The Big Bang Theory

[mich2]

Not even close.

Can I try again??:newidea:

Although I still haven’t read all of the posts, I concentrated on reading mostly yours. So far, it seems that you are emphasizing another dimensional universe in existance before the Big Bang, giving rise to our own universe.You seem to say that this mother universe might have been the cause for the birth of our own universe…a Birth Pang instead of Big Bang . You also speak of a no boundary condition of the early universe where time t = 0 is simply when the total state of entropy of the universe was 0. You also wrote, and I quote:

…possible that each universe could have its own – distinct – rules

you also wrote

…I’m thinking of a kind of primordial entropy

Now, with this, taken from the Heisenberg + LSD = Stephen Hawking’s Flexiverse

“Observations of final states determine different histories of the universe,” says Hawking. “A worm’s-eye view from inside the universe would have the normal causality. Backwards causality is an angel’s-eye view from outside the universe.”

From all of the above, I think you may be claiming the beginning of** our **universe started at t=0, when the total entropy was also 0. From that point on, it followed certain physical laws which made it continuoulsy increasing in entropy.
However, before t = 0 this universe existed in a state of negative entropy, and therefore followed different laws, responsible for creating the universe we presently experience; being the mother universe.
What type of laws existed before t=0? Well, since it was a period when the universe was extemely small, it would have been following Quantum physical laws, a weird type of universe at best, where an infinite number of universes are possible to exist. However, the collapsing of infinite realities into the type of universe we now experience demands an observer who actually creates such a reality. Therefore, this creator, we call God.
As a worm eye view, we observe the universe increasing in entropy, following the laws of General Relativity, but from an angel’s eye view (observing at the atomic level) we can view the laws of the mother universe at work. If so, then, G.R. and Quantum Mechanics could be meant be left as separate and distinct laws of nature.

Andre

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mich2:

Can I try again?

:yup: :bounce:

mich2:

So far, it seems that you are emphasizing another dimensional universe in existance before the Big Bang, giving rise to our own universe.

Yes, the Membrane realm described earlier on.

mich2:

You seem to say that this mother universe might have been the cause for the birth of our own universe.

Let’s call it the Membrane realm. The Membrane realm did not cause our universe. The Membranes of energy in the Membrane realm collided. That collision caused the Big Bang. But why did that collision cause the Big Bang?

That’s the question. We know that the collision caused heat. Heat>entropy. I proposed that a requirement exists in the Membrane realm that entropy = 0. So the haet and the entropy has to go somewhere. It went into a Big Bang which created a new universe.

mich2:

I proposed that]You also speak of a no boundary condition of the early universe

Yes.

mich2:

I proposed that where time t = 0

No. Before the Big Bang, time was one or more dimensions of space. For time to equal zero, time would have to have existed as time, which it did not. It existed as space.

mich2:

I proposed that is simply when the total state of entropy of the universe was 0.

At the Big Bang, entropy was minimal, zero if you will. But in our universe, entropy increases with time. In fact entropy is the arrow of time. As the universe ages, entropy increases.

The point is that our universe has entropy. My suggestion was that that the Membrane realm cannot have entropy.

mich2:

From all of the above, I think you may be claiming the beginning of** our **universe started at t=0, when the total entropy was also 0. From that point on, it followed certain physical laws which made it continuoulsy increasing in entropy.

Yes. But this is not immediately useful. We already knew that.

mich2:

However, before t = 0 this universe existed in a state of negative entropy,

No. That is not what I said. But we can consider that later, if you want to. I said that in the Membrane realm there might have been a requirement that no entropy ever exist there.

mich2:

and therefore followed different laws,

We are looking to keep physics unbroken. So the fewer different laws we can introduce, the better. With my explanation, we have introduced no new laws – only the requirement that, in the Membrane universe, no entropy can exist.

mich2:

responsible for creating the universe we presently experience; being the mother universe.

We don’t live in the Mother universe. The Mother would be the Membrane realm. We live in the baby which is a universe.

mich2:

What type of laws existed before t=0?

