No Evidence of Time before Big Bang
Image:
By Edwin Cartlidge
Our view of the early Universe may be full of mysterious circles -- and even triangles -- but that doesn't mean we're seeing evidence of events that took place before the Big Bang. So says a trio of papers taking aim at a recent claim that concentric rings of uniform temperature within the cosmic microwave background--the radiation left over from the Big Bang--might, in fact, be the signatures of black holes colliding in a previous cosmic 'aeon' that existed before our Universe.
The provocative idea was posited by Vahe Gurzadyan of Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia and celebrated theoretical physicist Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford, UK. In a recent paper, posted on the arXiv preprint server, Gurzadyan and Penrose argue that collisions between supermassive black holes from before the Big Bang would generate spherically propagating gravitational waves that would, in turn, leave characteristic circles within the cosmic microwave background.
To verify this claim, Gurzadyan examined seven years' worth of data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite, calculating the change in temperature variance within progressively larger rings around more than 10,000 points in the microwave sky. And indeed, he identified a number of rings within the WMAP data that had a temperature variance that was markedly lower than that of the surrounding sky.
Cosmic cycle
Most cosmologists believe that the Universe, and with it space and time, exploded into being some 13.7 billion years ago at the Big Bang, and that it has been expanding ever since. A crucial component of the standard cosmological model--needed to explain why the Universe is so uniform--is the idea that a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a brief period of extremely rapid expansion known as inflation.
Penrose, however, thinks that the Universe's great uniformity instead originates from before the Big Bang, from the tail end of a previous aeon that saw the Universe expand to become infinitely large and very smooth. That aeon in turn was born in a Big Bang that emerged from the end of a still earlier aeon, and so on, creating a potentially infinite cycle with no beginning and no end.
Now Gurzadyan and Penrose's idea is being challenged by three independent studies, all posted on the arXiv server within the past few days, by Ingunn Wehus and Hans Kristian Eriksen of the University of Oslo; Adam Moss, Douglas Scott and James Zibin of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada; and Amir Hajian of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto, Ontario.
All three groups reproduced Gurzadyan's analysis of the WMAP data and all agree that the data do contain low-variance circles. Where they part company with the earlier work is in the significance that they attribute to these circles.
Circles of significance
To gauge this significance, Gurzadyan compared the observed circles with a simulation of the cosmic microwave background in which temperature fluctuations were completely scale invariant, meaning that their abundance was independent of their size. In doing so, he found that there ought not to be any patterns. But the groups who are critical of his work say that this is not what the cosmic microwave background is like.
They point out that the WMAP data clearly show that there are far more hot and cold spots at smaller angular scales, and that it is therefore wrong to assume that the microwave sky is isotropic. All three groups searched for circular variance patterns in simulations of the cosmic microwave background that assume the basic properties of the inflationary Universe, and all found circles that are very similar to the ones in the WMAP data.
Moss and his colleagues even carried out a slight variation of the exercise and found that both the observational data and the inflationary simulations also contain concentric regions of low variance in the shape of equilateral triangles. "The result obtained by Gurzadyan and Penrose does not in any way provide evidence for Penrose's cyclical model of the Universe over standard inflation," says Zibin.
Gurzadyan dismisses the critical analyses as "absolutely trivial", arguing that there is bound to be agreement between the standard cosmological model and the WMAP data "at some confidence level" but that a different model, such as Penrose's, might fit the data "even better"--a point he makes in a response to the three critical papers also posted on arXiv. However, he is not prepared to state that the circles constitute evidence of Penrose's model. "We have found some signatures that carry properties predicted by the model," he says.
See what we're tweeting about
71 Comments
Add CommentSeems to me, though, that this theory could answer some outstanding anomalies -- such as "where" all the proto-matter that was produced from "nothing" originated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you not curious about the origin of all the 'proto-energy' that evidently existed at the moment of initiation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the 'proto-matter', it was produced by the condensation of energy released as the universe expanded. In accordance with e=mc^2, m=e/c^2.
These results only indicate that the evidence of preexisting time predicted by some physicists could not be found. They were not intended to prove that nothing exists prior to or outside of the bounds of our own universe.
While not wishing to inspire the unfounded imaginings of others, in fact there is likely no possible way to detect any evidence of anything outside the context of our own universe, whether anything exists there or not.
Imaging pouring a bunch of ants into an opaque balloon. In this example, the ants can't normally detect anything outside the balloon. However they can detect sound waves, my tapping on the balloon with my finger and the heat from my cigarette lighter. The difficulty is that they cannot determine the source of those signals outside the balloon's interior surface. No matter how many balloons full of ants we inflate, none can determine the existence of anything outside their balloon. They shouldn't worry too much about it...
