Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's always been my understanding that the normal laws of physics don't work at big bang time as well. One thing I've wondered about is how people are so adamantly confident in the theory of the Big Bang in light of this. Is it simply because they don't like the alternatives, because they've never been heard an alternative, or is there a better reason?
It's basically a belief system at that stage. It doesn't provide any more believable answers than religion for me.
Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
21–30 of 52 posts
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignorant question here, but is it not the case that the normal laws of physics don't apply at big bang time? Do we expect the laws of mathematics to still apply? Does anyone really have any clue about this stuff?
It's always been my understanding that the normal laws of physics don't work at big bang time as well. One thing I've wondered about is how people are so adamantly confident in the theory of the Big Bang in light of this. Is it simply because they don't like the alternatives, because they've never been heard an alternative, or is there a better reason?
That's wrong. As soon as the universe's mass/energy expanded sufficiently for there to be a time dimension (IOW as soon as the universe was something other than a singularity), the present physical laws applied. Some of the physical constants with which we are familiar may have had different values, but the same set of rules have been in effect since there were four distinct dimensions. This is borne out by the existence and properties of the CMB, as well as other observations.
Your use of the term "big bang time" implies that there was, in fact, time, which means four dimensions existed, which means our present physical rules were in effect.
One idea has it that the natural forces we evaluate separately now, were unified by the conditions of the early universe, but this idea doesn't contradict the notion that basic physical principles were in any way different then.
One of the more interesting cosmological ideas is that the positive mass/energy of the universe is exactly balanced by negative gravitational potential energy, as the universe expands and continuing to the present, but only at one specific expansion velocity: what we call escape velocity. If this idea is true, it means the universe could have sprung into existence spontaneously, like a virtual particle pair, without violating the law of conservation of energy. Stephen Hawking explains this idea in his book "The Grand Design": "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#23>The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound absurd, is grounded firmly in the mathematics describing space and time. Specifically they’ve used the tools of holography to “turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage.” embedding into higher dimension spaces (or in general - into more "richer" structures) is a convenient mathematical tool and it works nice ... in mathematics. To work in physics that higher…
Does the mathematical equivalence mean anything more than "maybe somebody ought to look at that a bit more"? No, but that's still more than nothing.
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#24>The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound absurd, is grounded firmly in the mathematics describing space and time. Specifically they’ve used the tools of holography to “turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage.” embedding into higher dimension spaces (or in general - into more "richer" structures) is a convenient mathematical tool and it works nice ... in mathematics. To work in physics that higher…
You apparently were flagged by a theoretical physicist. A lot of "physicists" nowadays forget that we're supposed to be scientists, not dreamers. Dreams are nice, but experiment and observations valid theory. I agree. Unless this has some modifications to the current model of the big bang which leads to _observable_effects_ , I don't know if this theory could even be validated as...well theory.
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the fine paper[1]: Finally, let us comment on potential testability of this model. As we pointed out, the simple model of cosmological perturbations, developed in Sec. 4 is already ruled out by cosmo- logical observations at > 5σ level, as it does not predict any deviations from scale-invariance. However, it is easy to imagine small corrections that could lead to a ∼ 4% deviation from scale-invariance, especiall…
I'm not sure of what a graviton is, but wikipedia tells me that it is not detectable by any current mean. I'd be tempted to say in light of this that their theory is not testable either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
But that's the point, innit. Who's to say we don't discover magic quantum carbon nanotubes or something thing that makes it feasible to setup a graviton detector at some point in the future. And who's to say it won't be useful, either.
I'm serious; the Higgs-Boson was theorized to exist in 1964, and was proven to exist only after great expense in 2012, utilizing many cutting edge technologies.
General Relativity was theorized in 1915, but not really tested in 1959, and now I use it almost every day in the form of GPS.
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignorant question here, but is it not the case that the normal laws of physics don't apply at big bang time? Do we expect the laws of mathematics to still apply? Does anyone really have any clue about this stuff?
It's always been my understanding that the normal laws of physics don't work at big bang time as well. One thing I've wondered about is how people are so adamantly confident in the theory of the Big Bang in light of this. Is it simply because they don't like the alternatives, because they've never been heard an alternative, or is there a better reason?
If we extrapolate far enough back, we reach a point where the predicted density would be infinite. We call that point the beginning of time (or the big bang). This "prediction" of an infinite density is taken as a sign that our model breaks down at (or before) this point (by "before" I mean when we extrapolate backwards in time towards the infinite density time...).
So, it works extremely well for a time when the density was extremely large (but not infinite) until today. We just don't have enough information to know what would happen when densities larger than a certain value so as to make meaningful predictions.
To make a completely silly analogy: it would be like predicting the motion of a rocket aimed for a comet. Our knowledge of celestial mechanics is good enough to predict the trajectory up until the rocket "touches" the comet. We just do not have enough information about the comet composition to know if the rocket will just blow it apart or if it is the rocket itself that will splatter on the comet, or whatever.
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#27The thing about this popular article is it seems to imply that the universe coming out of a black hole is different from it coming out from any kind of singularity.
Well, reading the real article, it seems this popular article got things garbled. The main problem they seem raise with the big bang is that it is a "naked" singularity - there's no barrier between the world and the singular point. So what they are doing is looking at a higher dimensional black hole and finding a non-naked singularity that would generate approximately the same effects as the big bang. There is still a singularity at work here, it is simply that the singularity is not directly spewing matter out. "No naked singularities" is a general principle I recall from scanning general relativity articles.
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#28http://martinelli.org/rexpansion/bhole.htm
"if we run time forwards, we can kind of visualize the beginning of
our universe as a very rapid collapse (the inverse of "Inflation").
A similar kind of event happens when a star (hot, spherical,
massive, dense...) becomes so dense and massive it collapses in on
itself and forms that mysterious black hole. Here's an interesting
question to explore... "Did our universe begin as a star that
underwent a gravitational collapse?" I.e., do we live in a black
hole?"
Perhaps the novelty is a formal theory around the idea?Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the fine paper[1]: Finally, let us comment on potential testability of this model. As we pointed out, the simple model of cosmological perturbations, developed in Sec. 4 is already ruled out by cosmo- logical observations at > 5σ level, as it does not predict any deviations from scale-invariance. However, it is easy to imagine small corrections that could lead to a ∼ 4% deviation from scale-invariance, especiall…
I'm not sure of what a graviton is, but wikipedia tells me that it is not detectable by any current mean. I'd be tempted to say in light of this that their theory is not testable either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
I bet you there are a lot of efforts made right now to find a way to measure them!
Re: Astrophysicists propose new twist on Big Bang
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the fine paper[1]: Finally, let us comment on potential testability of this model. As we pointed out, the simple model of cosmological perturbations, developed in Sec. 4 is already ruled out by cosmo- logical observations at > 5σ level, as it does not predict any deviations from scale-invariance. However, it is easy to imagine small corrections that could lead to a ∼ 4% deviation from scale-invariance, especiall…
I'm not sure of what a graviton is, but wikipedia tells me that it is not detectable by any current mean. I'd be tempted to say in light of this that their theory is not testable either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton