The Big Bang Theory

[Diddi]

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

Sure.

I. The first is easy. In recent years, astronomers have mapped the locations of over 100,000 galaxies and have found the distribution to resemble soap bubbles with the galaxies on the bubble surface and the interior of the bubbles almost devoid of galaxies. The BBT predicts a random distribution of galaxies and gives no mechanism for the creation of this pattern. Also, the Big Bang universe is far too young to allow the observed structure to form even if there was a mechanism. These data suggest that the visible universe is much older than the BB universe predicts. You can read nice accounts about these findings in Astronomy magazine or Scientific American, but the following sites will get you started.

csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/gclusters/soap.html

skyserver.sdss.org/edr/en/astro/structures/structures.asp

II. There are two types of articles about the hidden energy of the universe. One type I can give you links to easily. These articles describe a universe has much more hidden “dark energy” than it has visible energy and visible matter combined and that this is causing an acceleration of the rate that our universe is expanding. It’s ironic that what Einstein called his biggest mistake may turn out to be, in part, true. Here is a link to this type of article about the hidden dark energy.

cfa.harvard.edu/~rkirshner/goldsmith.html

The second type of article talks about the detection of (presumably the same) dark energy, which is usually called “zero point energy” under various laboratory situations. The problem with this type of article is that zero point energy has been heralded as a possible source of “free energy” in unlimited amounts, which has lead to bogus research and false claims. I have read good scientific articles about this topic in Science, Scientific American and Astronomy magazines, but I hesitate to give you an online article that might have bogus “facts”. Here, I will give you one but I cannot vouch for its accuracy.

seaspower.com/InsideZeroPoint-Valone.htm

Maybe, when I have more time, I can find a better online source. Although this hidden “dark energy” is helpful for describing the universe we see, the BBT did not predict it nor does it give a mechanism for the occurrence of such energy.

III. Strict empiricists, those who need to have a totally material explanation for our universe without a need for God, have some problems with the BBT beyond the original embarrassment of its resemblance to Biblical creation. Once modern physicists realized that, if the BBT is true, the properties of our universe didn’t have to turn out the way they are, they soon realized; 1) that the properties of our universe appear to make life inevitable, and 2) that such a universe that would produce life had a very low probability of occurring. Since this suggested a creator, the strict empiricist had to postulate multiple universes to show that God wasn’t necessary. In other words, the presence of multiple universes is an extrapolation forced by the need for material cause given the BBT. [The logic goes like this. If the probability of a big bang universe having properties that would lead to life is one in a billion, then, if there are multiple universes, one out of every billion universes on the average would have those properties and since we are alive, we must be in one of them. See, no God.] Personally, I have no problem with any scientific theory that allows for the possibility that God does not exist, for no theory can prove that God does not exist. The problem I have with multiple universes is that once you predict an infinite number of universes, then the same probability logic implies that there are an infinite number of parallel universes and that’s absurd, IMHO.

The rest will have to wait – “miles to go before I sleep.”

 

[john_doran]

The second type of article talks about the detection of (presumably the same) dark energy, which is usually called “zero point energy” under various laboratory situations. The problem with this type of article is that zero point energy has been heralded as a possible source of “free energy” in unlimited amounts, which has lead to bogus research and false claims. I have read good scientific articles about this topic in Science, Scientific American and Astronomy magazines, but I hesitate to give you an online article that might have bogus “facts”. Here, I will give you one but I cannot vouch for its accuracy.

seaspower.com/InsideZeroPoint-Valone.htm

Maybe, when I have more time, I can find a better online source. Although this hidden “dark energy” is helpful for describing the universe we see, the BBT did not predict it nor does it give a mechanism for the occurrence of such energy.

i think that this is a better resource for “zero point energy” (i.e. the cosmological constant):

relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-1/index.html

(NOTE: it’s math-heavy, but at least you know that you’re getting the real-deal)

 

[I_A]

I haven’t read all 5 pages of this thread, but just in case this hasn’t been mentioned before it was actually a Catholic priest who ‘invented’ the big bang theory.

Fr. Georges-Henri Lemaître

 

[JimG]

Can you please explain the difference between a infinite series of temporal causes, and an infinite series of instantaneous efficient causes; and what it is that makes one not possible, and the other possible?
Peace.