As for the CMB, IMO this signal is far from fully understood at this time and that those studying it are mostly making presumptions about the unknown.
the cmb is not "all sky" nor anistropic, because outside the big-bang box, scale is infinitely larger and infinitely quantum smaller. there's much illogical theories and irrational conclusions with the Penrose circles, because they still want to believe in phony invented dark matter www.quantauniverse.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust one question: What is Nothing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing. If there was we need a divine entity to create it. As things stand, it does not exist. so we do not need the devine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to be bothersome, this article and your comments about the CMB strengthen my belief that time does not exist. I grant you an imaginary time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all experience time. It progresses at different rates depending on the location of the measuring object. Time travels microscopically faster at sea level than it does on top of a mountain. Scientific evidence indicates that time travels faster in the vicinity of higher gravitational forces. Time slows down as you travel faster, especially as you get close to the speed of light.
Our perception of time is based on rhythms both in our bodies and environment. Mainly chemical reactions generate these, some are physical rhythms.
Our perception of time is essentially the rate at which chemical reactions occur. Gravity affects our experience of time, so gravity must influence the rate of chemical reactions. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, the only way it can change our time is, if it changes the rate of chemical reactions. Gravity must influence the weak force. Perhaps the impact on the weak force is similar to Newton’s law. This would explain faster chemical reactions at sea level compared to on the top of the mountain, other conditions being equal, and gravity being the only variable.
We also know that as we travel faster time slows, but of course we have to be travelling close to the speed of light to experience a major shift. Now consider a body rapidly accelerating close to the speed of light, again its mass decreases and its distance from effective gravity is decreasing, so again its weak force should be decrease, chemical reactions are slower, time seems to have slowed down.
Time is an illusion created by our memory and the rate at which chemical reactions take place. We cannot say it is the fourth dimension, but since we have memory and know events that led to the current state, we can consider it an imaginary dimension. Again, chemistry progresses at different rates in different parts of the universe so time cannot be the same across the universe. However the “Now” is the universal at every point is the same and is the only thing that exists.
Time is an illusion of chemical reactions, which account for our memory and actions, a function of the weak force, which is altered by gravity.
I could not explain the CMB, but now I can put my ideas to you and any rational person. Look forwards to comments.
I think your perspective is valid. I may take an authoritive position in my writings but I have no expertise in this subject, only my own thoughts and opinions which are in continuous development. Time is not a subject that I often think about. That being said, I would make one correction: I think that time slows down as gravitational effects increase, approaching a black hole, for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the the effect of gravitation is velocity. Just as time slows down as velocity increases it also slows down as the effect of gravitation increases.
Since velocity is directional, I think that the reduction of net velocity still directed towards the Earth's center of mass when the Moon is overhead should by some miniscule amount increase the progression of time, speeding clocks. I think this is so because the Earth and moon are not attracted to each other but rather their mass each produces an external velocity field of contracted spacetime directed towards their center of mass. Small bodies located between the two should experience the net effect of the velocity of the Earth effectively reduced by the velocity of the moon.
Likewise, I think that intergalactic spacetime is expanding as a result of its inherent energy which produces actual velocity for the matter within, producing space and time, increasing distance between galactic islands of localized spacetime, thus producing a universal slowing of the progression of time. I think that without this universal velocity the progression of time would speed up. From this perspective the expansion of the universe fundamentally defines the universe.
I hope this explains in general terms why I think that time is a very real aspect of physical realty.
However, your perspective is also valid, as our perception of the progression of time can vary independent of any physical affect imparted to time. While the organic mechanisms that produce the basic progression of time are based on physical/chemical processes, they have limited precision and are very complex, allowing for alteration of our conscious perceptions. I think that our perception of time can be considered to be illusionary because of its disconnect from what I consider to be physical time.
I expect that a person traveling impractically close to the speed of light would not notice any change in the progression rate of time, unless he were bored...
Sorry if I've rambled too much - I'll save my personal dissertation on the CMB for another time.
