 1 cubed Planck length. Actually scientists do not believe this density to be ever reachable - but rather that if gravitating matter (or empty, energetic space in the case of the BB) contracts to near Planck density, quantum gravity takes over, stops the contraction and things start to expand again. In the case of black holes, they become "Planck stars", with no singularity at the center.

I think it is now generally agreed that the idea of a universe of infinite density occupying zero space at a finite (or even infinite) time in the past is indeed meaningless/illogical. But if space never converges all the way to a point as we go backwards in time, but instead converges to a positive size (1 cubed Planck length), and possibly re-expands, then I do not see any logical problem.

Also, if the Steady State theory is to be revived, it needs to explain the observations (e.g. the cosmic microwave background) that caused it to fall out of favour.
Positor
Member

Posts: 999
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

I hope I'm not intruding and making a mess of everything

BurtJordaan

I like very much your explanations; thank you. But let me pick up some of them; maybe it changes things.

The Planck scale (in terms of distance and energy density) limits how small we can make a "cube" and how close they can be to each other.”

I guess that you mean the same thing if a “sphere” is involved instead of a “cube”, Do you?

The LCDM model…does have recession rates (not speeds) that may far exceed the value 'c'.”

Which means that the speed of a “far away object” could be “constant” and the recession rate of the space between us and the object changes according to the distance of the “object” observed; right? Then "recession rate" is a kind of "illusion"; or at the least, simply a "convention".

Today we do understand that the redshift's that Hubble observed are not Doppler shifts.

Because the expansion “expands” the wavelength of light. But then, my question would be: How come can we capture light, coming from far away, at different wavelength?

Scott Mayers:

So, my first question is, (1) is "space" a something and does "matter" occupy it?

Wonderful question, Scott! The answer is the base to erect anything else. Furthermore, the second question should be: does “occupying” a space “eliminate” that space? If not, you’ve just found your needed “background”.

If it was like a real wall where both distance and time ended at that goal post, it would have the effect of one running full force at a wall without simply slowing down to touch it

But expansion is the “expansion of space”; in other words: “creation of space”. Matter is not involved at all. So if the universe represents everything that “exists”, the wall is situated where “non-existence” of space starts. Which gives you an “infinite” universe that represents a definite “volume”.

But now think of the 'wall' as bent into a sphere.”

It has to be a “sphere” since expansion manifest itself in “all directions”.

Then we make that sphere into a point. It is THAT to which is ALSO a kind of wall. For the matter or space thing, it is either the space OR the matter that is necessary to act as a reference reality. While we treat matter as 'unfixed', the relativity interpretation is to use matter as the 'fixed' reality.

Maybe that your “point” is the “fixed” reality. Since our universe is Euclidian, it would not be surprising that it was composed of unidimensional “points” (dixit Euclid). And expansion would then be “creation” of more “points” everywhere in space.

if you think that there is an absolute 0K, even though we can't actually reach it, this is the place of the spatial background I'm referencing. This was my comparison to the singularity.”

To reach 0K, which is absolute zero, meaning: “no temperature at all whatsoever”, you have to eliminate all “movement”; which also means “all energy”. 0K means “nothingness”; and a singularity is not “nothing” (as “singular” it could be). So the minimum that can exist is 0+K; the + here represents, at the least, a “potentiality” which has “to be” (note that “to be” doesn’t involve “movement”; “to be” is static. On the contrary, “to exist” involves movement proving the “existence”). Otherwise, you are condemned to “nothingness”. The BB theory has to start with an initial “potentiality” of 0+. Evolution of the universe seems to indicate that it has a “beginning”. If exact, that beginning cannot be other than “something” worth 0+ and not "absolute" 0. (Note that: "to be or not to be" should be "exciting" enough for the universe at its beginning :-) ).

It's exact opposite is the apparent singularity. We'd never get there even if we could travel back in time.”

It seems that a black hole gets there. That is if "collapsing" is the contrary of "expanding", of course. Which I feel it is.