We’re trying not to go there. Quite possibly different laws existed. This would mean that at t=0 physics breaks and therefore we can’t know anything looking backwards beyond the Big Bang.

But we can’t prove that we physics breaks and therefore we can’t prove that we can’t know anything before t=0. Therefore we proceeded on the assumption that physics doesn’t break and that we can know something before t=0.

That was a starting point of convenience. A gamble, if you will.

mich2:

Well, since it was a period when the universe was extemely small, it would have been following Quantum physical laws, a weird type of universe at best, where an infinite number of universes are possible to exist.

mich2:

However, the collapsing of infinite realities

Nope. Not even close. We have completely avoided the notion of infinite regression.

mich2:

into the type of universe we now experience demands an observer who actually creates such a reality.

This is Hawking’s flexiverse. Not the multiverse.

mich2:

Therefore, this creator, we call God.

Hawking’s flexiverse does not demonstrate God. The multiverse is closer to demonstrating God, in that it demonstrates non-linear time. It’s been an uphill battle trying to explain non-linear time to folks. Once they can understand non-linear time, then we can proceed to larger understandings of God in physics.

mich2:

As a worm eye view, we observe the universe increasing in entropy, following the laws of General Relativity, but from an angel’s eye view (observing at the atomic level) we can view the laws of the mother universe at work.

OK.

mich2:

If so, then, G.R. and Quantum Mechanics could be meant be left as separate and distinct laws of nature.

GR is for big stuff. QM is for small stuff. They are distinct. However the hope is for a Grand Unified Theory which will reconcile them.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

How does one know, scientifically, that time slows around black holes? why should it?

OK. Relativity is hard to wrap one’s head around. I’ll try to find you a beginner’s guide. For now read this:

Gene Smith’s Astronomy Tutorial: General Relativity & Black Holes

Gravitational Time Dilation: Time slows down in a strong gravitational field. Newton’s concept of time was an absolute quantity flowing uniformly through the Universe. Einstein showed that the measurement of time is relative, depending on the reference frame of the person who is making the measurement.

This is Relativity.

 

[Frank_Fenn]

What are your opinions concerning the Big Bang Theory? Personally, I think that the Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. It seems that at that point, time (as we understand it), matter, and space came into being. It would appear that God initiated the Big Bang, thus creating the universe. Pius XII share this opinion. He told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1951,

“…it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.”

What do you all think?

since we do not know the exact date that God created everything, we cannot put a time period as to the age of the universe. it could be billions of years old, or it might not be. God exists outside of time. our concept of time is made around our earth time.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

How do you know that matter comes from energy? And how does one come to this conclusion through math?

This is where you actually have to understand the math. Math is just a language like English. Moreover, it cannot be understood outside its historical context.

Folks can only see what their experience prepares them to see. Predecessors did not see what Einstein saw. Therefore there was no need for them to wiggle and jiggle their formulae.

In Einstein’s day new observations no longer supported the math from previous eras. So he jiggled and wiggled the numbers. The equations themselves required that e = mc2.

This is simple to start with: It’s Relative

Newton’s Universe is the universe of common sense. Before I can discuss Einstein’s Universe I need to describe what existed before. The Newtonian Universe makes the following assumptions.

• Time is constant and absolute, the same for all observers.
• There is no limit to how fast something can go.
• Matter and energy are two separate phenomena.
• The mass and length of a body are fixed…
  Newton’s mechanics served well until around the middle of the 19th Century. [Then] it was observed that Mercury’s orbit was not quite as it should be…

Then… James Maxwell… proved that light was a wave travelling at 300,000 km/s. Some people said ‘waves in what?’ Water waves travel in water; sound waves travel in air. What is it that light waves travel in? There was no logical answer so an ancient idea was revived: the aether…

Albert Michelson and Edward Morley set up an experiment to try and measure the drag of the aether on the Earth…
Michelson and Morley found no difference in the speed of light in two perpendicular directions. This meant one of three things:

• 1 The experiment was flawed
• 2 The Earth was not travelling in space
• 3 The laws of physics were not quite right
  Einstein… made two assumptions about the Universe and proceeded to use these assumptions to completely rebuild physics:
• The Aether does not exist
• The velocity of light is constant for all observers.
  The first assumption is not too tricky. The aether was postulated to explain something that really did not need explaining. Light is an oscillation of magnetic and electric fields. That is what the wave is, not a vibration in a medium.