However if there is no such thing as nothing, then it is nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow consider a body rapidly accelerating close to the speed of light, again its mass decreases....huh? I may be just a country redneck but me thinks that is wrong. The invariant mass of a particle is independent of its velocity, whereas relativistic mass increases with velocity and tends to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly!!!! Obviously totally ignorant of the Penrose theory! This "universe" began when TIME STOPPED AT THE PREVIOUS UNIVERSE!!!! Of course there is no time before the big bang...dumb!!!! It seems so many physicist forget their basic lessons from high school...maximum entropy is the future of this universe!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must have learned to watch your step in the cow pastures - good spot!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am totally ignorant of the Penrose theory: does is suggest that at maximum entropy, gravitation can no longer contain the energy of then supermassive black holes which, upon release, produce new localized universes of energy, matter and spacetime?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am totally ignorant of the Penrose theory: does is suggest that at maximum entropy, gravitation can no longer contain the energy of then supermassive black holes which, upon release, produce new localized universes of energy, matter and spacetime?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a philosophic point of view, I don't understand the meaning of 'before the Big Bang'. If these scientists have grasped the meaning of 'infinity' and 'eternity', they wouldn't have questioned the meaning of 'pre Big Bang'. 'Vacuum' is not the same thing as 'Nothingness' and these should not be confused. At what Time is reality? It is just an illusion but at the same time it seems so real. I have tried to understand what is the substance just outside the frontier of our physical universe for 25 years but I think a lifetime is not enough to completely understand the size of our universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf all matter results from the condensation of electromagnetic energy/information, pre-big-bang-understanding may be over our heads. electricthot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we should not worry too much about Penrose's theory. As we do not know what is happening inside a black hole (if maximum gravity crunches matter into Planck size, then that matter will have no dimension but exist as a force, hence, it will be possible to fill the black hole infinitely), arguing that everything starts from a black hole will not be more explanatory than it stars with a big bang. Therefore, before the light, there was only God. (I hope you did not burn poor ants with your cigarettes!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, as I understand, black holes contain no matter, only gravitational energy. In this case, as matter is 'ingested' by a black hole it is accelerated to near the speed of light, causing matter to collide and disintegrate. Similar to our little particle colliders but much more powerful, the velocity and mass energy of ingested matter is incorporated into the directed gravitational energy of the black hole, as charged particle residue is collimated and ejected via polar jets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a result, the velocity/gravitational energy of ingested matter is retained by the black hole, directed to an otherwise empty singularity or focal point of gravitational collapse. The black hole singularity is not required to retain any matter within its point like dimensions but does retain an external gravitational force directed to it.
In the case, previously described above, that gravitational energy is provided by the localized collapse of the inherent kinetic energy of external spacetime, as the the universe expands to a state of maximum entropy the kinetic energy of spacetime is dissipated.
Perhaps at some state of universal entropy the accumulated gravitational energy of a black hole can no longer be contained by external spacetime; it becomes a white hole, its point directed kinetic energy expanding, condensing into matter, etc., producing a new local universe.
Of course, this is only my opinion. If only Penrose or someone would do the math...
Thank you for your feedback. My education and experience are in chemistry, though my interests was physics and genetics - not many jobs in physics 40 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime has always been a puzzle for me. Then I concluded my experience of time was a result of the chemistry that resulted in my consciousness, and also controls my ageing or growth. So for time to slow down or speed up something must change the rate at which chemistry takes place, chemistry is possible because of the weak force. So something must change the weak force, perhaps the weakest force of all gravity.
It seemed rational and seemed to fit my only problem was trying to explain the CMB. I tried thinking of galaxies moving away from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light, which would create a boundary beyond which photons can not travel, but it did not add up. Then this article and you said the CMB is still misunderstood, so I put my thoughts to paper, hoping for other's to shoot it down. The final destiny of every theory.
With your line about a person travelling close to the speed of light being bored, we have the same concept of time as it affects us. I still have to come to terms with absolute time as a dimension, mainly since it is unidirectional.
i is an imaginary number. 1^2 = -1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow nothing is like this number totally imaginary.
Nothing can not exist because particles generate spontaneously in pairs. They normally annihilate each other except in exceptional circumstances, for example at the event horizon of a black hole. This process causes the black hole to evaporate, if an antimatter particle escapes from the event horizon, it is annihilated by the matter it encounters, if the antimatter particle falls into the black hole, it destroys some of the matter it contains.
Yes, you are rights, however:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the speed of light mass does not exist.
e=m/c^2 or m=e/c^2.
Now c^2 is a constant for m to increase e must increase, to achieve this with no outside source of energy mass must convert to energy, otherwise it is impossible to get to these speeds. So we consume energy to get to these speeds, the energy is obtained by consuming mass.
In a spaceship you would use fuel and loose its residues to space surrounding the spaceship, but the spaceship is constantly loosing mass. Lets ignore the fact that the spaceship does not have enough mass to get to these speeds.
The universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate up to light speed. This means a cosmological event horizon is approaching each relative location, and that event horizon must contain all the entropy of the universe, otherwise information paradox. As the CEH collapses at light speed, a point is reached where the density of information reaches the planck length maximum, at which point, the collapsing bubble transduces into another Big Bang, which is why the universe appears to have inflation, because the previous universe could only collapse to the maximum entropy on the event horizon. The universe was never smaller than this horizon, meaning it smoothed out any wrinkles that were deemed to come from quantum fluctuations of the early universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrangely, this means that every location in space ends up having its own complete universe worth of information locked temporally on the CEH, because when an object crosses the horizon any new information is impossible to glean, meaning the end of time for that bit of information, similar to what happens when information crosses a black hole event horizon. Time ends for everything when the CEH reaches maximum entropy because space is expanding the speed of light around a single point.
