kkwan
Introducing inflation to save the standard BB model

From the diagram it appears that before inflation there was regular spacetime, however small. But that makes no sense to me at all.

IMO, universal space and time (spacetime) began with inflation of the BB. Before then there was no time or even spatial dimension, other than a single instant of an infinitely small singularity exploding in a single mega quantum event (the beginningof the universe), allowing expansion at FTL, until the created spacetime as we know it, began to order itself in accordance with universal constants (the beginning of spacetime).

I know that I have not the knowledge to argue this, but I like the sheer simplicity. Every other argument claiming a different model seems to raise more questions and complications than those it seeks to solve.

kkwan - 06 December 2011 08:11 PM

That is the assumption of physics and ONLY with that assumption can predictions be made.

I know what you mean but it’s worth pointing out that predictions can always be made. I predict the world started out as a giant snowball 3 million years ago and that the earth will gradually become the shape of a pyramid over the next three years.

The question is what is it about the universe that gives us reason to favour some predictions over others?

Say the earth is going to turn into a pyramid shape, do I have reason to believe it. An attempt at an answer might be yes because it will but of course that won’t do.

Stephen

Write4U - 06 December 2011 10:07 PM

From the diagram it appears that before inflation there was regular spacetime, however small. But that makes no sense to me at all.

From the article which I cited:

The red line in the figure on the left shows that according to Big Bang theory, the Universe had a radius of more than 10^-10 metres at 10^-45 seconds after the Big Bang.

However:

Since the speed of light travels at 3×10^8 m/s, information could only have travelled ~3×10^-37 metres during this time.

Thus:

Big Bang theory therefore makes it impossible for the whole Universe to have equalised its temperature at these early times, as not all the Universe was in communication.

That is the horizon problem, i.e. we cannot receive information beyond the horizon.

The next problem is the flatness problem

A flat Universe is one in which the amount of matter present is just sufficient to halt its expansion, but insufficient to re-collapse it. This would represent a very fine balancing act indeed! Imagine the surprise of astronomers to find that, as near as we can tell, the Universe has exactly the required density of matter to be flat. This seems like a truly remarkable coincidence and has become known as the ‘flatness problem’.

Inflation was introduced to resolve both the horizon and flatness problems wrt BB theory.

IMO, universal space and time (spacetime) began with inflation of the BB. Before then there was no time or even spatial dimension, other than a single instant of an infinitely small singularity exploding in a single mega quantum event (the beginningof the universe), allowing expansion at FTL, until the created spacetime as we know it, began to order itself in accordance with universal constants (the beginning of spacetime).

A causal singularity at the BB is highly problematic. From the wiki
HERE

The classical version of the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all time-like geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature.

It is incredible that at the start of time, a universe of size 0 spatially with infinite density, temperature and space-time curvature can exist at all.

StephenLawrence - 07 December 2011 02:05 AM

I know what you mean but it’s worth pointing out that predictions can always be made. I predict the world started out as a giant snowball 3 million years ago and that the earth will gradually become the shape of a pyramid over the next three years.

If the assumptions on which the predictions are based are either absurd or incorrect, then the predictions will be either ridiculous or wrong.   

The question is what is it about the universe that gives us reason to favour some predictions over others?

The predictions must account for the cosmological evidence found in the universe to make them credible.

Say the earth is going to turn into a pyramid shape, do I have reason to believe it. An attempt at an answer might be yes because it will but of course that won’t do.

No, of course. Where is the evidence to support the prediction?

kkwan - 07 December 2011 06:23 AM

Say the earth is going to turn into a pyramid shape, do I have reason to believe it. An attempt at an answer might be yes because it will but of course that won’t do.

No, of course. Where is the evidence to support the prediction?

We can imagine a mathematical formula that if applied would result in the prediction coming true.

My evidence is that the universe will behave in accordance with the formula.

Stephen

Kwan said:

OTOH, there is a new model HERE

Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.
• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.
• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.
• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

Resolving the problems in cosmology?

Shu writes. “The theory resolves problems in cosmology, such as those of the big bang, dark energy, and flatness, in one fell stroke.”

This sounds like something I read a couple of years ago. The picture I got was of an eternal Universe that is generally a constant size but expands and contrats in a small oscillation (realtively speaking of course) over a certain time period - it’s is breathing - so I thought of a name for it - The Breathing Universe . The constants are inversly porportional - as one goes up the other goes down, as one goes down the other goes up. This is as a result of the expansion and contraction.

