# Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Futilitist, Oct 7, 2015.

1. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
And lo and behold, here he is again, speaking of gravitational waves from the BB!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vitational-waves-could-revolutionize-physics/
How Big Bang Gravitational Waves Could Revolutionize Physics
If the recent discovery of gravitational waves emanating from the early universe holds up under scrutiny, it will illuminate a connection between gravity and quantum mechanics and perhaps, in the process, verify the existence of other universes

to hide all adverts.
3. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
Sure I will...But I'm not watching a 2.5hrs video at this time.
Can you give me a time mark?
BTW, the video seems to be a collective of remarks made by many reputable physicists.
Whatever you are referring to may have been taken out of context.

Lawrence Krauss also speculates...most physicists/cosmologists do that...nothing wrong at all.
But don't confuse scientific theory with speculation.

Here's an example of which Krauss has also spoken on and supported.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
.______________________________________
I very much like it, but it is just pure speculation at this time.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534

Again, According to what I have heard of Krauss, he certainly does support the accepted mainstream position of the BB.
But as I have been saying, the BB says nothing about the actual beginning, including the why, the or how......
He imho was speaking of those questions which will probably need a QGT to answer.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
This thread is to talk about the concept of three dimensional time. We don't need to be reminded over and over that the big bang is the mainstream model. Go talk about the big bang on your own thread.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

8. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Gladly......But why than did you raise it at post 16 here.......

9. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
What I wrote about, in response to your question, "What do you find wrong with the concept ...", was off the top of my head. If you think there is some merit in his specific theory about 3D Time, and if you understand it, you could comment on my post from that perspective off the top of your head. Maybe that would motivate me to follow your path to understanding, but I would prefer to learn from you what your take on it is, relative to my established views.

Edit: I noted your video titled the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which can be stated in one or two lines, and which I proudly invoke. That video is two hours of theoretical discussion, and I imagine it was only at the fringes of alternative cosmology. I am way further off into the deep of such thinking, lol.

Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
10. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
I am not as far off into the deep fringes of alternative cosmology as you are. I am not interested in a vague discussion of various alternative cosmologies. I want to have a specific discussion about three dimensional time. That is why I provided the link in my OP.

For a great introduction to how three dimensional time works, I recommend you go to this page:

http://existics101.com/?page_id=238

There are six videos. The first one, which is only about 30 minutes long, provides a good introduction to the concept. The rest provide more detail. They are all very entertaining.

The video series explains the concept of three dimensional time much better than I could summarize it in a couple of paragraphs. I notice you ignored my original link and instead chose to focus on only the mere title of different video. Why? It has taken a lot more than 30 minutes to discuss why you won't watch a 30 minute long video!
No.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't want to take the time to actually understand the concept, there is no point in discussing it with you.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

11. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Well said, and appropriately focused. I'm have to use my research time productively when I'm in the right frame of mind. So I go where my path leads, and when I'm motivated. I understand if you can't make any comparison at all to enlighten me, in your own words, on the research you are following. Carry on.

12. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
We all have to use our research time wisely. I am taking my time, here in my own words, to write this post to you.

These might motivate or even enlighten you:

This is the brief (30 minute) video introduction to the concept of three dimensional time that I originally suggested you watch. It is very well produced and super entertaining. Think of it as my gift you.

This is a very brief (15 minute) video where Gavin Wince explains the basics of three dimensional time. I couldn't possibly take the time to write all that out for you, especially since you don't seem to have any time to understand it anyway.

It's funny how you can't spare 15 minutes to understand a really interesting concept and thus be able to carry on an intelligent discussion, yet you would happily spend your precious research time having a vague and useless discussion, superficially comparing general alternative cosmological beliefs with a complete stranger online. That makes no sense.

Carry on.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
13. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
Fair enough.
You silver tongued devil, lol.

14. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
Groovy. I look forward to hearing what you think about three dimensional time. Enjoy the videos.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

15. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See below:

16. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
I watched the short video. In the first few minutes, there was a recognition of the variable rate of the passage of time for observers in different inertial frames. This I agree with, and if you followed my initial comments, that concept was expressed as the cause for the difference in the length of time it would take for light to travel the same distance from different directions, since the energy density in the medium of space would vary, given the differing proximities to mass, and other energy densities in space. Thus my explanation hinged on the concept of varying densities in the medium of space, and his explanation hinges on time dilation due to transformations between frames. To me the result is the same; time dilation vs. the variable rate that clocks measure time when accelerated in different energy density environments across the medium of space are equivalent in my layman science enthusiast thinking.

