Tweaking the Big Bang

I have a model of the Universe that is more consistent with Biblical accounts of the beginning and ending of the Universe.My model defines the only nothing possible prior to the "Big Bang" event by rejecting the creation of all four dimensions of the Universe in the event. My model proposes that the 3 spacial dimensions are infinate and that the only singularity necessary before the BB is that of time or the fouth dimension. The nature of the infinate space was an infinate scalar field, an infiate Higg's field if you will. Unlike brane theory, I propose that there was only one infinate field. The "BB" was not an expansion of highly compresses matter and energy, but rather a decay of the infinate higg's into matter/antimatter.....Biblically refer to as the light and darkness.Since the field was homogenous, it was essentually a single infinate particle and therefore the decay to reach its lowest rest mass would only occur in a single place...no need for multi-verses. Since prior to this event there was no possibility of GR nor any concept or meaning of time....the idea of why it happened when it did has no meaning whatsoever.I will stop here and take questions to keep the thread focused.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If your original field is 4d-scalar, where do you get the extra degrees of freedom necessary for the observed spinor and vector fields?

It is a 3D scalar with a 4th dimension singularity. It is completely homogenous with no curvature or electromagnetic paradigm to generate dynamics.The Big Split or decay began at a point, any point will do since it is essentually an infanite single particle. The decay took place dividing the single "brane" into two branes of opposite charge, in opposite hemispheres. This is when electromagnetism began and the branes began to interact and compress. This scenario implies that galaxy development and nucleosynthesis are coevolutionay processes.The decay continued at a speed less than c. Once mass began to develope gravity gave chase to the decay eventually catching and halting it which essentually closed the system.Vorticies were the natural result of the electromagnetic effect of the oppositely charged branes. Once this annihilation began, compression of these now interacting fields in both galactic size and quantum size packets began as well as high energy photon thats contrubuting to the nucleosynthesis process.This message has been edited by bigsplit, 10-24-2005 03:21 PM

Although you can have charged scalars, you still cannot generate electromagnetism from a scalar field. EM is a spin-1 vector field. Also, matter is intrinsically spin 1/2, and like EM, cannot be generated from a scalar field.

So two oppositely charged scalars would not interact? I am trying to avoid calling it a higg's field and stating it decayed into particles....maybe I should not worry about that so much.The idea of the homogenous "scalar field" comes from a concept of my mind experiment of trying to conceive the only nothing possible. I start with E=MC^2 and work backwards where all mass were converted into energy with no charge and homogenously distributed. What would you call such a scenario?This message has been edited by bigsplit, 10-24-2005 03:48 PM

Not easy I see why you've opted for a scalar field. It's certainly one of the most simple configurations possible. But it is still along way from "nothing"!What you describe as infinite 3d space and time being singular is sort-of getting towards what we have in an open universe big bang. It is a little hard to visualise, but what you've said is pretty much it. But the standard model has a lot more than a scalar field... it has the grand unified field that will split into QCD (gluons) and Electroweak (photons, Ws and Zs) as well as their fermionic "matter" associates (quarks and leptons). If I'm reading you right, this is your objection: "How did something as complex as this come from nothing" and which is why you've jumped on a scalar field giving rise to all of this, because it is far simpler, and in some sense approaches a better "nothing". Is that about it?What you have to remember is that there is no nothing. Our time only exists for our universe, it is a feature and property of our universe. And at no time was there nothing. The "big bang" moment should not be viewed as a sharp beginning, sort of like an apex of a cone, but as just another point, like the south pole on a globe. This is slightly more difficult to visualise when the spatial dimensions are infinite, but not impossible. So now this "big bang" moment is no longer a beginning but just one of many points in the universe. It is unusal, as there is no points near the "big bang" that are "before"... they are all "after".