The bouncing action of the old universes, CEH implosion and subsequent Big Bang of the new universe, expands for each relative location into a separate new universe, creating a multitude of universes. This relative bouncing might even transduce into the new universes at the most fundamental levels, giving us our uncertainty principle, our sums over histories for small particles?
A black hole could create a shadow on the CEH event horizon because the local information surrounding the black hole is locked on the black holes event horizon, not able to become part of the cosmological event horizon. This could cause ripples mentioned by some.
Regarding the CMB, as I understand it, by concensus represents the initial EM emissions from the dense particle plasma of the early universe that were not reabsorbed. It is expected that it represents early infrared thermal radiation that has been redshifted to microwave wavelengths by the intervening expansion of spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysicists can't understand why this currently detectable signal of very early thermal radiation is so uniform when it is expected to have had hotspots that developed into galaxies.
I don't understand this discrepancy, since that early signal has been cooled and dispersed throughout expanded spacetime, no longer directly representing the temperature of the exceedingly dense early universe that emitted it.
It seems to me that the effects of universal expansion alone are quite adequate to account for the uniformity of the currently detected CMB.
Moreover, I suspect the the faint CMB signal we detect from our location in spacetime includes the irradiance of kinetic energy inherent to local spacetime as well as the fainter past irradiance of distant spacetime: it is an accumulation of signals received from throughout the depths of spacetime. This also produces a smoothing effect on the signal received.
As I mentioned earlier, I think there is a great deal that is not yet correctly understood about the nature and characteristics of the CMB. This misunderstanding makes its correct analysis currently unachievable.
You're presuming the consensus interpretation of the observed discrepancy between distant Ia Supernovae luminosity and nearer SN that universal expansion began accelerating for some unknown reason about 5 billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO, since observations of more distant objects are the result of detecting the characteristics of more ancient light emissions, it is the expansion of the early universe that exceeded current expansion. Therefore, universal expansion continues to decelerate as a result of entropy, consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, as previously expected.
In this case, your initial premise is invalid.
The complexities of the science aside, the cyclical model is the only one that makes logical sense to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like we came where we left. Matter and time is the result of interactions between energy and forces. How do we define these terms then? What is the source of the forces? Is there only one all powerfull and all omnipresent force pervading all the universe and making order out of chaos? Let the Force be with us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI heard somewhere that we have been created by the universe so that it may perceive itself... I don't think the universe is intended to make sense to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it comes to the CMB I had simply accepted that it was the residue of the initial big bang, which has been ever expanding and shifted into the microwave spectrum. Its what I have read and accepted as valid and reasonable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever though that it should have become lumpy because of the evolution of galaxies. I learn something new every day, that makes life worth living.
Great!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo keep in mind that, as mentioned in comment #7, I have no qualifications or expertise in these subjects. My comments reflect only my own interpretation of current consensus intended to provide a comprehensive and integrated perspective. I am not attempt to become a qualified physicist - my background is in information systems analysis. Thanks for your interest - I hope it helps.
You might find the following entry in Wikipedia of interest:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reionization
You really don't understand physics. The weak force has nothing to do with chemical reactions, only nuclear ones. The electromagnetic force is responsible for chemical bonding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am no expert on this discussion, nor am I a scientest. I am a thinker and I love to think of the endless possibilities that may be. We humans have come a long way in a short amount of time. When you think about it, our understanding of the universe in literally in it's infancy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must remember that, even though we are understanding more and more, we still have some huge holes in our science. For instance, the terms 'singularity', 'dark matter', and 'dark energy': These are words we use but they do not describe anything but vague concepts that we have. The true definition of the word 'singularity' is; "we have absolutely no idea". Same for 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. We have absolutely no idea what makes up the majority of the universe! I find that amazing and we must continue to try to understand our universe.
I believe that science and religion (not in the organized sense, but spiritual) can be a little narrow-minded and closed to possibilities. We must remain humble in the quest for knowledge.
Lastly, in reference to the theme of this well-written article, I believe that 'time' is the key to unlock huge revelations in our science. Perhaps time can be manipulated or things may exist 'outside' of time. Who knows? I am just an avid observer of my world.
There are many misunderstandings here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off, time is not presently understood. We measure energy and change with time. we experience it, but do not really understand why it exists.
second, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is currently understood to be the signal from the time when the Universe underwent a phase change. It is NOT a signal from the Big Bang. It is the appearance of the Universe from the time when the Universe cooled/thinned enough for electrons and protons to combine. Before this time, the Universe was opaque. No signal could get through. Trying to see anything from before this time is like trying to use an optical telescope to see stars on a thoroughly overcast night. Your view is blocked.