I'll be glad to discuss that further if you want, but won't be surprised if you don't. Certainly that view of mine is one of the deeply alternative views that differentiate my thinking from mainstream thinking. You certainly can ignore that, and feel free to just wave it off with a simple, "Thanks for the comment", :shrug:

The issue of QM and time going backwards has been beat around theoretically, and I don't know where the consensus stands, but since I am a still contemplating the "hidden variables interpretation" of QM vs. the Copenhagen interpretation, and my view is that time can't go backwards. He acknowledged that to some degree (very slightly) by mentioning the "arrow of time" which is a theory where time only goes forward, being one of the "problems" solved by Existics. I think that the evidence for time going backwards has not become generally accepted in QM. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I suspect he agrees. If not, give me a link if you think that concept is important to his theory.

After 8 minutes he had presented the concept of 3D time, rather hesitantly in my opinion, and sets out to explain what the concept means in explaining some difficult questions in physics, including the arrow of time mentioned above, and others, and which he probably covered in the longer video, which I didn't watch.

If he is on to something, his explanations will be supported by a preponderance of problems it solves theoretically. If not, it leaves the difficult questions he suggest his theory can solve still open questions to many professionals. If you think his theory has received sufficient support from the professional community, give me some evidence of that.

17. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
Thanks for the comment.

It sounds like you might be looking for tired light. If so, me too. The Existics equations potentially account for the Hubble red shift without any need to invoke some kind of energy loss for light, just the relativistic effect of light traveling huge distances while factoring in 3 dimensional time. The result would be a universe that is not expanding at all. A steady state universe.

I don't think the big bang happened. I am convinced that the answer lies in thermodynamics. The universe is an infinitely large, infinitely old, perfect Carnot heat engine that experiences no net entropy change. But in our universe, hot always moves to cold, never the other way around. Entropy is always increasing, hence the arrow of time.

$S=k_{B}\log{W}$

So how to get S=zero for the whole universe? How do you get cold to move to hot? Just add gravity! Gravity pulls the fundamental particles from "empty space", forming stars, galaxies and black holes. These multitude of "mini bangs" convert mass to energy and radiate it back to space in the form of electromagnetic radiation, neutrinos, and quantum particles. Lather, rinse, repeat...to infinity.

That is my basic idea for a steady state universe.
I think it would be better to let Gavin Wince explain his concept by watching the videos. He covers all the Quantum effects in great detail (yes, time can go backwards in QM). He even covers the philosophy and mathematics to justify the idea of three dimensional time all the way back to an argument between Newton and Leibniz. It turns out that in...

$F=ma$

...mass is actually a component of 3 dimensional time. Or rather, time is an illusion/byproduct composed of the sum total of all motion in the universe(?) Thermodynamics is more complete with 3 dimensional time, allowing for negative temperature looping. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be successfully harmonized. And String Theory would finally go away.

Gavin Wince has also made several predictions based on his concept. He uncovers and explains a potential Higgs-Boson entanglement paradox and makes further predictions concerning the outcomes of future particle experiments. And he explains the apparent super luminal Opera experiment anomaly (way better than the bogus loose wire story).

Much of this stuff is possible because of the symmetry allowed by giving space-time six dimensions (3 space and 3 time). Wince is certainly not the first to try this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions

"Theories with more than one dimension of time have sometimes been advanced in physics, whether as a serious description of reality or just as a curious possibility. Itzhak Bars's work on "two-time physics",[3] inspired by the SO(10,2) symmetry of the extended supersymmetry structure of M-theory, is the most recent and systematic development of the concept (see also F-theory). Walter Craig and Steven Weinstein proved the existence of a well-posed initial value problem for the ultrahyperbolic equation (a wave equation in more than one time dimension).[4] This showed that initial data on a mixed (spacelike and timelike) hypersurface obeying a particular nonlocal constraint evolves deterministically in the remaining time dimension."

I believe Itzhak Bar's system uses two dimensions of time plus an extra dimension of space for a total of six. I think Wince's system is less arbitrary and thus makes more sense. And his key contribution is the inclusion/exclusion principle contained in the Existics equation's ability to handle infinite regression by treating it as an infinite series of repeating fractions.
True.
Gavin Wince is a seriously gifted mathematician. He shows in great detail exactly how his equations can revolutionize physics.
I don't think his theory has received much support so far.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Last edited: Oct 12, 2015
18. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,264
Here is a review of the ideas of Gavin Wince:

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2013/03/21/genius-continuum-crackpottery/

Yes many if us are "authoritarian", in that we are aware of the existence of a huge number of cranks and loonies on the internet and we do our best to sift them out and avoid them.