BurtJordaan

This is not how modern physics define the "BB singularity" - it used to be unlimited energy density in an unlimited space, but presently it is defined as the Planck density everywhere - not unlimited or 'infinite'.”

Whatever Plank constant you consider, you’re always stuck to a certain “time”, which is 10^-45 sec after “time = zero”. And the BB singularity cannot occur at that “zero” moment. The BB has to start when the clock was at 10^-43 sec and not at time = zero. So whatever amount of “energy” that starts “expansion” at 10^-43 sec, has to be “cumulated” during Planck era, starting at the previous mentioned value of 0+ (which means that the “picture” representing the BB is not accurate. The BB is not at the “beginning” of everything; it's at 10^-43 sec after the "beginning" of everything).

In the case of black holes, they become "Planck stars", with no singularity at the center.

Funny how a change of name tries to change the “identity”. A black hole is a "maximum deformation of space-time"; and that deformation could simply be a maximum “collapsing" of space-time's "metric"; which is the contrary of expanding space-time's metric (that "metric" can be any lenght you choose; but cannot be smaller than Planck's lenght. For exemple: Hubble's "metric" is 1 megaparsec). On the other hand, collapsing can go further back than Planck's time, since time exists before Planck's time, from zero to 10^-43 sec. If this is the case, everything gets quite simpler to understand and explain. But…

…and you can detect you relative motion

We should never forget that "not detecting" motion doesn’t mean that the motion doesn’t exist. See inside Galileo’s boat. :-)
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Positor » November 29th, 2016, 7:47 pm wrote:Scott Mayers,

I want to pick up one point which I don't understand. You state that the inflation model "cannot justify even an acceleration from zero space...". But my understanding is that the modern version of the Big Bang model does not involve "zero space". There is no "wall".

If the Big Bang model lacks a zero space, either it too popped into existence with THAT 'matter', OR it IS that matter to which being defined as that which occupies space makes matter and space OF the same thing. Either way, the Big Bang model is DEFINED in contrast to the Steady State model by the SINGULARITY
. If the 'modern' version lacks this, then it simply reverts to the Steady State model. Otherwise, it is hiding the foundation of it by purposely accepting the contradiction and PROVES that the supposed 'science' being used permanently prevents the Big Bang as a theory to be able to be disproved by any standards.

That is, that theory is unfalsifiable and counter to the scientific method it is supposed to uphold. This HAS occurred and why I raise these paradoxes. Of course, to me, they are only mistaken contradictions that do not represent the reality.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Andrex » December 1st, 2016, 2:26 pm wrote:I hope I'm not intruding and making a mess of everything

Scott Mayers:

So, my first question is, (1) is "space" a something and does "matter" occupy it?

Wonderful question, Scott! The answer is the base to erect anything else. Furthermore, the second question should be: does “occupying” a space “eliminate” that space? If not, you’ve just found your needed “background”.

And that IS how Einstein interpreted it: that matter represents "background". It just means then that EACH matter independently represents a perspective of reality based on some assigned origin with at least some other matter that DEFINES a 'unit' space (length) to which a third distinct matter can then be contrasted to these 'points'. But it still begs what lies in between. This would have to then define some arbitrary unit of length, space, and volumes of a minimal 'size' of matter.

I only guess that this 'size' is given to that "Planck" constant size. However, it could then NOT define it as having size in the same way as the illustration above where I label T=0. It would treat that AS the origin ignoring the actual apparent convergence at T=-0.

This IS partly true. But you have to treat matter and space as being the same thing that merely differs by some property in common. I assert this common distinction as direction. In particular, matter is just a transfer of space itself in a circular (curved) direction. Einstein correctly formulated the math involved in GR but treated space itself as 'curving'. To me, I KEEP the math but treat not SPACE that curves in the presence of matter but that those curves ARE matter.

Gravity then reverts to a shadow effect, that I simulate in kind to the Casimir Effect. Gravity then is the collective "pushes" from all different places in space. These 'pushes' are a reasonably argued to come from the very EXPANSION of space.