Third, the event horizon of a black hole, and the identity of anything inside it are not understood by Physics. Current physics does not address what happens inside. The mathematics includes a divide by zero in the equations describing any particle at the Event Horizon. This is an area then, where there are things we don't know. That is why it is of such interest to particle physicists. We know there is more to learn there. The event horizon for the Big Bang (if real) is similarly beyond current knowledge. It is the stuff of philosophy, not physics. That may change as our understanding grows.
Fourthly, in Relativity, a rest mass particle gains apparent mass as it accelerates. It does not lose rest mass. (A rest mass particle is anything that can be weighed when it is not moving relative to the observer.) Light and some other things have no rest mass, and always move at the speed of light. Their mass is a function of their energy. As currently understood, no particle with rest mass can be accelerated to the speed of light, only closer to it. No particle without rest mass can move at any speed but the speed of light. (Gravity is still being argued about, but is generally assumed to propagate at the speed of light.)
Finally, most of this is still theory. Theory not yet supported by fact. Let the research continue, and find more facts. It is fact that will tell if this is real, or just an interesting distraction. Roger Penrose is good, but he is not always right (I would be happy to have his record, though).
We need to keep looking.
Then think of gravity impacting on the electromagnetic force. The primary message is that forces interact, we are chemical factories, our cognition is a result of chemistry, our comprehension of time is a result of chemistry, our growth ageing and decay is chemistry. If something changes the rate at which it occurs, it must be impacting on the rate at which chemistry occurs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does not mean we experience longer or shorter lives. A lifetime is a lifetime be it 10-14 years of a dogs life or 65 years of a humans life.
jtdwyer differentiates between subjective time and absolute time. I had never thought in terms of absolute time, but had come to expect time to be different for every living entity, which comprehends time, but of no consequence to the rest of the universe that just is. I had rejected the concept of time as a dimension, since one could not move back and forth in it. What is a dimension?
I shall read 'Life in the Cosmos' by Lee Smolin Sounds like a good read, hope it is still in print. Your idea of time being the interval between two events becoming aware of each other is interesting, but it still is an interval.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and religion (organised or not)are totally opposites. In science everything changes, our best accepted theories if proved wrong are discarded. In religion everything that is considered to be fundamental (the word of god) is sacred and fact, no matter how much reality or reason seem to contradict it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI might have botched up on the point of mass as it approaches c, I was single minded trying to get things to fit and that can cause errors. I write this like all my posts on the fly and trust I have covered all aspects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a flaw and as soon as I read some feedback I realised it.
Still your feedback is appreciated.
You've provided a reasonable summary of generally established perspectives - thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, before we deify all scientists like Penrose, what would lead anyone to think that black holes, colliding prior to the 'big bang' initiation of this spacetime, could produce a signature or an effect within a signal (CMB) generated after all mass-energy had presumedly passed through a singularity? Certainly I'm not fully conversant, but is there some physical property of the universe I'm not aware of that could support this hypothesis?
IMO, it's not entirely safe to leave the driving to the professionals.
For those interested in imaginative CMB sightseeing, I suggest an unrelated work, "First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation",
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
These professionals have found potential evidence in the CMB that our universe is a bubble in a mutliverse of bubble universes.
I should also mention that if you stare at the sun you will observe interesting visual affects...
re: magician77 (post #4)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is the absence of something.
I embrase Roger Penrose's idea of a conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) as a first step to an eternal universe. However, in this respect I wonder if he is aware of the Twin-Tori Model (TTM), a double torus universe, which was hypothesized as a new cosmological model by the three of us, Dan Visser (NL), Christopher Forbes (UK) and Keith Lees (UK). The TTM is also an eternal universe. The CCC of Penrose could easily be curved in a circular aeon-tube, after which it is matching our idea of a double torus universe. However, The TTM is based on dark energy and dark matter, to play a specific role, as wel mathematically as physically, in more poor-perception of a "one time-arrow of entropy" of the big bang. Such is not the case in the Penrose-CCC. The TTM predicts (postpones) a level below the standard quantumphysics, and hence introduces a three dimensional dynamic, which could be affective on dark matter. The dynamic in the TTM suggests a big bang dynamic. For more information look at the viXra-archive of which the referred links are to be found on my website www.darkfieldnavigator.com. Any journalist is welcome to interview me about the double torus universe. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdditional correction on comment 47: I meant ...three "time"-dimensional dynamic... (last part of comment 47).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime, as a thing, has meaning only in reference to something else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho cares if it's 2:00 pm unless there's something going on at 2:15?