[Water waves need the medium of water. Sound waves need the medium of air. Electromagnetic waves do not need a medium. Neither does light.]

The second assumption, however, is against all common sense. Light travels at 300,000 km/s.

If an object travelling at 100 km/s sends out a beam of light to us and we measure its speed, common sense tells us that we should measure the speed of light to be 300,100 km/s.

Similarly, if the light source is moving away from us at 100 km/s, we should measure the speed of light at 299,900 km/s.

But no, Einstein says it will be measured at 300,000 km/s regardless of how the source or the observer is moving.

This assumption violates common sense but has since been tested with equipment of such accuracy that if it wasn’t valid, the discrepancy would have shown up.

The first assumption actually means that you cannot measure absolute speed. Speed is relative. You can measure your speed relative to the Earth, the Earth’s speed relative to the Sun, the Sun’s speed relative to the centre of the Galaxy, etc. What you cannot measure is your speed absolutely.

The second assumption means that many quantities that we thought of as constant and unchanging actually vary for different observers. These are the predictions that Einstein made…

Time slows down for a body that is moving and for one in a gravitational field. This is one of Einstein’s most fascinating predictions. Again, it has been tested many times. Sub-atomic particles last longer before decaying when they are moving close to the speed of light. Energy from Pulsars and White Dwarfs (stars with huge gravitational fields) slow down the vibration of atoms which can be detected. Using Atomic clocks it is possible now to measure these effects on the Earth. At the speed of light all time slows down to zero. The speed of light seems to be forever unattainable if Einstein is correct…

 

[freesoulhope]

OK. Relativity is hard to wrap one’s head around. I’ll try to find you a beginner’s guide. For now read this:

Gene Smith’s Astronomy Tutorial: General Relativity & Black Holes

This is Relativity.

Thanks for the guide. So… Somebody has actually experienced time slow down?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thanks for the guide. So… Somebody has actually experienced time slow down?

Einstein’s math predicted it. Observation confirmed it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

this is according to Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity.

Perhaps you could give freesoulhope a link to a simple explanation and paraphrase if necessary? She’s doing her best to keep up and Relativity is not easy.

 

[freesoulhope]

Einstein’s math predicted it. Observation confirmed it.

Let me get this correct; Somebody has “Observed” time distort and slow down? And how is it possible that a principle of numbers can predict the future of some event. Why is mathematics so important to science?

 

[freesoulhope]

Perhaps you could give freesoulhope a link to a simple explanation and paraphrase if necessary? She’s doing her best to keep up and Relativity is not easy.

She?

 

[Diddi]

ISome of the atheists that I have come across through cyber space seem to be advocating the multi-verse theory as scientific; they are waving it around as an alternative or a refutation of the un-caused cause argument.

My objection to this is: If are universe is a cause of another universe which in turn is a cause of another, so on so fourth,

As they say, it’s tortoises all the way down.

By the way, I believe the evidence (that the Big Bang is an illusion) may be right before us (readily attainable). We do not need to go back in time to refute the theory, we just have to have a few aha expiences. The evidence for a spherical Earth was seen before it was tested by sailing around the Earth or by going into space.

Where we should look is: 1. Where the Big Bang fails, such as galaxies mapping out into a soap bubble film arrangement where the Big Bang predicts a more random displacement, or the failure of the BBT to predict a universe crackling with hidden energy; 2. Where the Big Bang forces the rediculous, such as parallel universes; and 3. where the Big Bang fails to go, such as it’s failure to give mechanisms (rather than merely descriptions) for gravity and the speed of light, for examples. When these and so many more puzzle pieces fit together, we will have a theory that is far different than the Big Bang theory, and we don’t have to travel back in time to get to the next level.