Sorry, I’ve been offline for awhile and the answer to this has little to do with the BB theory, but here is a quick reply.

An infinite series of temporal causes would be causes stretching out over a period of time: F is caused by E, E is caused by D, D is caused by C, each cause being at a prior point in time. Given an infinite amount of time, there could be an infinite number of causes.

A series of instantaneous causes tries to answer this question: what causes me to exist right now, at this very moment. Let’s say the immediate cause is my bodily form. What’s the cause of that? Perhaps my molecular structure. And the cause of that is the arrangment of atomic and molecular bonds, etc. Between each cause and effect of this sort, no time elapses. Such an infinite series is impossible because then at this very instant, I would have no reason to exist.

But that’s a philosophical sidetrack. Now, back to the big bang.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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?

Yes, kewl. You did well extrapolating from heisy’s version of entropy. I’m not completely sold on his version of entropy, but that’s beside the point.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…I have read good scientific articles about this topic in Science, Scientific American and Astronomy magazines…

Thank you for the links. I will read them this morning. I was reading something about brane theory that claims that much more time was either necessary for or simply took place in creating the universe than the Big Bang accounted for. I’ll see if I can dig up the link again.

Is this the link for Science? If not, do you have one that I can bookmark? This is what I have for Astronomy and Scientific American.

 

[Diddi]

i think that this is a better resource for “zero point energy” (i.e. the cosmological constant):

relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-1/index.html

(NOTE: it’s math-heavy, but at least you know that you’re getting the real-deal)

Thanks! Couldn’t have done better myself even if I had the time.

 

[Diddi]

Thank you for the links. I will read them this morning. I was reading something about brane theory that claims that much more time was either necessary for or simply took place in creating the universe than the Big Bang accounted for. I’ll see if I can dig up the link again.

Is this the link for Science? If not, do you have one that I can bookmark? This is what I have for Astronomy and Scientific American.

No. This is the link to science

magazine.sciencemag.org/

The links for Astronomy an Scientific American are good.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This is the link to science
magazine.sciencemag.org/ The links for Astronomy an Scientific American are good.

Thanks Diddi! I don’t know if I can find that link to Creation needing more time than the Big Bang allows for. It has something to do with the – relative – weakness of gravity between branes and to tell you the truth I can’t really understand that. But here is a bit 4 ya:

The Beauty of Branes

Why is gravity so puny, so many billion on billions of times weaker compared with the other forces–electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces? Discrepancy in strength makes it impossible to combine gravity with the other three forces, a unification thought to have existed during the early phase of the big bang…

But rather than invoking supersymmetry–a popular solution that argues for the existence of as yet undetected partners to all the known particles–Randall and Sundrum posited that gravity could reside on a different brane than ours, one separated from us by a five-dimensional spacetime in which the extra dimension is 10-31 centimeter wide.

In this RS-1 model, all forces and particles stick to our three-brane except gravity, which is concentrated on the other brane and is free to travel between them across spacetime, which is warped in a negative fashion called anti-De Sitter space. By the time it gets to us, gravity is weak; in the other brane it is strong, on a par with the three other forces.

I don’t know what being warped in anti-deSitter style is. Do you?

Models with Warped Branes to Explain Weak Gravity?

Randall and Sundrum’s model consisted of a pair of universes, four-dimensional branes, thinly separated by a five-dimensional space called the bulk. When they solved the equations for this setup, they discovered that the space between the branes would be warped, objects appearing to grow larger or smaller and get less massive or more massive as they moved between the branes.

They realized that such a situation could provide a natural explanation for the hierarchy problem without invoking supersymmetry. Suppose, they considered, that gravity is actually inherently as strong as the other forces, but because of the warping gravity is greatly stronger on one of the branes than on the other one, where we happen to live. So we experience gravity as extremely weak.

 

[Sobieski]

bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

NARRATOR: Most cosmologists have begun to think they might never find a solution. They’d almost given up completely, which is when Turok and his colleagues heard Burt explain his idea properly for the first time. At a conference in Cambridge pioneers of M Theory had been brought together to explore its implications. Burt was the star of the show. His vision of a violent eleventh dimension wowed the assembled physicists and caught the attention of the cosmologists.