If my next "thingy schedule" isn't until Thursday, 2:00 pm is irrelevant.
Plan something, like the big bang, and hay, you've invented time! 'ceptn' that big bang thing on CBS.
Oh, and what ever happened to 1972?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, TIME is still $4.98 on the newstands. Subscriptions are different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDURGADAS DATTA published Balloon inside Balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path a few years back. He said that due to oppositeness in entropy, one will reach a zero entropy by which a BIG BOUNCE will occur to produce again two universes due to CP VIOLATION . As this is again and again re cyclic ,eternal so what cosmic rings we are seeing to day is im prints of previous BIG BOUNCE . THIS GREAT COSMIC CIRCLES ARE THE SHOCK WAVES OF BIG BOUNCE AS PRDICTED BY DURGADAS DATTA. DR.PENROSE WAS GIVEN A COPY OF THE THEORY LONG BACK AND NOW HE IS REVISING HIS CYCLIC THEORY WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE THEORY OF DURGADAS DATTA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not so sure about the idea that the universe was not ment to make sense to us. If we have a nature given sense of wonder and capacity to ask questions we may say that we are inherently formatted by nature to make sense of nature. As ancient Chinese conceived cosmos comes out of chaos by the interplay of yin and yang. Yin is light (as we say energy) and passive and yang is the active force creating order out of chaotic energy of yin. I think modern physics is realizing that energy of big bang is ordered by the forces of nature in the same way culminating in life, which is a force that cannot be explained by other forces of nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime: The notion of time as changing due to the speed of travel is a misguided concept. It is accurate in theory, but not in fact. My Theorem: “Time is immutable, just as Space is. Both are underpinned by infinity and quantum mechanics, which dismantle classic mathematics and physics as we might hope to simply define them.” This is a simple theorem, that speaks clearly for itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words “time and space” are fixed and outside of our finite understanding. They do not change, as “Special Relativity” implies, by curving or slowing down or speeding up dependent on speed and mass. They can be described as such in a quasi-manner, but in fact they remain as they are. Infinite and inexplicable.
The current understanding of time is based on mass and velocity, or Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, but time is again, as I said immutable, and subject not to the speed of an object, relative to its mass, but to its mass alone, subject to gravity. In other words all objects will not slow down or speed up based on the speed by which we travel. The current experiments that use atomic clocks: One clock stationary and the other traveling at high speed and then are used to measure their times which are logically different, is fatally flawed. Time is effected by way of the mechanical operation of atomic clocks, which is influenced by the gravity or mass it experiences within its travel. Again in other words, if a clock is traveling at a high velocity, it experiences greater gravity in a shorter period of time, which alters its mechanical functions. Time does not actually change only the forces of gravity that impact its mechanics changes and slows down the clocks mechanical operation. Thus density or gravity slows down or speeds up a clocks mechanical parts and physical time actuations. Time is not changed, only the operation of the clock subject to different mechanical pressures are changed. In simple terms, a clocks time is always going to be different based on its atmospheric conditions, i.e., whether it is stationary on the ground at sea level or sitting on the highest mountain. The mechanics will work differently, but time itself, has not changed, only the clocks mechanics have been altered by different pressures, so the times will infinitesimally be different. Extrapolate this using the speed of light and gravities changes, and the clocks show much different time results. But again, time itself has not changed only the physical apparatus that measures time has changed. Time remember is immutable. [Period]
Time has been manipulated by mixing the dimensions of Classic mathematics and Quantum mechanics realms - as if they were one. They are not. This has distorted our perceptions of the immutable and unchangeable nature of time and the notions of a curved space. That Simple: I would like to attempt to give an example but have no more “Comment Space”: See: www.otterwrite.blogspot.com. I know I am a heretic!
Time: The notion of time as changing due to the speed of travel is a misguided concept. It is accurate in theory, but not in fact. My Theorem: “Time is immutable, just as Space is. Both are underpinned by infinity and quantum mechanics, which dismantle classic mathematics and physics as we might hope to simply define them.” This is a simple theorem, that speaks clearly for itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words “time and space” are fixed and outside of our finite understanding. They do not change, as “Special Relativity” implies, by curving or slowing down or speeding up dependent on speed and mass. They can be described as such in a quasi-manner, but in fact they remain as they are. Infinite and inexplicable.
