Universe Race

I'm convinced that he is in fact trolling. I do clarify my own understanding a bit with Cavediver's explanations (the first or second time he explains them...the 8th time I just get more annoyed with ICANT). I am however more than willing to wait for other posters to pose cosmology questions so that CD doesn't have to keep enduring this.

Then you're halfway there, which is a good thing. You're already able to view time as a discrete dimension as an outside observer.Now imagine that time is not a circle - rather, it's a ray. It has a beginning, a 0 point, and it stretches outward in one direction. It may have an end, it may not, we simply don't know. What we do know is that there is a T=0, we experience time only in the direction of increasing entropy, and that it is just one of the four dimensions of spacetime.Now, the 0 point of the ray is the North Pole. The other three spacial dimensions are represented as the globe itself. As you move South (the only direction we perceive), the other dimensions get larger.Since you're viewing this from the outside, you can see that there is no "cause" to the expansion of the Universe, per se. The shape of the universe is simply that of the globe - a person inside who could only travel South will perceive the Universe to be expanding, but from the outisde, you simply see that it exists.Because you're not inside of time, causality really doesn't have a lot of meaning for you. Given the state of the Universe in any particular instant (which would be like a teensy slice of the globe), the contents will exist in a certain state. That is, when the physical dimensions are very small approaching T=0, all of the matter of necessity is extremely dense and hot. If you take another snapshot when the dimensions are larger, the Universe is less hot and less dense. When the dimensions are large enough, conditions inside are such that normal baryonic matter forms.There's no "cause" to this expansion, because it's not really expanding: the Universe simply has a certain shape, and our perception of that shape is determined by our being bound inside to a single direction of time. Because of our perception, we call it expansion...but that's really just the closest term we have to describe it in English. In reality, we're just experiencing the shape of the Universe as we move steadily along the dimension of time.

Hi Rahvin, Why? I like my circle. If you don't like the end of time point erase it. You still got your start point of 'zero' since my circle represents eternity you can never get back to point 0 once you start time it will go on forever or it may end at some time in the future but eternity will never end.Since you are the only one that cares to discuss the topic why don't we start fresh and you tell me what is going on at T=O, and what is there. If we can agree on that then we can continue further.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Becasue your circle isnt part of the cosmological model. This isnt about what you like or believe, ICANT. Im not asking you to believe that this is the way it actually works - Im asking you to humor us, for the purpose of the argument, so that we can teach you what the cosmological model is. If you're only going to accept the parts of the model that you like, you wont learn anything about it. This has already been answered: we can't say much at all about T=0, becasue the math breaks down into a singularity there. All we can say is that the spacial dimensions were smaller as you approach T=0, and that the density of the matter in the Universe (both in terms of energy density and mass) increases approaching infinity.Beyond that, we simply don't know yet. We're still looking in to it.But please, let's try to continue with the globe analogy. We're starting to drift away from observing the Universe as a discrete entity, going back into thinking of time the way creatures in time experience it. That won't help us with the cosmological model.Do you understand what has been said with the globe analogy? There is no "cause" for expansion - the expansion itself is more like an illusion, a consequence of our perception of time. The universe exists with a certain shape, and our perception of that shape looks like expansion .

As I understand it, no one knows "what is going on" at T=0, or "what is there". Once you "reverse" the universe in time to the very last "known" instance where the known mathematics and formulas still hold and do not break down, you can't go back any further in any meaningful way because we simply do not know what it would "look" like or how it acted. It is so wildly different after "reversing" past the last explainable instance that you might as well ask what God's "face" looks like.T=0 is simply a theorized "starting point", a conceptualization of the universe's "birthday". Correct me if I am mistaken, but couldn't we, with the currently accepted physics, "reverse" the universe back infinitely, getting smaller and smaller with no end in sight? Something about a zero-dimensional curve or some such? If this is so, it sounds kind of ridiculous without a creator. I thought infinities were non-sense scientifically speaking. I don't see how some people think they are better off or more justified in putting faith into this instead of God. Haven't they broken down into resorting to near sci-fi like theories like Stringtheory to try and explain the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? I don't know, it just seems kind of fishy to me.Doesn't Superstring Theory/M-Theory give some sort of minimal size for the singularity? What impact does this have on the Big Bang model?Please excuse me if I am not conducting myself in an appropriate manner, this is my first time posting.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : Spelling error.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : Sorry for all the edits.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : I just MADE a mistake with my last edit where it was fine before. Pfft. I wish they wouldn't show this list.