I am not sure if this is the same theory or the same guy? The SBB does not staify me at all - I think it creates more problems than it solves.

To take a quote from ‘Fletch’ - ‘It’s all ball bearings these days’ and apply it to cosmology I would say - ‘It’s all Mythamatics these days’

I don’t know if it is correct or not but I tend to agree that the Universe is probably eternal and is cycling matter whether an intial expansion from a very small point happened or not. I just find it unsatifying, that the universe is going to be expanding forever and is accelerating to boot, as an explanation.

kkwan - 07 December 2011 06:01 AM

Write4U - 06 December 2011 10:07 PM

From the diagram it appears that before inflation there was regular spacetime, however small. But that makes no sense to me at all.

From the article which I cited:

The red line in the figure on the left shows that according to Big Bang theory, the Universe had a radius of more than 10^-10 metres at 10^-45 seconds after the Big Bang.

However:

Since the speed of light travels at 3×10^8 m/s, information could only have travelled ~3×10^-37 metres during this time.

Thus:

Big Bang theory therefore makes it impossible for the whole Universe to have equalised its temperature at these early times, as not all the Universe was in communication.

But the evidence shows that it did expand at greater than 3×10^8 m/s, and that its radius did expand to more than 10^-10 metres equalizing its temprature. I submit this is an indication that before the BB spacetime and its restrictive nature did not exist and universal constants, i.e SOL had no influence for that incredibly small amount of time. Don’t we view quantum as the limiting factor in SOL. But what if the universe exploded in a single mega quantum event, a single universal quanta equalling the limits of inflation, after which the SOL became relevant, and accounts for the subsequent stabilization of expansion.

That is the horizon problem, i.e. we cannot receive information beyond the horizon.
The next problem is the flatness problem

Yes that is our problem, but otoh also an indication that perhaps a different condition existed which prevents us from seeing. We used to think the earth was flat also until we discovered that we could not see the end of it because it was round. Why could such a spatial horizon not exist for the universe.

A flat Universe is one in which the amount of matter present is just sufficient to halt its expansion, but insufficient to re-collapse it. This would represent a very fine balancing act indeed! Imagine the surprise of astronomers to find that, as near as we can tell, the Universe has exactly the required density of matter to be flat. This seems like a truly remarkable coincidence and has become known as the ‘flatness problem’.

A rolled up carpet is still flat and has communication throughout, even when you unroll it very quickly.

Inflation was introduced to resolve both the horizon and flatness problems wrt BB theory.

Perhaps a brilliant insight in the face of convention? And there is some evidence, isn’t there. In fact a violent event is the only evidence we have of a creative process.
But is it not also amazing that the rings around Saturn are flat and have the precise required density to be flat.?

IMO, universal space and time (spacetime) began with inflation of the BB. Before then there was no time or even spatial dimension, other than a single instant of an infinitely small singularity exploding in a single mega quantum event (the creation and beginning of the universe), allowing expansion at FTL, while retaining communication (entanglement?), until the created spacetime as we know it began to order itself in accordance with universal constants (the beginning of spacetime).

A causal singularity at the BB is highly problematic. From the wiki
HERE

The classical version of the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all time-like geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature.

It is incredible that at the start of time, a universe of size 0 spatially with infinite density, temperature and space-time curvature can exist at all.

But is it not equally incredible that an infinitely large universe with an infinitely small density, infinitely cold, and flat could create any expansion and contraction at all? And then not with an orderly gradual (predictable) “breathing” pattern (shades of god), but with great violence and chaos. How can that happen?

There has to be causality and it obviously must be different from our current knowledge. In the end all our theories seem to fail in one or more areas.

Perhaps an infinite large universe could suddenly collapse and create a BB, but that still requires great intial localized force, which does not yet exist at that moment.

However the concept of a zero point (infinitely small) having an infinite density (compression], temperature and inward curvature, begs for a BB and would confirm all we do know of the universe so far. The unrolling of the universal carpet, stretching the fabric flatter and flatter.