 

[heisenburg]

Let me get this correct; Somebody has “Observed” time distort and slow down?

Yup…
If I remember properly, an experiment was done on one of the space station inhabitants (may have been Mir though and not ISS.)

Anyway… a clock was set on earth, and a matching clock set on the Space Station. Since the space station moves faster relative to us, the clock at the end of the guys 2 year stint should be just slightly behind the one on earth. When they tested the clocks after he got back, low and behold, the clocks were different at the rate predicted by the equation.

the equation they used is as follows

t=(1(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))t

By the way, Ani, While i see what you are saying, it is not possible without a change in laws for Entropy NOT to exist in the Multiverse. Since Entropy is a function of energy, then if there is absolutly zero entropy, then there is no energy. this is of course false.

However, perhaps I may have confused matters. When I speak of zero net entropy, that does NOT mean that there is no entropy at various points throughout the MV (multiverse). Example. An exposion happens creating heat at one point that local netropy = ‘5’, however, at a differant point, energy is leaked out at a net entropy of =’-5’ between these two points, the net is zero, but they locally have their own non zero entropy.

Also. remember that heat is merely one way the energy is released… so, look at it as energy. This energy is not created as a result of collision, whether particle or energy collision. THe energy is transfered from one to the other. IE the two colliding branes create a new one, but with energy within each of the two colliding branes. For example, brane 1 releases 2N, brane 2 release 8N, baby bran receives 9N. 1N dissipated into multiverse space. the net energy created = 0, it was just a transfer of energy.

Thanks

In Christ

 

[Ani_Ibi]

She?

Sorry. He.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Where we should look is: 1. Where the Big Bang fails, such as galaxies mapping out into a soap bubble film arrangement where the Big Bang predicts a more random displacement, or the failure of the BBT to predict a universe crackling with hidden energy;

1. Where the Big Bang forces the rediculous, such as parallel universes; and
2. where the Big Bang fails to go, such as it’s failure to give mechanisms (rather than merely descriptions) for gravity and the speed of light, for examples. When these and so many more puzzle pieces fit together, we will have a theory that is far different than the Big Bang theory, and we don’t have to travel back in time to get to the next level.

Can you give us some links for these events so that we can follow what you are saying? Thank you.

What kind of theory do you believe we will have as a result of these events?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

heisenburg:

By the way, Ani, While i see what you are saying, it is not possible without a change in laws for Entropy NOT to exist in the Multiverse. Since Entropy is a function of energy, then if there is absolutly zero entropy, then there is no energy. this is of course false.

OK. I understand what you are saying.

heisenburg:

However, perhaps I may have confused matters. When I speak of zero net entropy, that does NOT mean that there is no entropy at various points throughout the MV (multiverse).

I understand net entropy. With you there.

heisenburg:

Example. An exposion happens creating heat at one point that local netropy = ‘5’, however, at a differant point, energy is leaked out at a net entropy of =’-5’ between these two points, the net is zero, but they locally have their own non zero entropy.

OK. This is what I am talking about. Just having trouble with the language. Where does the energy leak out to?

heisenburg:

Also. remember that heat is merely one way the energy is released… so, look at it as energy.

OK. It was an example. Let’s say energy.

heisenburg:

This energy is not created as a result of collision, whether particle or energy collision. THe energy is transfered from one to the other. IE the two colliding branes create a new one, but with energy within each of the two colliding branes.

Yes. I understand the transfer (dividing up) of energy which is already there in the two parent branes. But there is also energy released from the collision of the two branes.

heisenburg:

For example, brane 1 releases 2N, brane 2 release 8N, baby bran receives 9N. 1N dissipated into multiverse space. the net energy created = 0, it was just a transfer of energy.

A transfer of energy and energy released by the collision. So it is this collision energy to which I am referring. Maybe there is a requirement in the Brane realm that the collision energy and therefore the collision entropy cannot exist there. Hence it is dumped out by creating a new universe. Follow me?

By the way, why are these branes colliding? Thank you.

