Was spacetime present before Big Bang?
in [Relativity]
|
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 28 Sep 2009 13:58 Surfer wrote on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:39:26 +0930: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Sanny > <softtanks22(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] >> > It may have been. > > If it was, and if the big bang started from a "singularity", then at the > time of the big bang there would be no space. But for the big bang to > occur from something earlier, change would have to occur, which would > imply the existence of processes causing change to take place. > > But if space did not exist, neither could matter in the form we > understand it, so what would participate in the processes? > > We can't know, but there is a theory that assumes it is "information". > > As its the only theory I know of that attempts to address what existed > before the big bang, I give a link to a paper on it here. Wich shows either how ill-informed you are or how you are dishonestly promoting Cahill misguided works. > Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising Information The > Physicist 37 (2000) 191-195 > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009023 -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Chris on 28 Sep 2009 16:50 Try this: Before the Big Bang http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghbDGBOYp1g On 28 Sep, 18:58, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Surfer wrote on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:39:26 +0930: > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Sanny > > <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] > > > It may have been. > > > If it was, and if the big bang started from a "singularity", then at the > > time of the big bang there would be no space. But for the big bang to > > occur from something earlier, change would have to occur, which would > > imply the existence of processes causing change to take place. > > > But if space did not exist, neither could matter in the form we > > understand it, so what would participate in the processes? > > > We can't know, but there is a theory that assumes it is "information". > > > As its the only theory I know of that attempts to address what existed > > before the big bang, I give a link to a paper on it here. > > Wich shows either how ill-informed you are or how you are dishonestly > promoting Cahill misguided works. > > > Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising Information The > > Physicist 37 (2000) 191-195 > >http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009023 > > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Sep 2009 06:37 Surfer wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:43:09 +0930: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:58:08 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >>Surfer wrote on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:39:26 +0930: >> >>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Sanny >>> <softtanks22(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] >>>> >>> It may have been. >>> >>> If it was, and if the big bang started from a "singularity", then at >>> the time of the big bang there would be no space. But for the big bang >>> to occur from something earlier, change would have to occur, which >>> would imply the existence of processes causing change to take place. >>> >>> But if space did not exist, neither could matter in the form we >>> understand it, so what would participate in the processes? >>> >>> We can't know, but there is a theory that assumes it is "information". >>> >>> As its the only theory I know of that attempts to address what existed >>> before the big bang, I give a link to a paper on it here. >> >>Wich shows either how ill-informed you are or how you are dishonestly >>promoting Cahill misguided works. >> > Well, there have been somewhat over 25 responses in this thread. Of all > these responses, non except mine have provided a link to a theory that > addresses what may have existed before the big bang. > > If you are better informed, could you provide some relevant links or > references? I.e. apart from being an ignorant of literature (as Cahill), you are not even aware of science news! http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802057 http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1245 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1070462 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1270726.stm http://www.amazon.com/End-Certainty-Ilya-Prigogine/dp/0684837056 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v330/n6149/abs/330621a0.html [...] I like very much the two latter models. Those are models without the *fantasy* of a bing bang where dissipation is taken into account [#]. I disagree in details of both models [$] but I like Prigogine book phrase "time precedes existence" written below Dirac famous phrase and the idea of considering the cosmos as a giant dissipative structure. Another interesting link with useful information is by Sean Carrol http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/ How Did the Universe Start? [...] There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there is no “before” or “outside,” and that the universe was (conceivably) infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly non-overlapping. All of which, of course, is pure moonshine. [...] I'm not saying anything avant-garde here. Just pointing out that all of these traditional statements about the Big Bang are made within the framework of classical general relativity, and we know that this framework isn't right. Classical GR convincingly predicts the existence of singularities, and our universe seems to satisfy the appropriate conditions to imply that there is a singularity in our past. But singularities are just signs that the theory is breaking down, and has to be replaced by something better. A better theory (much better than those 'quantum gravity' fiascos cited by Sean) is being developed at the center http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/time.html (...) [#] The fantasy of the big bang singularity is not different of the fantasy of black hole singularities. It seems some people cannot do computations but take as gospel the misaplication of classical theories. [$] Specially the old Nature article, which is rather outdated now. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Sep 2009 06:53 "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:37:31 +0000: > Surfer wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:43:09 +0930: > >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:58:08 +0000 (UTC), "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >>>Surfer wrote on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:39:26 +0930: >>> >>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Sanny >>>> <softtanks22(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] >>>>> >>>> It may have been. >>>> >>>> If it was, and if the big bang started from a "singularity", then at >>>> the time of the big bang there would be no space. But for the big >>>> bang to occur from something earlier, change would have to occur, >>>> which would imply the existence of processes causing change to take >>>> place. >>>> >>>> But if space did not exist, neither could matter in the form we >>>> understand it, so what would participate in the processes? >>>> >>>> We can't know, but there is a theory that assumes it is >>>> "information". >>>> >>>> As its the only theory I know of that attempts to address what >>>> existed before the big bang, I give a link to a paper on it here. >>> >>>Wich shows either how ill-informed you are or how you are dishonestly >>>promoting Cahill misguided works. >>> >> Well, there have been somewhat over 25 responses in this thread. Of all >> these responses, non except mine have provided a link to a theory that >> addresses what may have existed before the big bang. >> >> If you are better informed, could you provide some relevant links or >> references? > > I.e. apart from being an ignorant of literature (as Cahill), you are not > even aware of science news! > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802057 > > http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1245 > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1070462 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1270726.stm > > http://www.amazon.com/End-Certainty-Ilya-Prigogine/dp/0684837056 > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v330/n6149/abs/330621a0.html > > [...] > > I like very much the two latter models. Those are models without the > *fantasy* of a bing bang where dissipation is taken into account [#]. typo: Big Bang > I disagree in details of both models [$] but I like Prigogine book > phrase "time precedes existence" written below Dirac famous phrase and > the idea of considering the cosmos as a giant dissipative structure. > > Another interesting link with useful information is by Sean Carrol > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/ > > How Did the Universe Start? > > [...] > > There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists > traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to > explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there > is no “before” or “outside,” and that the universe was (conceivably) > infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the > pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly > non-overlapping. All of which, of course, is pure moonshine. > > [...] > > I'm not saying anything avant-garde here. Just pointing out that all > of these traditional statements about the Big Bang are made within the > framework of classical general relativity, and we know that this > framework isn't right. Classical GR convincingly predicts the > existence of singularities, and our universe seems to satisfy the > appropriate conditions to imply that there is a singularity in our > past. But singularities are just signs that the theory is breaking > down, and has to be replaced by something better. > > A better theory (much better than those 'quantum gravity' fiascos cited > by Sean) is being developed at the center > > http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/researchzone/time.html > > (...) > > > [#] The fantasy of the big bang singularity is not different of the > fantasy > of black hole singularities. It seems some people cannot do > computations but take as gospel the misaplication of classical > theories. > > [$] Specially the old Nature article, which is rather outdated now. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Tom Adams on 29 Sep 2009 11:09
On Sep 24, 12:50 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Our Universe was born after Big Bang [99% Agree] > > When Universe was created It is said it was even smaller than even an > electron. > > Am I Right here? > > What about spacetime. Was spacetime created after 10 ^ (-1000) seconds > the Universe was formed? Or it was present even before BigBang > happened? Well, the answer is not "No". The answer is either "Yes", or there was no before, so the question is meaningless. > > When the Universe was point small was it a Exact Regular Sphere? > You mean before space-time. There were no spheres because there were no coodinate axes. |