I have a derivative of this in a rough overview of my theory and originally mentioned this in another thread but Burt removed it, even though it was IN the "Personal Theories" area, because I'm expected to derive it FROM the present contradicting model that I'm trying to show is faulty. To me this is like expecting to prove reality by first believing in some particular God and THEN derive it from the scriptures ONLY! Unfortunately, because it is illegitimate to begin with an error to prove something follows from it without a resultant error is itself counter-intellectual. I'm expected to UNPROVE the present theory first....a tall order purposely designed not to be able to be undone by its very construction through institutions.

[Burt, if you are reading, please don't take this personally as I recognize this isn't simply you doing this. But it doesn't make it any more appropriate just because that thinking is nearly universal. ]

If it was like a real wall where both distance and time ended at that goal post, it would have the effect of one running full force at a wall without simply slowing down to touch it

But expansion is the “expansion of space”; in other words: “creation of space”. Matter is not involved at all. So if the universe represents everything that “exists”, the wall is situated where “non-existence” of space starts. Which gives you an “infinite” universe that represents a definite “volume”.

And why I also showed above an image which shows how this is equally interpreted logically as EACH matter in space as 'shrinking', which seems more absurd. If space is held constant (by perspective), we'd have to treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the given space. But since matter is 'shrinking' when seen by this perspective, the speed of light itself INCREASES forwards in time. From the previous arguments I make above though, it also DECREASES going forward in time.

So the contradiction is that the speed of light both increases AND decreases in both directions in the BB model and NEVER is the same relative to any one single point in spacetime!!

But now think of the 'wall' as bent into a sphere.”

It has to be a “sphere” since expansion manifest itself in “all directions”.

Then we make that sphere into a point. It is THAT to which is ALSO a kind of wall. For the matter or space thing, it is either the space OR the matter that is necessary to act as a reference reality. While we treat matter as 'unfixed', the relativity interpretation is to use matter as the 'fixed' reality.

Maybe that your “point” is the “fixed” reality. Since our universe is Euclidian, it would not be surprising that it was composed of unidimensional “points” (dixit Euclid). And expansion would then be “creation” of more “points” everywhere in space.

IF there is a 'beginning', it would be meaningless to discuss time before that singularity. I'm not against some logical origin that derives time with space. But the 'singularity' we interpret of OUR contingent space is NOT such a point. This is because then given our actual EVIDENCE of spacial expansion, that 'point' will ALWAYS appear as 'never' (a time concept) being able to be reached. Time in the Zeno paradoxes are not real contradictions because time itself STILL exists when the race or defined goals are reached. This isn't the case for a 'real' singularity.

And THIS reasoning is precisely WHY those suggesting the Steady State theory DEFINED their theory as being founded on treating time itself as necessarily being required to have the same valance of perspective as given under the normal factors in the Cosmological Principle. [The Steady State defines their own 'cosmological principle' to the extreme as including time.]

if you think that there is an absolute 0K, even though we can't actually reach it, this is the place of the spatial background I'm referencing. This was my comparison to the singularity.”

To reach 0K, which is absolute zero, meaning: “no temperature at all whatsoever”, you have to eliminate all “movement”; which also means “all energy”. 0K means “nothingness”; and a singularity is not “nothing” (as “singular” it could be). So the minimum that can exist is 0+K; the + here represents, at the least, a “potentiality” which has “to be” (note that “to be” doesn’t involve “movement”; “to be” is static. On the contrary, “to exist” involves movement proving the “existence”). Otherwise, you are condemned to “nothingness”. The BB theory has to start with an initial “potentiality” of 0+. Evolution of the universe seems to indicate that it has a “beginning”. If exact, that beginning cannot be other than “something” worth 0+ and not "absolute" 0. (Note that: "to be or not to be" should be "exciting" enough for the universe at its beginning :-) ).

You are on the right thinking path but need to recognize that the Big Bang theory reduces to the (or 'a') Steady State version for the exact same reason we cannot REACH 0K temperature. But the 0K background IS the singularity at each and every point in space in the Steady State model. It is still a "background" but one we DO know locally. As such, we are more certain that instead of pretending all space as deriving from ONE point, it derives from an INFINITY of points everywhere. For each point where something can be inferred everywhere, we already know, because of expansion, that movement at EACH point is essential. Now just treat reality we experience IN TIME as a property of constant movement at EACH point! We could not freeze frame real matter because each point in space IS the singularity AND suggests that space AND matter are infinite logically.

An 'origin' that I argue from LOGIC lacks time a priori. As such, ALL that logically defines reality (by laws) must be unable to be perceivable regardless! So we cannot assume the 'apparent' SINGULARITY of all space via the Big Bang interpretation as even valid itself. Burt and others already admit this but won't dislodge that theory regardless.

Ironically, it only took the 'discovery' of ONE single successful prediction by the Big Bang regarding the CMBR as justified to dislodge the Steady State theory when this arrogance is no different than saying that since I haven't POSITED a prediction, to ANYONE who does who also proves 'true', should make my own LACK OF PREDICTION justify treating me as wrong.

Again, instead of simply attacking formal religion, think of how you can reasonably PREDICT the lottery. To those who actually won, if they happened to have 'predicted' they were going to win by some explanation, X, does this success (that can't even be repeated) assure that all the others who similarly predicted they would win have FALSE hope equally? [Yes.] But what about those who simply LACKED or postulated some prediction?

This KIND of thinking IS religion! We can't repeat observing the universe with what was used to 'predict'. Any additional assumptions based on a CONFIRMATION bias only prevents the ability of anyone to discredit the theory that was INITIALLY proposed for some correct 'prediction'.

I don't have the evidence of the likely MULTIPLE interpretations of some expected temperature of the minimal background, but I did remember reading THAT there WERE multiple guesses. It was also PRE-interpreted that if one were to find ANY measure of non-zero temperature of space, that this would PROVE validity of the Big Bang. How absurd!! The assumption FALSELY assumes that a 'Steady State' interpretation assures that we should FIND space that is of NO temperature!!??

But I just argued that regardless, we could NOT actually perceive such a real point that has ZERO action IN a Steady State type model. Since space is always expanding, no point EVER has an actual zero Kelvin temperature. As such, it MUST be the case that should we TRY, there will ALWAYS BE A TEMPERATURE EVERYWHERE THAT IS GREATER THAN 0 KELVIN.

So to assume that the CMBR closed the door on the Steady State theory is a logical FRAUD!!

It's exact opposite is the apparent singularity. We'd never get there even if we could travel back in time.”

It seems that a black hole gets there. That is if "collapsing" is the contrary of "expanding", of course. Which I feel it is.

Contrary to popular belief, a "black hole" still can trade off energy. That is, it DOESN'T steal matter, energy, and space into some 'wormhole' external to this world. At least, even IF we postulate this as possible, it is FAR from unique and could NOT be proven nor disproven. As such, it stays safe when one presumes that the black hole is itself a set of inverse 'singularities' that reverse the role of the BB version. In fact, if it were to even be 'fair', black holes would HAVE to be EVERYWHERE. Interestingly, quantum theory suggests that this occurs. But either way, a black hole lacks appropriate proof THAT it IS doing what those pretending it to be is doing.

I argue that all energy going into a black hole is still conserved. It spins. To the perpendicular plane to the axis of such a spin, this draws matter and energy IN and its poles return this back OUT!!

I agree to what you raised as some problems to Burt and will leave it to him to respond to you.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

“I agree to what you raised as some problems to Burt and will leave it to him to respond to you.”

Thank you for agreeing, Scott; and all my excuses to Burt. :-)

Meanwhile I should like to see some of your points:

So to assume that the CMBR closed the door on the Steady State theory is a logical FRAUD!!

This is a reaction to a statement. But if you precede the “statement”, you’re placed in the situation of “choosing” between both. That would be the first “action” before the first ”reaction”. To make the choice, you face the first question to be answered:

What is space and how can it "appear"?