The current understanding of time is based on mass and velocity, or Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, but time is again, as I said immutable, and subject not to the speed of an object, relative to its mass, but to its mass alone, subject to gravity. In other words all objects will not slow down or speed up based on the speed by which we travel. The current experiments that use atomic clocks: One clock stationary and the other traveling at high speed and then are used to measure their times which are logically different, is fatally flawed. Time is effected by way of the mechanical operation of atomic clocks, which is influenced by the gravity or mass it experiences within its travel. Again in other words, if a clock is traveling at a high velocity, it experiences greater gravity in a shorter period of time, which alters its mechanical functions. Time does not actually change only the forces of gravity that impact its mechanics changes and slows down the clocks mechanical operation. Thus density or gravity slows down or speeds up a clocks mechanical parts and physical time actuations. Time is not changed, only the operation of the clock subject to different mechanical pressures are changed. In simple terms, a clocks time is always going to be different based on its atmospheric conditions, i.e., whether it is stationary on the ground at sea level or sitting on the highest mountain. The mechanics will work differently, but time itself, has not changed, only the clocks mechanics have been altered by different pressures, so the times will infinitesimally be different. Extrapolate this using the speed of light and gravities changes, and the clocks show much different time results. But again, time itself has not changed only the physical apparatus that measures time has changed. Time remember is immutable. www.otterwrite.blogspot.com
I agree that it is is we who have capabilities for understanding that can be applied to the universe, but we also have the ability to delude ourselves with false beliefs such as dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, Higgs bosons, strings, multiverses (why stop at only one multiverse when we can 'search' for evidence of many multiverses), etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than searching for new ways of interpreting current observational evidence to support our beliefs, I recommend that science reexamine its interpretations of observations that require extraordinary, undetected forces or elements. I think the universe prefers simpler realities.
Could the Big Bang have been the result of an exploding black hole?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExploding is not really a meaningful description of the event, but in my opinion black holes do not contain matter but consist only of the accumulated gravitational energy of ingested matter directed to a singularity. As I consider gravitational energy to be imparted by external locally contracted spacetime, if the universe reached sufficient entropy local spacetime may not provide sufficient energy to contain the point directed gravitational energy, allowing the decompression or expansion of spacetime condensing matter from the dispersal of gravitational energy. So, in my opinion, the 'big bang' may possibly have been produced by a hypermassive white hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO of a valid fate of the universe scenario, as the universe expands and dissipates (I ignore the misinterpreted expansion acceleration hypothesis) local gravitational effects lead to the continued contraction of local mass, eventually producing a relatively small number of hypermassive black holes. As spacetime energy continues to dissipate, the confined gravitational energy of black holes is released, producing progeny universes, each constrained within its own locally expanding spacetime.
However, I don't think that there's any possible physical evidence supporting this hypothetical scenario.
in reply to jtdwyer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me rephrase. Could the singularity at the site of the Big Bang have been a hypermassive black hole?
IMO, possibly...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine! What's his name, the ded guy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese findings deserves our attention. They verify an hypothesis on which I have been working for quite a while now (since late 80's). I came about it on my work on social evolution when I discovered chaos and synchronic like patterns (all order leads to chaos and the reverse is true). These are very specific patterns that behave very logically though they are never the same. www.feyoudehappy.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime as an entity, as a thing, does not exist. Its thingness is a shortcut mass noun combined with count nouning for expressing duration. It is a complex nebulous abstraction, a verbal convenience. Time doesn't travel in any direction. Motion gives the idea of time its force as a term and only things may partake of motion. Motion implies duration between locations, i.e, between the present and a particular past or the present and a particularly predicted future with respect to a continuous change of position in space. Like a point that defines only position and has meaning only when a particular position is specified and doesn't exist as a thing itself, time is not modifiable by a specified number but defines a measurement of duration that has either occurred or will occur. Once a number is assigned it, or duration is segmentized, time loses definition, it is either a past, present, or future eventuation. We postulate duration that has happened (past) or will happen (future) and it cannot reasonably be said that the present exists for any duration (a duration of invented increments that are unified under the conceptual word 'time' that is always passing away or expected to happen but actually neither has occurred. It is impossible to grasp a discontinuous discrete increment. Paradoxically, and disjunctively, either only the now exists or now has no existence at all. TIme is merely a term that describes a generalized accumulation of recent past experiences or soon, but not guaranteed, to happen predicted ones in order to rationally define a present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this, "Gurzadyan and Penrose argue that collisions between supermassive black holes from before the Big Bang would generate spherically propagating gravitational waves that would, in turn, leave characteristic circles within the cosmic microwave background."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen do the "sphere's" become "circles"?
Maybe somebody can explain just what are "characteristic" about these "circles"
Excellent point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only guess that the consensus perception of scientists is that the CMB represents a physical peripheral 'background' of the observed universe, a 'shell' that exhibits evidence of boundary deformation from some early external application of force.
I'm no physicist, but this seems to me to be a complete misconception. In contrast, I suggest that the CMB may be better explained as faint thermal energy permeating the intergalactic spacetime medium, the ancient energy release producing universal expansion (not related to any 'dark energy' proposed to account for the misperceived acceleration of expansion).