 

[heisenburg]

Good Morning Ani. Glad to see ya

Yes. I understand the transfer (dividing up) of energy which is already there in the two parent branes. But there is also energy released from the collision of the two branes

When any two objects collide, whether car + car, Brane + Brane, or Hubble space telescope + Earth, the energy transfer is not and can never be perfect, that is why we get things like heat, explosions, ripples, etc. If you notice in the example, i gave a 1N allowance for energy being transfered to the Multiverse. This could be transfered in the form of Heat energy, sound, or even in the form of ripples on a brane like those found on a pond. Ultimately though, all the energy needed is transfered to someone somewhere in some form. Nothing is created or destroyed. The Heat you feel from the exploding satellite in your backyard is simply the inefficient part of the energy transfer. If it were a perfect transfer, the satellite would land on the ground at super fast speeds, wouldn’t bounce, and no explosion would occur as all the energy is transfered directly to the planet. To me, i think that would be funny to watch, but thats just my sense of humor…

With respect to how the different universes are created, from my understanding of the theory, at a quantum level, each brane is fluctuating and vibrating at its own pace. Whether because of gravity, nuclear forces, or simply god blowing the two together, the collision happens when a peak on one brane smacks a peak on the other brane. It isn’t so much two plates smacking each other, more than it is waves on each brane hitting each other. those quantum collisions according to theory result in an incredible amount of energy transfer, and at times, creation of a new brane.

(by the way, branes don’t have to be shaped like plates, they can be shaped like loops, spheres, stringy, etc… there is no one set shape for the various branes. )

Anyway… the core question… what CAUSES this… personally, i think thats where god comes in. Assuming multiverse theory is correct, which i dont know yet, He pushes the two together to get the result he wants. I don’t know if science will ever find a ‘reason’. however, anything that does happen withing the physical world, and not on God’s “plane” must be able to fit within the laws of physics. Sometimes its jsut our understanding of those laws though that creates problems
however, when looking for the why and the initial hows…Thats where we come in

In Christ

In Christ

 

[Ani_Ibi]

heisenburg:

Good Morning Ani. Glad to see ya

:tiphat: Morning heisy.

heisenburg:

When any two objects collide, whether car + car, Brane + Brane, or Hubble space telescope + Earth, the energy transfer is not and can never be perfect, that is why we get things like heat, explosions, ripples, etc.

Yes. Efficiency.

But you are talking about energy which is already there in the form of energy.

I am talking about that and something more. Energy is waves. And energy is particles. When the branes collide, the particle aspect of the branes (matter) releases new energy into the equation.

It is that new energy which no longer equates into the net energy = 0 requirement for the Brane realm. Am I crazy?

Now I was talking about a requirement that net entropy = 0, but let’s drop that and go with a requirement that net energy = 0. With the extra collision energy, net energy > 0 in the Brane realm.

Because of the requirement that net energy = 0, that extra collision energy has to go outside the Brane realm. Therefore that extra collision energy is transformed into a new universe.

The energy in the new universe is + therefore the entropy in the new universe is +. This differentiates the kind of time in the universe from the kind of time in the Brane realm. Am I crazy?

heisenburg:

If you notice in the example, i gave a 1N allowance for energy being transfered to the Multiverse.

Yes.

heisenburg:

This could be transfered in the form of Heat energy, sound, or even in the form of ripples on a brane like those found on a pond.

The form is not important. Let’s stick with ‘energy.’

heisenburg:

Ultimately though, all the energy needed is transfered to someone somewhere in some form. Nothing is created or destroyed.

Correct. Conservation of Energy.

heisenburg:

The Heat you feel from the exploding satellite in your backyard is simply the inefficient part of the energy transfer. If it were a perfect transfer, the satellite would land on the ground at super fast speeds, wouldn’t bounce, and no explosion would occur as all the energy is transfered directly to the planet. To me, i think that would be funny to watch, but thats just my sense of humor…

Yeah, like Wiley Coyote disappearing into the bottom of the canyon and no poof!

heisenburg:

With respect to how the different universes are created, from my understanding of the theory, at a quantum level, each brane is fluctuating and vibrating at its own pace. Whether because of gravity, nuclear forces, or simply god blowing the two together, the collision happens when a peak on one brane smacks a peak on the other brane. It isn’t so much two plates smacking each other, more than it is waves on each brane hitting each other. those quantum collisions according to theory result in an incredible amount of energy transfer, and at times, creation of a new brane.