If you cannot find the way space is “produced”, you cannot choose the BB theory and have to admit that space as always existed.

On the other hand, this idea goes against the observed "facts" of expansion, entropy and, even, wavelength of light. So we have a problem.

Thinking about it, this problem is the same as defining the difference between “to be” and “to exist”. One is “static” the other is “dynamic”. So logically, in an “evolving” situation, before being “dynamic” the subject has to be “static”. In this “static” mode, is where you get “absence of temperature”, absence of movement, in fact, absence of everything. Nothing can exist in an “absolute static” mode. For the simple reason that it has no possibility to “change” and eventually, “exist”.

Which means that “absolute zero” cannot “be” the origin of what is observed today. The simple assessment of what exists” indicates that all started with a “non-absolute” absence of temperature. So we have to admit that if there was a “start”, it had to be at a temperature of zero, but, not being an “absence of temperature”. This is why I use: 0+K instead of 0K (0 Kelvin = (by defenition) absence of temperature whatsoever).

As for movement, absolute “non-movement” results in the “absolute 0”; which we just saw impossible. So, how can "zero movement" be equalized to "zero temperature" and stay clear of the “absolute”?

The only possibility is that, at the “start”, everything we observe had the “potentiality” to “exist”. So, at the time (beginning) “To be” could, eventually, become “to exist”. Which also indicate that before the first “movement” there could be no “time” nor “space”. Consequently, space-time is the “result” of “movement”. That’s how and when space-time appeared; at the first manifested movement.

One more specification:

Space is "three dimensional" (first, second and third) compared to "time" which is also "three dimensional" (past, present and future). Furthermore, we cannot see the future, just as we cannot see the space-time of "coming expansion". All two of them indicates "movement".

In fact, if it were to even be 'fair', black holes would HAVE to be EVERYWHERE.

You are absolutely right here. The fact is, to be exact: the whole universe would be a black hole. But, a total universe that is a black hole, is not the case observed. The main reason is that the universe doesn't have a center where to put that black hole. And even if the whole universe (all that exists) was, itself, a center occupied by a black hole, its "event horizon" would be the limit seperating it from "nothingness". Being a center of "nothingness" is completely absurd.
The reason bringing you to postulate this “everywhere” is simply because you’re convince (maybe) that gravity is “universal” (if it was, we would have a universal black hole). So your postulate is the proof that such is not the case. Consequently, gravity has to be “local”. There's no way out.

Contrary to popular belief, a "black hole" still can trade off energy.

“Trading” used here is the way to describe the “event”; but probably not the best way to describe the “fact”.

For example; in the formation of a neutron star; there’s a stage when protons transforms in neutrons. To do so (explained simply) the proton has to integrate an electron. So each proton uses ONE electron and all (in fact: a great part of...) the other electrons are “expulsed” from the star, in an explosion.
Note that "Neutron star" is a stage that matter has to cross in order to get to the “black hole” stage (mass-energy decides if collapsing stops at this stage ou goes on).
So every time a black hole “swallows” matter, this “event” (proton->neutron) occurs somewhere along the way, toward its “event horizon”; so this confirms your statement that: “I argue that all energy going into a black hole (through its event horizon) is still conserved” since whatever is observed seeming coming out of a black hole, never passed its event horizon. Which means that the information that went "inside" is still inside somewhere.

You also say:

It spins. To the perpendicular plane to the axis of such a spin, this draws matter and energy IN and its poles return this back OUT!!

That is another question to be addressed seriously: Does a “black hole” spin?

I think it doesn’t; but that is another subject completely (almost). :-)
Andrex
Member

Posts: 478
Joined: 25 Jun 2015

Andrex » December 4th, 2016, 1:42 pm wrote:
So to assume that the CMBR closed the door on the Steady State theory is a logical FRAUD!!

This is a reaction to a statement. But if you precede the “statement”, you’re placed in the situation of “choosing” between both. That would be the first “action” before the first ”reaction”. To make the choice, you face the first question to be answered:

What is space and how can it "appear"?