PAUL STEINHARDT: We heard about a vast variety of ideas. The ideas that struck both Neil and myself most strongly were the ideas that Burt presented.

NARRATOR: On the last day of the conference Neil Turok, Paul Steinhardt and Burt decided to take time out. They went to see a play.

BURT OVRUT: We wanted to see the play Copenhagen which was being performed in London at the time and the three of us took the train down to London one evening and we had whatever it was, an hour or so on the train to sit and talk about these ideas.

NARRATOR: On the journey they began to throw ideas around. Three physicists, one train, and the biggest secret about our Universe: what caused the Big Bang.

PAUL STEINHARDT: I think people get the wrong impression about scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. What really happens that often you make some imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you capture the field at those stages it looks like poetry in which you are imagining without yet proving.

NEIL TUROK: Paul, Burt and me were sitting together on the train and just free associating.

PAUL STEINHARDT: One of us, maybe it was me, began by saying oh well why can’t we make a universe out of collision and Neil sort of pitching in and saying well, if you did that then you could create all the matter and radiation of the Universe, so we had this conversation, one of us completing the sentences of the other in which we kind of just, just let our imaginations go.

BURT OVRUT: And as we went along, at least I learned more and more about how it might be possible to have these brane collisions produce all of the effects of the early Universe and in particular it’s just easy to do with my hands, when they collide you might have a Big Bang.

NEIL TUROK: And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds.

NARRATOR: But how could such a collision go on to cause the world we know? The Universe we live in has vast clumps of matter we call stars and galaxies.

BURT OVRUT: We know that things are not smooth out in the Universe. In fact we have little clumps, we have stars, we have galaxies, we have quasars, we have clumps of matter.

NARRATOR: Now they had to explain how the collision of two parallel universes could go on to create these lumps of matter. Was there something about the membranes, or branes, which could explain it?

NEIL TUROK: People tended to think of branes as being flat, perfect sheets, geometrical plains, but I think to us it was clear that that picture could not be correct. It cannot be perfectly flat. It has to ripple.

PAUL STEINHARDT: What would happen as these branes approach that there are ripples in the surface of each brane and when they come together they don’t hit at exactly the same time, same place, but in fact they hit at different points and at different times.

BURT OVRUT: We found that as the brane moves it literally ripples, so when the collision takes place it imparts those ripples into real matter.

NARRATOR: The parallel universes move through the eleventh dimension like waves and like any wave these would ripple. It was the ripples which went on to cause the clumps of matter after the Big Bang. They finally had their complete explanation of the birth of our Universe and now they could do something even more profound. They could take the laws of physics back in time to the moment of the Big Bang and through to the other side.

NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial singularity.

BURT OVRUT: You sort of go back and back and back until you get near the place where the expansion would have taken place and then it just sort of changes into another world. When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.

NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.

PAUL STEINHARDT: Then we went to see the play.

 

[Sobieski]

Question from me - Say that this stuff about membrane theory is true and that there are a whole bunch of universes floating around. And say that our universe is just the result of a collision of two membranes, like is being alleged in the above portion of the documentary. Doesn’t the whole multiverse still need a creator? Isn’t it probable that the mutliverse, if it exists, was created by God?

 

[Nullasalus]

Question from me - Say that this stuff about membrane theory is true and that there are a whole bunch of universes floating around. And say that our universe is just the result of a collision of two membranes, like is being alleged in the above portion of the documentary. Doesn’t the whole multiverse still need a creator? Isn’t it probable that the mutliverse, if it exists, was created by God?

I’d argue such, yes. And I can think of many good reasons why God would create a multiverse as well.

 

[mich2]

:

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?

Well, since we know that a collision between a body and it’s anti type releases an extremly large amount of energies, could we not claim that, when different energies (let’s call them positive and negative) unite, the potential energy differences which arises, create a dynamic system? If two different energy membranes (one being the antitype of the other) collide, could it not cause a Big Bang, meaning a extremely dymanic universe within which high energy concentration local points create particles (positive and negative) which,in turn, at first collide among themselves, anhiliating each other, until, somehow, when a positive and a negative (but different type of particle) unite, creating a neutral particle, the conversion of energies into mass begins to cool down the universe, which, in turn, increases in entropty. So that time would simply be the non linear decreasing of dynamics within the system…or, simply the increase of entropy.