Science requires quality control.

Last edited: Oct 12, 2015
origin likes this.
19. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,677
You're welcome.
And I thought you weren't into the deep alternative stuff,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

No, I'm not a "tired light" believer. The best evidence of a Big Bang is the raw redshift data IMHO.

However, I am a steady state fan. It is just that I prefer a steady state, multiple big bang arena model, that defeats entropy via the process of Arena Action on the large scale level which features multiple big bang arenas making up the landscape of the greater universe. I enthusiastically accept our Big Bang event as one of many, and I speculate about preconditions where there are a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas playing out across the greater universe. The preconditions to any individual Big Bang would then be the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding, galaxy filled "parent"arenas, where big crunches form at the center of gravity of the overlap. Each parent arena contributes matter and energy to a swirling rendezvous of cold dead galactic material, which heats up under the compression of gravity, and grows to a "limit" I call "critical capacity" that causes it to collapse/bang into a new expanding Big Bang arena.
The preconditions I just mentioned get cold to become hot again. You should say, "thanks for the comment", if you don't want to discuss the mechanics of that.
Not bad. Do you see the universe as containing a finite or an infinite amount of matter and energy? Is this a version of the cyclical universe model? Because I think there are some problems with that model, i.e. gravity isn't strong enough to do all of that pulling on distant photons and neutrinos in time to participate in the next cycle. Eventually enough unretrievable energy escapes to the void, and you then fail to pull back enough energy to perpetuate the cycle, so I hear.
I don't see anything that a simple layman like myself could embrace.

Last edited: Oct 12, 2015
20. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,593
Yep, this Wince character is a clown. Maybe he is related to the buffoon B. W. Hill.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

21. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,264
You might think that: I couldn't possibly comment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

22. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
When Einstein first conceived of Relativity, he was an obscure patent clerk. Relativity was a ground breaking concept and many thought that Einstein was a crank. If you guys were around then, you would have agreed with that assessment, until someone with "authority" told you different. You would have reflexively tried to suppress the new idea, just as you do now with any new idea that threatens your orthodox beliefs. Scientific progress has been greatly inhibited by the kind of Groupthink you exhibit.

The only way to judge the merit of an idea is by considering the idea itself, regardless of where it came from. You guys are just too stupid and lazy to do that. Understanding anything requires some actual thinking.

I don't consider my ideas to be deep alternate stuff. I am just open minded with respect to various cosmologies because the actual evidence for all of them are pretty speculative at this point. I am not a bandwagon guy, and I think we are just getting started as far as understanding the universe is concerned.
Zwicky's tired light concept lacks a physical mechanism. That is why the big bang theory got so much initial traction since there is no other way to account for the perceived red shift. There are more recent ideas concerning the physics of light that might actually result in an energy fall off over time. The interesting thing that Gavin Wince proposes is that the apparent red shift results from applying the concept of three dimensional time to General Relativity. I realize this is a highly speculative idea, but if something like it was true, we would be left with a universe that is not expanding.
So you are a multiverse guy. That is cool. The concept might not be falsifiable, though. If it turns out that the Hubble red shift really means the universe is expanding, I would think the multiverse concept makes way more sense than a single big bang.
An infinite non-expanding space with continuous physical laws would lead to the somewhat paradoxical condition of an infinite amount of energy and matter. I am more okay with this paradox than with the many paradoxes produced by a big bang and an expanding universe.
No. There is no expansion, so there is no contraction. It is a continuously cycling thermodynamic model. In one direction, matter is converted to energy. This energy radiates outward and cools, producing entropy in the process. Energy becomes matter by gaining mass in the BEC. Then gravity takes over, eventually reheating the matter. This creates the other half of a continuous thermodynamic loop by producing negative entropy.
Correct. That would be a thermodynamic problem. But in a non-expanding, steady state model there really isn't a way for energy to escape. In "empty" space areas, energy would convert back to matter and simply coalesce due to gravity toward the nearest higher gravity area, eventually becoming a part of a star, galaxy, black hole, etc. From there it would be converted back to energy and re-radiated out to "empty" space. This version of a steady state universe would have constantly evolving structures surrounded by large voids, just as we perceive it. This cosmological model is totally consistent with all observed phenomena except for Hubble's apparent red shift.
Why not?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Last edited: Oct 12, 2015
23. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,593
Your demonstrated stupidity has rendered your opinion moot.

Ahhh, so that is your issue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!