OK. The creation of a new brane. But not necessarily the creation of a new universe.

(by the way, branes don’t have to be shaped like plates, they can be shaped like loops, spheres, stringy, etc… there is no one set shape for the various branes. )

Understood.

heisenburg:

Anyway… the core question… what CAUSES this… personally, i think thats where god comes in.

Me too. But we would have to show that time is non-linear. One way to show that is to jiggle entropy. See where I was going?

heisenburg:

I don’t know if science will ever find a ‘reason’.

But that is not going to stop science from looking.

heisenburg:

however, anything that does happen withing the physical world, and not on God’s “plane” must be able to fit within the laws of physics.

Yes. What I proposed further is that we can start with the assumption that physics does not break on God’s plane and see what verifiable hypotheses that surrenders into our sneaky little hands. Bwa-ha-ha!

 

[heisenburg]

One way to show that is to jiggle entropy

Forgive me, but I think I am a little confused. (Head is full of allergy medicine right now so I might be a little off)

What exactly do you mean by this. I think I missed something somewhere, and perhaps which is why I have been describing it as I have…

A new brane is a new univers by the way. so if you create a new brane, you are creating a new universe. Still, energy is not created by the creation of the new universe. it is still just a transfer of energy from one brane to another.

gets me thinking… if energy is continually being transfered from brane to brane, in time the total energy will diffuse to a point where no single brane has enough energy to do anything… and thus… universe dies…

anyway

anyway, if you can help em understand where I missed you, I would appreciate it…

Thanks…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

heisenburg:

A new brane is a new univers by the way.

Um… this is not completely clear in brane theory. There seem to be branes in 5 dimensions. Two branes collide, collapsing one of the dimensions into four: 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Then the branes rebound and go back into 5 dimensions. That 4-dimensional thing is what we call our universe.

heisenburg:

so if you create a new brane, you are creating a new universe.

:nope: No, this is where the science editor’s vocabulary broke down. The four-dimensional product of the brane collision is a new universe.

These baby branes don’t exist. Branes exist in 5-dimensions.

Also it assumed that the branes are so irregular that their collision would break off a baby brane from one paraent brane or the other. In fact branes are almost perfectly flat. If they were not almost perfectly flat then we could not have flat expansion in our universe. And flat expansion is exactly what we observe here. Any very minor irregularities in the parent branes go into coalescing galaxies in the new universe.

heisenburg:

Still, energy is not created by the creation of the new universe.

I never said energy was created by the the creation of a new universe. I said energy was dumped from the brane realm into the new universe. The only way to dump that energy is to create a new universe.

heisenburg:

it is still just a transfer of energy from one brane to another.

Nope. One part of what happens with the energy is transfer outright. Another part of what happens with energy is e=mc2

gets me thinking… if energy is continually being transfered from brane to brane, in time the total energy will diffuse to a point where no single brane has enough energy to do anything… and thus… universe dies…

Nope. That would mean that entropy existed in the brane realm. And my assumption is that it cannot exist there.

When extra collision energy is dumped into the new universe, then the entropy associated with that collision energy is dumped there also. The brane realm cannot die if there is no entropy in it. Get where I am going with this now?

 

[freesoulhope]

gets me thinking… if energy is continually being transfered from brane to brane, in time the total energy will diffuse to a point where no single brane has enough energy to do anything… and thus… universe dies…

…

Thus completing the evolutionary cycle and purpose of the multiverse. The first universe we can think of as having such an emense amount of energy that…

1. It could never support any kind of life; a very chaotic universe.
2. Having some much energy that, it cannot help but burst in to a new universe; thus creating a domino effect that has eventually lead to ours, which will in turn, lead to heat death.

Pretty cool huh?