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.

Could we say the beginning of the universe remained at 0 entropy until it started to create stable particles?

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.

Could we not say that since before the Big Bang, spacetime did not exist because matter did not exist, the entropy of the system remaining at 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.

ok.

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.

When matter is created, when viewing energy as a type of nonmassive fluid sea of particles (photons), a form of vacuum would probably be created within the particle (or at least a negative concentration of inside energy (let’s call it ether) ought to exist,relative to the energy concentration outside the particle.
Maybe such a difference in concentrations could be the cause for spacetime curvatures, identifying the gravitational characteristic of massive particles?If the reduction of energy potentials, due to the release of energy by the mass (mass continuously loosing energy) is identified as the increase of entropy, then, could it not be that entropy exists only where massive particles exist?

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.

Could we not view the laws of Quantum Mechanics as revealing
a dimention of the universe unaccessible to us (inside the atom), although a dimention which continuously influences our observable universe? A dimention which has totaly different laws from our observable universe due to it’s difference in structure, so that spacetime within the atom is very different for the one we observe? Could not the “universe” within the atom be similar to our universe at the Big Bang?

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

My point was not necessarily that you could continue pass t=0
in time. I do understand that time may not exist as such pass t=0.
However,** if** time started when massive particles were created, then, even at the point of what we call t=0, time, as we know it would not exist. I’m mearly pointing that metaphysical events, such as the Big Bang, could happen outside the realm of what we understand as time. However, a different type of metaphysical time could be implied where events still could exist before t=0 of the Big Bang event.

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.

I’m interested in reading more on your theory.

Andre

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Sobieski:

They finally had their complete explanation of the birth of our Universe and now they could do something even more profound. They could take the laws of physics back in time to the moment of the Big Bang and through to the other side.

:extrahappy:

Sobieski:

NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial singularity.

Yeah, I can see that it can. But I am worried that the time to which Turok refers is linear time, our kind of time.

Is it?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mich2:

Well, since we know that a collision between a body and it’s anti type releases an extremly large amount of energies, could we not claim that, when different energies (let’s call them positive and negative) unite, the potential energy differences which arises, create a dynamic system?

Questioning your use of the term ‘potential.’ When two bodies collide, the potential energy between them is zero and the kinetic energy between is maximal.

mich2:

If two different energy membranes (one being the antitype of the other) collide, could it not cause a Big Bang,

Yes. The trick is in explaining how.

mich2:

meaning a extremely dymanic universe within which high energy concentration local points create particles

Some folks posit branes which are not completely flat, but which are rippled. When the maximum points of the ripple waves collide, galaxies are formed in the new universe. In other words the collision of the rippled branes forms a new universe of uneven density as a function of time. When those branes collides time starts, at least within the new universe.

mich2:

(positive and negative) which,in turn, at first collide among themselves, anhiliating each other,

Not positive and negative. You are talking about matter and anti-matter.

mich2:

until, somehow, when a positive and a negative (but different type of particle) unite, creating a neutral particle,

The trick is in explaining the nature of that different kind of particle. Virtual twin theory posits the existence of very small particle couples: one particle is matter and one particle is anti-matter.

They oscillate. When they attract each other, they cancel each other. When they repel each other, they form matter and anti-matter. So the universe happens digitally: 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0.

Time, in other words, is digital. Bwa-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

:hypno: :extrahappy:

mich2:

the conversion of energies into mass begins to cool down the universe, which, in turn, increases in entropty. So that time would simply be the non linear decreasing of dynamics within the system…or, simply the increase of entropy.

Entropy is linear, not non-linear.

mich2:

Could we say the beginning of the universe remained at 0 entropy until it started to create stable particles?

No.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mich2:

Could we not say that since before the Big Bang, spacetime did not exist because matter did not exist, the entropy of the system remaining at 0?

No. Space did exist in more than three dimensions. Time did not exist as time. Time existed as one or more dimensions of space.

mich2:

When matter is created, when viewing energy as a type of nonmassive fluid sea of particles (photons), a form of vacuum would probably be created within the particle (or at least a negative concentration of inside energy (let’s call it ether) ought to exist,relative to the energy concentration outside the particle.