In this view the CMB signal has been dispersed by the expansion of spacetime since its initial emission in the dense, compact very early universe. This signal dispersal would easily explain why the detected CMB signal is so much smoother than expected, no longer directly representing the expected distribution of matter in the early universe.
But then, who am I to argue with these eminent physicists?
READ BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER ON OPPOSITE ENTROPY PATH IN --durgadas datta facebook.-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese theories about the origin of our universe sound close enough to the first creation in the Hebrew Bible to be a new creation story. Now what are we going to call the creator?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe contents are good reading as a fiction, but not as science. The authors do not appear to know what they are talking about: such as the precise definition of time, space, infinity, singularity, mathematics, etc. They have used the cult of incomprehensibility to establish greatness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime is the order of arrangement of events, i.e., the interval between events, just as space is the order of arrangement of objects. Since Big bang itself was an event,and there is no conclusive proof that there was nothing before it, (big bounce theory suggests that it occurs repeatedly), the interval between two big bangs is time. We have briefly discussed the issue in an essay "Is Reality Analog or Digital" to a contest being organized by Scientific American and Grubber Foundation. It can also be seen at basudeba.blogspot.com.
basudeba.
IMO, your statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since Big bang itself was an event,and there is no conclusive proof that there was nothing before it, (big bounce theory suggests that it occurs repeatedly), the interval between two big bangs is time."
presumes that the burden of proof is placed on those opposing any extraordinary claim. As I understand, the scientific method requires that the burden of proof be placed on those making extraordinary claims.
Perhaps I've misunderstood. Perhaps this is why dark matter and dark energy are commonly presumed to exist despite there being no direct evidence for it. However, I think this approach will eventually lead to a general catastrophic collapse of science.
In case I've misunderstood, let me be the first to propose the 'Universe is a Pea in a Pod' theory. Can you disprove it?
great uniformity, that is, glass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisright.
obviously the microwave sky is not isotropic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisobviously space itself is truly "infinite and (very) smooth".
can one avoid forgetting the arrow of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisonce is enough.
After reading most of the previously posted comments, I am both encouraged and discouraged. Discouraged because I know it's true that one cannot teach a rat calculus - that our puny four-dimensional thought patterns just can't cope with the infinite and unknowable, but encouraged because I know that, like scores of chimps with typewriters randomly pecking away, some day a frazzled post doc will happen upon the Shakespearian play equivalent of yet another of physicists' holy grails and we'll advance our dialogs to a higher level. I'm just hoping there's a 42 somewhere in those revealing equations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect to Professor Penrose and other learned researchers here, ours is indeed a now clearly-observable steady-state universe, if one has the greatness of mind and of heart to to consider the evidence, unbiased of all that we have been taught to believe. The mysterious concentric circles appearing here in the cosmic background radiation are indeed the clear signature of what I have called Cosmic Cores (1), the ultimate and massive, neutron-star-like entities that dot our universe like atomic nuclei do in a chunk of matter. Do get a glimpse of this propounded model in (1) and its ample illustrations in (2) and (3); see also (4).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) http://www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm
(2) http://www.sittampalam.net/TheCosmos.htm
(3) http://www.sittampalam.net/TheCosmologicalRedshift.htm
(4) http://www.sittampalam.net/WMAP.htm
Please use Internet Explorer to open any links in these pages.
Thank you for your time.
Cheers!
Magician, you ask "What is nothing?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell believe it or not Buddhist have resolved this matter, thing we ca agree that "nothing" is synonymous with emptiness
"There you find emptiness approached from three perspectives, treating it (1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and (3) as a type of awareness-release."
All The Mass Of The Universe Formed At The Pre-Big-Bang Singularity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is a two-poles entity, an all-mass and an all-energy poles.
The elementary particle of the universe is the graviton. The gravitons are compacted into the universal inert singularity mass only for the smallest fraction of a second, when all the gravitons of the universe are compacted together, with zero distance between all of them. This state is mandated by their small size and by their hence weak force.
The big bang is the shattering of the short-lived singularity mass into fragments that later became galactic clusters. This is inflation. The shattering is the start of movement of the shatters i.e. the start of reconversion of mass into energy, which is mass in motion. This reconversion proceeds at a constant rate since the big bang since the resolution of gravitons, their release from their shatters-clusters, proceeds at constant rate due to their weak specific force due to their small size.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
Nothing is the same as the Buddhist concept of emptyness. Go to accesstoinsight.org for more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have some question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1)if there was no space-time before the big bang, where were that hot & dense state of universe situated?
2) Matter requires space for its volume, matter also posses atomic motion. Therefore is it not more attractive & logical that the space did present before that hot & dense state of universe which allowed matter to occupy some space & time also present before the big bang as the motion is always time dependent.