If you cannot find the way space is “produced”, you cannot choose the BB theory and have to admit that space as always existed.

The 'absence' of knowledge is itself not a position and more why I point out how and why the CMBR cannot be argued to justify dismissing the Steady State theory simply because it lacks a position on the discovery of CMBR one way or the other. What I complain about is that the Big Bang is DEPENDENT upon the assumption that space, matter, and energy result from some REAL singularity as a positive stance. Otherwise, it reduces to being at least a "steady state" type of theory. It's fundamental definition is based on positing a singularity, not merely lacking knowledge of whether there is or is not one.

ALSO, there CAN be an "origin" in kind to a singularity. But this could only be a logical one as you noticed that time itself dynamically conditions what exists in our understanding. What IS certain to me though is that regardless of times, we should STILL see what appears to be an origin in time from our perspective if we HOLD time itself CONSTANT but allow space as being permitted to be VARIABLE. When we hold time as constant units but space as being able to alter, we have any 'speeds' as varying throughout time, which MUST include even the speed of light. We cannot use a speed as defined as a 'distance/time' that stays constant when either time by itself OR distance by itself alters. If so, we'd have the relationship of (changing distances)/(fixed time) not equal at all eras. This goes for assuming a (fixed distance)/(variable time) as well. As such, all we can presume by our present capacity to observe is that both distance AND time is either 'fixed' or 'variable'. When 'fixed', the speed of light stays the same. But the BB interpretation of a singularity necessitates that space (as distance) derives from zero and grows. This is contradictory.

The ONLY alternative without contradiction is to assume that both time AND space change in sync with each other. But this reduces to meaning that a 'singularity' is only an appearance in kind to the way parallel lines drawn in two dimensions meets at a 'vanishing point' as it approaches an infinite distance. There is NO possible 'observation' which can repair this to fit with the Big Bang interpretation.

Yet, the Steady State theory (and any or all future interpretations of its foundational concepts) has been arrogantly dismissed for mere 'ignorance' of some predicted phenomena, the CMBR. To even assert that this "lack" of prediction is justified is illegal because, as I have pointed out, you cannot even interpret a zero Kelvin temperature as ACTUALLY being measured. So this assures that there MUST be some background temperature greater than 0 Kelvin as long as you look for it. Even if the distant space appears to present radiation, this is thus no assurance that it represents a "hot" state any more than a "cold" state of origins. And so this is CLEARLY a con if we grant the best charity to those of the past. Either they are absurdly dumb OR they are purposely enforcing a dictum that the Big Bang theory must be presumed for some political purpose.

What you said as follows must be revised in light of these points:

On the other hand, this idea goes against the observed "facts" of expansion, entropy and, even, wavelength of light. So we have a problem.

Thinking about it, this problem is the same as defining the difference between “to be” and “to exist”. One is “static” the other is “dynamic”. So logically, in an “evolving” situation, before being “dynamic” the subject has to be “static”. In this “static” mode, is where you get “absence of temperature”, absence of movement, in fact, absence of everything. Nothing can exist in an “absolute static” mode. For the simple reason that it has no possibility to “change” and eventually, “exist”.

Expansion can occur if EITHER it is constant OR accelerating. The BB is assumed by treating the space we measure as perfectly CONSTANT only. However, no matter HOW accurate we try to interpret distant stars, this is impossible to assure without being ABSOLUTELY PRECISE! This is because even the tiniest acceleration is sufficient to be unable to notice and MORE probable a reality in an infinite more ways than to some specific 'wall' (singularity). For instance, if spatial expansion always accelerates at even the tiniest way, you couldn't determine that any 'constant' average we measure with severe IMPRECISION (as to the distances exactly of how far stars are) is trustworthy to deduce.