Why a vacuum? What purpose would the vacuum serve? The Conservation of Energy does not require a model of positive/negative energy.

mich2:

Maybe such a difference in concentrations could be the cause for spacetime curvatures, identifying the gravitational characteristic of massive particles?

Maybe. But the brane model floating in 5-D space explains the gravity differential better.

mich2:

If the reduction of energy potentials, due to the release of energy by the mass (mass continuously loosing energy) is identified as the increase of entropy, then, could it not be that entropy exists only where massive particles exist?

Does the conversion of energy into mass not also increase entropy?

mich2:

Could we not view the laws of Quantum Mechanics as revealing a dimention of the universe unaccessible to us (inside the atom), although a dimention which continuously influences our observable universe?

I believe we already do.

mich2:

A dimention which has totaly different laws from our observable universe due to it’s difference in structure, so that spacetime within the atom is very different for the one we observe?

Some folks do believe this. We have used the non-breaking of physics as the starting-point assumption for our discussion.

If you want, you can use the breaking of physics as the starting point assumption for your discussion.

mich2:

Could not the “universe” within the atom be similar to our universe at the Big Bang?

I believe folks are saying that it is. That is, that the Big Bang was quantum.

mich2:

However,** if** time started when massive particles were created, then, even at the point of what we call t=0, time, as we know it would not exist.

Why not?

mich2:

I’m mearly pointing that metaphysical events, such as the Big Bang,

Define ‘metaphysical events such as the Big Bang.’

mich2:

could happen outside the realm of what we understand as time.

Yes, but the trick is explaining how.

mich2:

However, a different type of metaphysical time could be implied where events still could exist before t=0 of the Big Bang event.

Define ‘events.’ I am not understanding your use of the term ‘metaphysical.’ Yes, we are proposing that non-entropy-bound time existed before t= 0.

mich2:

I’m interested in reading more on your theory.

It’s inside this thread along with the theories of some other posters.

 

[heisenburg]

Hey Ani,
I only Have a second, but I wanted to comment on soemthing. IF (and its a big if) Brane theory is true, it does not exist in a 5 or 6-D world as you mentioned. It requires upwards of 11 dimensions. When you look at the overall universe from an 11-d perspective, there is only one “universe”. However, within this one universe, there are countless ‘Branes’ Each Brane represents its own universe from our limited 4-d perspective.

Think about it like this… suppose you have a universe that we can only see in 2-d, our universe is a page in a book. (page=brane)
From the 3-d perspective, there are X number of pages in a book, Page 2 knows nothing or can even fathom anything about page 3, both are distinct, and for all intensive purposes, its own ‘universe’ When we look at the 3-D aspect of the book, we see that there are multiple pages. but one book. This one book equates to the MultiVerse, each page equates to a universe.

One Book, Many Parts.

Yes the idea of multiple dimensions is a little, um, off. but it is still there. Time how WE messure it for OUR universe… no doesn’t exist prior to BB, however, the concept can still be applied to the Multiverse, some variations may apply, but the concept will still be there. So, yes, time is differant.

Also, i want to point out that yes, each Brane is its own universe with its own energy. just like each page has its own information. It is the Idea of Parallel universes that spawned the development initially of the Mutiverse Idea.

Watered down understanding… VERY watered down…

The way I understand how branes work is as follows

You have a singularity… like a black hole…
You have what amounts to a string of singularities of fixed length (in 10-d) this is called a super string…
You have a series of strings lined up side by side of a fixed length. This is the Brane. (in 11-d)

Also, its funny to note that in the initial idea of superstrings, there were at least 5 classes of superstrings. these calculations were done using 10-d as the backbone. This was a series problem. there is suppose to be only 1 type of superstring, but they couldnt find it.

However, once they added in the 11-d part of the equation, everythign feel into place with respect to nature…the 5, simply became 1, and thus… the brane is born.

Its a very odd theory

In Christ

 

[Ani_Ibi]

heisenburg:

I only Have a second, but I wanted to comment on soemthing. IF (and its a big if) Brane theory is true, it does not exist in a 5 or 6-D world as you mentioned. It requires upwards of 11 dimensions.