The singularity at t=0 is simply an statement of our ignorance. A gap in our scientific knowlege, if you will. Knowlege gaps are not safe places for us to stick our little gods, because that gap might get filled some day, and then 'poof', there goes your little god (its known to happen before to many little gods). A great GOD though, doesn't need any gaps in scientific knowlege. in order to exist.You see, that's the thing. Nobody is saying that people should stop believing in gods because of the Big Bang theory. Both things may turn out to be true, since they are not intrinsically contradictory.
But don't go looking for reasons to believe in god inside cosmological theories. You won't find those reasons there.And please don't say things likeIt is not ridiculous to believe in a universe without a creator. It is not ridiculous to believe in a creator either. The answer to the is-there-a-creator question is not an obvious one, and nobody should be ridiculed for choosing to believe in either way.

--Percy

Welcome to EvC, Mac. To be more precise, we can't say anything meaningful before t=10^-40. Our current understanding of the laws of physics don't work past this point in time -- the energies and densities become too large and the "size" of the universe too small.- Well, with the currently accepted physics, we can't do anything at all with the time before t=10^-40.- The inconsistencies between GR and QM don't need to be explained -- they're there. I think you mean "resolved."What theorists are doing is trying to construct a theory that will work in the areas where GR and QM are currently inconsistent. There are several candidates, as far as I know. This is a difficult field because it is very difficult to test these theories -- the areas where they differ from standard GR and QM are at conditions that are inaccessible experimentally, and it's probably hard to take apply them to the time before t=10^-40 and extrapolate it forward to find new cosmological phenomena to observe.- I don't know why, "It must be God!" is better than "I don't know. Let me try to find out." But then I don't really understand the theistic mindset.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Hi Rahvin, I guess not. Because I can not see what the circles of latitude have to do with the universe expanding.I know that as you head towards the equator they would get larger as they are perpendicular to all meridians at the points of intersection.I also know when you cross the equator they begin to get smaller as you get closer to the south pole.The reason being that the globe is round.I also know if I was standing on the North Pole and headed south to the South Pole, and I chose not to go around the circle of the earth I would have to go through the center of the earth. If those lines were there they would be the same distance apart.But what does that have to do with whether the universe is expanding or not? Are you saying space is not expanding within the universe? Are you saying the galaxies are not getting father and father apart? Are you saying the universe has a certain shape and it is not changing it is only our perception of it that makes us think it is changing?Now back to T=O.I have agreed with cavediver and Son Goku that there is something at T=O. They say it is about the size of a pea containing the entire universe.I like to think of that something at T=O as being all that there is. Singularities are found at the center of black holes. For something to get out it must reach escape velocity.At T=O the temperature of our pea sized something containing the entire universe is about 1,000 billion degrees Kelvin that is slightly warm.This pea sized universe is under immense drawing power from within to suck the entire universe into such a small space as smaller than a pea.At T=O there is no time, there is no space, there is only our little pea sized universe.Nothing is happening as time has not begun yet.Now if I am wrong about what is holding all this energy and matter in such a small place please explain what is.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Thanks Chiroptera,Nice post. What causes these densities to become too large?God Bless,Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "" to ": d" in subtitle.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I am well aware of this possibility. I do not think by any means that proof of the Big Bang Theory, or proof of anything further such as String Theory, would contradict the concept of a God. Nor do I understand the people who have this idea in their head. I see nothing that is in direct conflict. Who am I to question God's methods? In fact, I would like someone to explain to me why this would contradict the concept of God. Please, do not think I am that close minded. Look at what I said above. Perhaps I should have clarified what I meant. When I said I didn't understand how some people could feel more justified with having faith in the Big Bang rather than God, I didn't mean the Big Bang couldn't have happened WITH a God. What I meant by "some people" was those who HATE and REJECT the concept of God with passion because to them it seems ridiculous, but then they turn around and embrace things like the Big Bang Theory and String Theory whole heartedly with full force. To me this doesn't seem any more "out there" than God. In fact, no matter what is proven to be reality, it simply strengthens my faith, because how could something as magnificent and elegant as the Big Bang happen without THE God. I find it hard to swallow that things are the way they are "just because".And to Chiroptera:Thank you for the clarification. Aren't the best candidates thus far String/M-Theory and Eleven Dimensional Super Gravity? What other ones are there? And I know we have yet to obtain the technology to probe matter to the insane energy levels needed to prove or disprove these new theories. But I have feeling that we never will. And even if we did prove that the smallest constituents are one-dimensional "strings", or 1-D "strings" and 2-branes and 3-branes and 4-branes etc, I think we would eventually find more glaring problems, and a need for something more fundamental. And if we found and proved that, eventually we would again need something more fundamental for everything to fit together. I have a feeling that this chain will never stop, and those who are relying on it to reveal to them some sort meaningful answer as to their relevance in existence or lack thereof are in for an extremely rude awakening once the Lord returns.Am I getting too far off topic? I'm sorry.ICANT:The universe IS NOT the size of a pea at T=0.... right? Once it has reached that size most of it's expansion is already complete. Saying that the universe is the size of a pea and then understanding that there is NO time OR space at T=0 is asinine. A definitive size would indicate existing space. Before the instance of t=10^-40 ANYTHING is possible... the "shapes" could have gone through a series of changes, or things could have come into and gone out of existence. Things that are simply incomprehensible. T=0, for all intents and purposes, means existence=0. Or not even that. It is simply a theorized start used to make calculations. Am I way off here?Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.Edited by McCartlennstarrison, : No reason given.