I was not going for nothing, but rather the only nothing that is possible. Meaning what is the simplest form the Universe could take, and become the Universe we see today. Homogeniously distributed neutrally charge energy is the best I could do. How did the decay occur occur, I knew about neutron beta decay and neutral mass seeking its lowest rest mass causes decay. This "field" decayed into two hemispheres of oppositely charge energy that began to annihilate and interact. This generated voriticies, compression and nucleosynthesis.There is more to my model, and it is anti-inflationary. When gravity caught and halted the decay the Universe was a rotating spherically shaped system. Once the system closed the universe experience a hydrodynamic event that would reheat it and change its topography. With most of the mass density being in the center of the sphere, the center began a movement along the path of least resistence to the edge of the sphere, generating a funnel shaped universe, with the old center and now new vertex of the funnel being the dominate gravitational player acting radially throughout the funnel, the rotatation or momentum of the spin began to decay. This generated an equiangular spiral type dynamic where the angular momentum of the spin decays radially towards the vertex generating a red shift or expansion. The expansion is not inflationary but rather a big crunch.

Cavediver wrote:

quote:

---

And at no time was there nothing. The "big bang" moment should not be viewed as a sharp beginning, sort of like an apex of a cone, but as just another point, like the south pole on a globe. This is slightly more difficult to visualise when the spatial dimensions are infinite, but not impossible. So now this "big bang" moment is no longer a beginning but just one of many points in the universe. It is unusal, as there is no points near the "big bang" that are "before"... they are all "after".

---

The universe was formed by the Big Bang but existed before it.Got it. It's all so clear now. I mean, except for the ORIGINAL point. Except for that.

Hello, Mirabile_Auditu.Your reply contains no substance. I also notice that you have just been suspended. If and when your posting privileges are restored, it would be appreciated if you could make your point more clear.I was also hoping to engage you on the abiogenesis topic that you started; in particular, I was hoping you would respond to my reply to your opening post. I hope that you will reply there if and when you return.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

No, the Big Bang did not form the universe. It is just one point IN the universe. And there is no "before" the Big Bang. It is the one point with no "before" in the same way that the south pole is the one point on the earth where there is no "further south". If you want to talk about these things, you have to let go of naive 3d thinking.The creation of the universe does not involve a "beginning" but rather a bringing into existance of reality... that includes the past, present and future. At least, this is what is implied by GR.

quote:

---

No, the Big Bang did not form the universe. It is just one point IN the universe. And there is no "before" the Big Bang. It is the one point with no "before" in the same way that the south pole is the one point on the earth where there is no "further south". If you want to talk about these things, you have to let go of naive 3d thinking.

​

The creation of the universe does not involve a "beginning" but rather a bringing into existance (sic) of reality... that includes the past, present and future. At least, this is what is implied by GR.

---

Speaking of "naivete," you can't even spell "existence."
Such naivete is treated in hypocritically different ways by the "enlightened" - by the "intellectual" - by the Left.1. When "naivete" is demonstrated by, oh, say a "religious extremist," such as President Bush in making a verbal gaffe, it is conclusive proof of "stupidity."2. On the other hand, when "naivete" is demonstrated by an Anointed One, such as you, it is trivialized, overlooked, and excused. It really doesn't matter when you show what is called "stupidity" when a "neocon" does it.Double standards such as this are profoundly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific, as is the fatuous trivialization of the Big Bang.Where did matter, and energy, and organization come from? I'm sure they just created themselves out of the instability that nothing exhibits. Simple, really.

I take acception to the naive 3D thinking. Although I do agree that there was no before the "Big Bang" as time itself (change) did not exist...it was homogenous. The event that started it all was the expansion of the 4th dimension into a 3D infinate by means of a decay of the same, and not the expansion of all 4 of the dimensions. There is abosolutely no reason to believe that all four dimension came into existance at once. The universe existed as a 3D infinate "singularity" of time. In other terms, 3D infinate space at t=0 and the decay started the changes and thus introduce GR.

LOL! man you have thin skin Cavediver was speaking about the inadiquacy (I mangled that one on purpose for ya ) of 3D thinking when it comes to quantum physics.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-27-2005 09:54 AM

Man, what are you talking about?Cavediver is saying that General Relativity discusses a 4-D spacetime which has to be considered in a different manner to 3-D Euclidean space sitting in 1-D Euclidean Time.Nothing to do with Liberal intellectualism.