I know I am naive, but when/where the universe itself is infinitely smaller than a photon,  the concept of a single mega quantum “inflation” at FTL seems to be the simplest and most direct explanation and could be the least of our problems.  Drop a rolled up carpet and there is an immediate instantaneous area of flatness of the carpet at one end (inflation), before the carpet continues its unrolling at a more leaisurely pace (expansion @ SOL). In the case of BB, this unrolling starts at the center (the area of inflation) and unrolls @ SOL all directions, curved until stretched flat.

Afterthought:
A supernova starts with the collapse of a star (getting smaller), increasing compression, until critical mass has been achieved at which point it explodes with incredible force. I visualize in principle such a function, but starting at the smallest, densest point (infinitely small), not with an infinitely large volume, which first must collapse into an infinitely small singularity, to attain sufficient density and critical mass, to then expand again violently.
But who knows, perhaps the singularity started with an area the size of what we now call the inflation then collapsed until critical mass was achieved? As I understand it the processes of black holes and supernovae are seen throughout the universe. Why can they not serve as models for the creation of the universe itself?

Just a remark: you are discussing scientific questions. As you all do not have the in-depth knowledge needed to understand these things, your speculations are really funny.

kkwan does not stop citing scientific results and speculations and intermingling them. At the same time he does not accept philosophical ideas that take scientific results into account. He just cites what fits in his ideas, it does not matter if it is wrong, scientifically established, or speculative science.

If natural constants are not constant, then they are not constants of course. So if we discover that some parameters we use in our present theories are not constants, then we will find other laws of nature that explain the values of these parameters, and this theory in turn will have its natural constants. But maybe less. The ‘world formula’ could only derive its name by having no empirical constants at all, i.e. is derived from purely mathematical formulas and constants (like π or e).

GdB - 08 December 2011 02:51 AM

Just a remark: you are discussing scientific questions. As you all do not have the in-depth knowledge needed to understand these things, your speculations are really funny.

kkwan does not stop citing scientific results and speculations and intermingling them. At the same time he does not accept philosophical ideas that take scientific results into account. He just cites what fits in his ideas, it does not matter if it is wrong, scientifically established, or speculative science.

If natural constants are not constant, then they are not constants of course. So if we discover that some parameters we use in our present theories are not constants, then we will find other laws of nature that explain the values of these parameters, and this theory in turn will have its natural constants. But maybe less. The ‘world formula’ could only derive its name by having no empirical constants at all, i.e. is derived from purely mathematical formulas and constants (like π or e).

First, I have stipulated a lack of formal knowledge, thus my interpretations are intuitive. This does not automatically make them false.
When perusing Wiki on theories in physics, of which many are conflicting, I may not understand the mathematical formulas, but the narratives usually give me an insight of what is being theorized. I had never heard of David Bohm, when I developed my own Universal Potential paradigm. i was well pleased when I found some confirmation of my intuition in his well respected theories. That does not make it true, but I doubt you’d call Bohm as having “funny” speculations from lack of knowledge.

I think you must admit that when we speak of things beyond our event horizon, no one has the complete score and even great scientists with in-depth knowledge use “funny” terms when describing that which cannot be formulated scientifically. “Stringy foam” is really a funny term, but I understand the concept. “Spooky action at a distance” is another, but does anyone have a clear picture of entanglement? We speak of the “spacetime fabric”. Thus, “rolling out” the fabric of spacetime as if it were a carpet may sound funny and simplistic, but can you prove that this analogy is wholly false, or does not contain a measure of understanding of the “unfolding” of the universe. TV shows like Nova and The Universe are wholly narrative with analogical, sometimes funny pictorial presentations of deep scientific concepts, some narrated by actors. Do the people who produce them have no understanding?  “Cat in a box”?....

I follow your explanations with great interest and respect for your formal knowledge and your corrections and clarification of my analogical presentations are much appreciated. When you cite an established theory, I always make it a point to look it up in Wiki and try to gain a deeper understanding of the principles in the formal narratives of the scienctific theses which you can only explain in short form here on CFI.

Write4U,

Speculating is a nice hobby, nothing against it. But if you would like to your speculations to have hands and feet, you should always try to get it in sync with at least established science, as you seem to do. If you don’t, its fine, but you can expect an ‘epistemical rebuttal’ so now and then (or should I say epistemical rebuke?) if you are on a forum of a Centre of Inquiry.... Enjoy!