Big Rip theory

quote:

---

What i find interesting is if Energy can not be made or destroyed then where did all the Energy in the universe come from[?]

---

A few possibilities:1) Energy can be created (and perhaps destroyed).2) There is no "t=0" beginning of time; the universe has always existed, and so has energy (and matter).3) There is a "t=0" before which there is no history; however, the universe simply exists as a self-contained 4-manifold; that is, the universe, and all the energy and matter contained within it, simply exist. Energy was not created, since there was never a time at which there was no energy.Probably other possibilities as well.

---

"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

It wasn't pure energy, it just possessed a significant amount of energy.
There were still particles. However, because this is the realm of Quantum Field Theory, the states of particles were significantly more complicated.
For instance it would be difficult to separate out a free electron. Personally, I think that whatever the singular event was, whose aftermath the Big Bang models, it'll just slap a massive "N/A" across words like "started" and "began".For instance when we put Quantum Field Theory inside General Relativity, we get the result that accelerating observers don't agree with inertial ones over what is a single particle and what isn't.
Or what’s a vacuum and what isn't.Not to mention GR says in some situations what I call an angle in space you could call time.Add this to all of Quantum Mechanics' weirdness and I can't imagine what the pre-Big Bang regime will bring. Absolutely, it's way too common and damaging a misconception about the Big Bang, as it allows easy ridicule. So it's good to be careful.

So glad someone asked for pet theories. Mine's a doozy, especially since I'm no scientist, and my eyes glaze at the mention of quantum fluctuations and the like.Now, I must preface that my theory is inspired by something I believe Mr. Hawking said, to wit, that no information can pass through a singularity, ergo, that which happened at T<=0, if anything, is forever lost to us. If I understand this correctly, it is an open invitation to speculate - and there's not a thing anyone can say against my speculations!OK. I propose that there is a realm outside of space-time. A higher-order realm, if you will. Perhaps its the "area" into which space is expanding. (Don't hit that reply button yet). It may have a separate timeline, or time may be meaningless there. If it does have a timeline, then being outside of our space-time, and thus not subject to the "rules" of causality, it is conceivable that this realm has no "beginning" and no "end."I further propose that there are one or more "things" in this realm, the function of which is simply to create universes - or perhaps universe-creation is a by-product of some other function. No intent, no design, just every once in a while, this thing burps out a universe. Don't ask me how it happens, after all, it's not something that is subject to detailed analysis...the point is that, if I understand Hawking correctly, no one can say otherwise.Now the theists here are thinking, OK, the realm is heaven, and the universe-burper-outer is God. But notice, I said there was no intent, no design. The Universe-creator-thingy does not have to be sentient. It's just a "thing" out there in that "realm" that happens to do this. I guess this is somewhat akin to Aristotle's Prime Mover.The advantages I see to my theory are, one, it bypasses the problem of First Cause, and two, energy is conserved, since energy may exist in a different form in the outer realm, and is translated through the singularity to become the stuff of our universe.Please tell me if I am off-base here. And please, if anyone can demonstrate, in light of this possible scenario, why universe-creation has to be a willful act, I'm all ears.

---

==JJS==

No, for a speculator you're surprisingly on base.Your idea has different names depending what area of physics you're discussing. This is one of the ideas entertained in higher order String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, although more so the latter, as most String Theorists I've met at meetings, e.t.c. don't actually study it as research interest.I've heard one or two people refer to it as pre-time or pre-space.The basic idea is that the natural state of things is a non-causal "thing" which every once in a while arranges itself into spacetime.I'll get you a few links when I can.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-14-2006 10:28 AM

Eureka! Er, that would seem to imply "previousness," and fly in the face of the idea that time started at the Big Bang. Of course, I could never get my mind around that concept to begin with. Are scientists actually endeavoring to demonstrate this in some way? Or am I right that it must forever remain in the "realm" of speculation?The main thing is, am I within my rights to continue advancing the "outer realm" and "eternal universe-burper-outer" scenario, which I believe is an easier concept to get across to theists hell-bent on proving the necessity of a sentient creator? That is my real goal here, to obviate the "necessity of God" in plain, understandable language.

---

==JJS==

That is only the word I remember somebody using. Since I'm directly in the area of Quantum Gravity, the correct word might be something else.Also, I think he only used "pre" to give some sense to the word, rather than specifically meaning anything by it. Somebody else called it non-time. Well it's definitely going to be speculative for a while yet.
In fact it isn't even definitively testable, so for the moment I would say use it as you want. Although make sure people don't think it's a current scietific theory, because it's only a minority idea, as of 2006.

We certainly talk about pre-geometry, though there are many "pre"s you can consider. Without even going into strings or loops, or even any quantum aspects... just think of space-time from the POV of the action, where it is simply a (local) minimum.

I think Hawkings called is 'imaginary time'. If it has any validty, I would think it would be a time in a different frame of reference.

Yes, "imaginary time" is another concept that expands our normal notions of space-time. It doesn't manifest itself as an extra dimension, but is a change in the nature of time itself... imaginary time is much like our three dimensions of space.The important point about imaginary time is that it lifts the notion of reality to the pre-concept of the action or Lagrangian (as I alluded to in my above post). I think a long thread on the significance of Lagrangians (and most importantly, what they are!!!) is long overdue. It would nicely tie in with Son Goku's The mathematization of theoretical physics

My new meta-scientific theory will give humans a glimpse on the high possibility of extra realities, of time travel, and every physical question that needs to be answered.Along the course, I will explain why BIG RIP is a more likely possibility than BIG CRUNCH, in predicting the fate of our universe.I invite you to open your minds to the wisdom I bring you.The Eastern MessiahPeace.