One model has 11-D. RS1 and RS2 have 5-D. I have to run so I’ll start you off with these:

MIT’s Lisa Randall: Two Branes are Better Than One

Supersymmetry physics on (and off) the brane

Models with Warped Branes to Explain Weak Gravity?

The Beauty of Branes

When branes collide

heisenburg:

When you look at the overall universe from an 11-d perspective, there is only one “universe”. However, within this one universe, there are countless ‘Branes’ Each Brane represents its own universe from our limited 4-d perspective.

Yes. I understand that model.

heisenburg:

Yes the idea of multiple dimensions is a little, um, off. but it is still there. Time how WE messure it for OUR universe… no doesn’t exist prior to BB,

heisenburg:

Also, i want to point out that yes, each Brane is its own universe with its own energy.

I make the distinction between brane and universe.

heisenburg:

You have a singularity… like a black hole… You have what amounts to a string of singularities of fixed length (in 10-d) this is called a super string…
You have a series of strings lined up side by side of a fixed length. This is the Brane. (in 11-d)

OK. Kewl. Let me think about this. And get back to you, probably with questions. Thanks, heisy.

 

[mich2]

Questioning your use of the term ‘potential.’ When two bodies collide, the potential energy between them is zero and the kinetic energy between is maximal.

What I meant by “potential” energy state was not inheritant in the collision itself but in the two different type of energies creating a dynamic state or universe.

Some folks posit branes which are not completely flat, but which are rippled. When the maximum points of the ripple waves collide, galaxies are formed in the new universe. In other words the collision of the rippled branes forms a new universe of uneven density as a function of time. When those branes collides time starts, at least within the new universe.

What is considered flat or rippled? space or energy states, or both?

Not positive and negative. You are talking about matter and anti-matter.

While matter cause electrical fields, the fields themselves are made of energy aren’t they? Can we not conceive that such fields may exist in the absence of matter in certain circumstances?

The trick is in explaining the nature of that different kind of particle. Virtual twin theory posits the existence of very small particle couples: one particle is matter and one particle is anti-matter.

ok.

They oscillate. When they attract each other, they cancel each other. When they repel each other, they form matter and anti-matter. So the universe happens digitally: 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0.

Time, in other words, is digital. Bwa-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

:hypno: :extrahappy:

I like that… so are you saying that the two separate branes already had within themselves what in one would be matter, and the other anti-matter before colliding?

Entropy is linear, not non-linear.

What I meant by non -linear was simply a non -constant rate, which would be the reason why time does not flow at a constant rate as well…it depends on the observer’s frame of reference.

Andre

 

[mich2]

No. Space did exist in more than three dimensions. Time did not exist as time. Time existed as one or more dimensions of space.

Why a vacuum? What purpose would the vacuum serve? The Conservation of Energy does not require a model of positive/negative energy.

Not necessarily a vacuum, but a lesser “ether” density than outside of the atom. My view was that this would create a spacetime curvature outside. The conservation of energy into mass would, in my opinion, imply a difference of energy potentials between the inside and outside of the atom due to the opinion that, if matter is created, an extremely high amount energy has somehow disapeared.

Does the conversion of energy into mass not also increase entropy?

Good question. I don’t know…my guess was actually the opposite. Would’nt it not be considered as negative entropy?

Why not?

Define ‘metaphysical events such as the Big Bang.’

Metaphysical in the sense that it’s an event which does not happen in the space - time continuum we observe. My guess was that for time to exist, there is need for matter to exist since time is equivalent to the increasing of entropy. Therefore, since we cannot visualize a universe without matter, then space becomes a metaphysical entity. We still can speculate about such an entity, but we need to speak of what exists within this space, such as the energy in the way we may view matter, such as a fluid, or even a solid, as when we speak of such space as being “rippled”.

Define ‘events.’ I am not understanding your use of the term ‘metaphysical.’ Yes, we are proposing that non-entropy-bound time existed before t= 0.

For example let’s say the two branes collided…this clearly is an event, however, an event which happened outside of the space- time as we know it…

It’s inside this thread along with the theories of some other posters.

ok…I will try to follow it as time permits…thanks

Andre