And then to add, LOCALLY, we know that for everything we know of physics, where matter and spaces are concerned, ACCELERATION is ALWAYS true. We define all 'forces' as masses that accelerate. So if you assume some point at which space 'began' at some sudden fixed constant, this would be like going form 0 to any positive distance in an INFINITESIMALLY small point in time. [This is WHY the "inflation model" was invented! They realized their logic was flawed unless they could create some myth of magical super acceleration to account for why Earth is merely only a little less than 1/2 the age of the Universe as a whole!! (compare 6 billion for Earth versus 14 billion for ALL things in the universe!)]

I couldn't be sure if I agree or not to the rest of your response above. But my only addition of arguments were superfluously added to support my views and so do not want to digress into them if you don't already default to my intentional understandings. The paradoxes I'm pointing to of space's expansion only occur IF we assume our present model in faith of the Big Bang theory. To hold that it has validity in light of contradictions that are better understood without assuming a singularity in time and/or space is my point. And the fact that some, like Burt here, also abandoned the significance of the singularity is to me problematic because it suggests that given we KEEP the Big Bang as valid regardless of the counter-logical proofs against it suggests a political motive to support this and NOT an actual 'scientific' one because there is NO means to disprove it when it can be evolved to permit convenient adaptations.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Scott Mayers » December 8th, 2016, 10:56 pm wrote:What I complain about is that the Big Bang is DEPENDENT upon the assumption that space, matter, and energy result from some REAL singularity as a positive stance. Otherwise, it reduces to being at least a "steady state" type of theory.

Burt Jordaan stated in the thread entitled 'Andrex hijack of "The Infinite Cosmic Lattice"':
BurtJordaan wrote:We have Cosmic Inflation as a proper scientific theory, complete with predictions and observations that neither prove it, nor discredit it. Then we have the LCDM theory with similar pedigree. Together, they are sometimes (popularly) called the Big-Bang theory, but you would not find it much in recent technical papers, if at all.

I would like to know your position on the/a theory that contains inflation but no real singularity. Suppose we drop the (non-technical) name "Big Bang", and call it a "steady state" type of theory as you wish (albeit not the Steady State theory as commonly understood). Do you think it has merit? I am more interested in its content than its title.

Let's forget the term "Big Bang", and "real" singularities, and consign them to history. Then we can focus on the modern theories, rather than any earlier versions.
Positor
Member

Posts: 999
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

Gravity then reverts to a shadow effect, that I simulate in kind to the Casimir Effect. Gravity then is the collective "pushes" from all different places in space. These 'pushes' are a reasonably argued to come from the very EXPANSION of space.

Le' Sage gravity is the name you were looking for, not Casimir effect. Le'Sage proposed the existence of something he referred to as ultra mundane corpuscles. Those "particles" would now be superseded by the cosmological constant/dark energy? His theory is actually more plausible today than it was when he proposed it, as using the cosmological constant has eliminated the need to account for the collisions, or reflections of what Le'Sage thought of as physical particles.

Be it gravitational wells, or shadow gravity,I don't mind either... ( Hell will freeze over before I will believe in those fictitious gravitons.)
curiosity
Member

Posts: 352
Joined: 19 Jul 2012

Positor » December 8th, 2016, 8:08 pm wrote:
Scott Mayers » December 8th, 2016, 10:56 pm wrote:What I complain about is that the Big Bang is DEPENDENT upon the assumption that space, matter, and energy result from some REAL singularity as a positive stance. Otherwise, it reduces to being at least a "steady state" type of theory.

Burt Jordaan stated in the thread entitled 'Andrex hijack of "The Infinite Cosmic Lattice"':
BurtJordaan wrote:We have Cosmic Inflation as a proper scientific theory, complete with predictions and observations that neither prove it, nor discredit it. Then we have the LCDM theory with similar pedigree. Together, they are sometimes (popularly) called the Big-Bang theory, but you would not find it much in recent technical papers, if at all.

I would like to know your position on the/a theory that contains inflation but no real singularity. Suppose we drop the (non-technical) name "Big Bang", and call it a "steady state" type of theory as you wish (albeit not the Steady State theory as commonly understood). Do you think it has merit? I am more interested in its content than its title.

Let's forget the term "Big Bang", and "real" singularities, and consign them to history. Then we can focus on the modern theories, rather than any earlier versions.

Your name certainly lends weight to your philosophy on this. I already agree that to "posit" a theory is justified. The problem is that this is diminished as being insignificant when it doesn't first dislodge the errors in the present paradigm. I HAVE begun just such but have to be cautious because when or where I have proposed anything 'positively', it gets dismissed for not first defaulting to the present beliefs. Then you are expected to UNDO the damage all the way back to the point you are able to reconstruct this with correction. It thus becomes political. You don't spend Billions of dollars on some project (like CERN) only to discover there is nothing significant to learn. The investment alone tends to act as leverage to pressure those living upon it to do whatever it takes to justify the costs. As such the theories involved act in accordance to keep this economy going.

I'm not sure that I wouldn't do the same given the same circumstances of survival. But it means that we all can't trust even 'science' through the institutional progress and momentum that it is presently experiencing without skepticism. We are being discouraged from this though unless we are OF some privileged organ.

The "Steady State" version(s) merely mean that through TIME, we must assume ALL factors consistent to our present capacity to experience reality. As such, we must treat all times as at least appearing as we see things and be certain to try to explain causation based on this with precedence. The Big Bang theory is based on assuming that in the PAST, the universe was much different. It is based upon biasing us personally to be privileged to some potential "god".

If you witness some magician performing some trick, while it may be possible they sold their soul to the devil and were granted some privileged capacity to delude others based merely on their wishes, we have to default to assume it is us who are sane and not the perception. This way, we then try to determine HOW nature can 'fit' into our non-conflicting local powers of observations. But what many are doing is to 'accept' the illusion even though it cannot be locally reproduced other than by forceful interpretation of some mystical powers as the cause. The Big Bang is being used as a 'magical' mystery of which we are being diverted from looking into this critically.

And PLEASE, for those who may feel insulted on this, I am not asserting that I have the perfect solution and could be wrong. But if you gamble on dismissing the paradoxes I'm presenting here, we may not be able to discover that we just might find some resolution without making us self-destruct out of fear of some lack of a 'god' to save us. It may not be pleasing to consider a steady state reality that dismisses our emotional need for some heavenly parent that cares for us. But this doesn't mean we can't find a way to make it possible anyways.

AS to your idea to 'posit' rather than negate, I agree. So do you find it alright to assume "absolutely nothing" as an origin? I began this with logic on this site. See "How many 'truths' are there?" as a start. I was trying to establish that if we treat options regarding a quantity of truth(s), that to begin with a literal "absolute" nothingness is what we CAN accept logically in order to 'posit' a reality according to my own thinking. It's hard to argue 'positively' without negating what I perceive is in error.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

curiosity » December 8th, 2016, 9:18 pm wrote:
Gravity then reverts to a shadow effect, that I simulate in kind to the Casimir Effect. Gravity then is the collective "pushes" from all different places in space. These 'pushes' are a reasonably argued to come from the very EXPANSION of space.

Le' Sage gravity is the name you were looking for, not Casimir effect. Le'Sage proposed the existence of something he referred to as ultra mundane corpuscles. Those "particles" would now be superseded by the cosmological constant/dark energy? His theory is actually more plausible today than it was when he proposed it, as using the cosmological constant has eliminated the need to account for the collisions, or reflections of what Le'Sage thought of as physical particles.

Be it gravitational wells, or shadow gravity,I don't mind either... ( Hell will freeze over before I will believe in those fictitious gravitons.)

Thank you for the Le Sage. I hadn't heard of this and though he likely lacks the extent of knowledge we have today, it might be worth checking out. Casimir just happened to also be one I discovered AFTER I independently thought of this. I hadn't known another to have proposed something similar before.

I think that expansion itself IS what is the cause of this 'corpuscular' idea that Le Sage was suggesting. I'd have to read more into his specific thinking to see though if he had a justification for this before we knew of expansion.
Scott Mayers
Member

Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015

Next