I don't really know. I don't really have the training to truly understand this particular field, and I haven't even kept up with the popular science accounts in the last decade so what I think I know is probably out of date.- That may very well be true. I don't know about those particular theories, but I think our theories are getting close to a point where we might not be able to test them. And, in that case, we start getting into things that no longer fit into what we consider to be science.But they are certainly close to science -- they are serious attempts to mathematically model areas that we do not yet clearly understand. It's possible that our concept of what science is will change to accomodate this type of work. The definition of science has changed in the past (to accomodate geology and biology, for example), and it's likely to change in the future.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

It's an analogy, so it's not going to be dead-on. Right. So, if all of the spacial dimensions are represented by the circumference of the latitudes, then as you move South, the spacial dimensions are larger. If you represent matter by dribbling water on the North Pole to simulate everything starting at T=0, and let the water run down the globe, all of the matter gets farther away from each other as they move South, through time. You could also think of matter as being represented by the longitude lines for the same reason. And that's where our analogy stops. The Universe may very well be like that, but we honestly don't know. At the point in time we exist, the Universe has not started to shrink. In fact, it looks like the expansion is increasing. So let's just pretend this globe only has a top half. We have no idea what the rest of it looks like. And again, that's not what we're trying to go for with this analogy. The analogy only works if we assume that we can only experience the surface of the globe, and only move South. If your experience was tied to moving South on the globe, the latitudes would seem to be expanding to you, too. From the outside that's just the shape of the globe, period. If you were a drop of water running down the globe, you'd think "this surface I'm on is getting bigger." Is it "getting bigger?" No - it has a certain shape, and the motion of the water drop makes it seem that the surface is getting bigger.So too with us. Our experience through time makes it seem like the Universe is expanding...and from our perspective, it's accurate to say that it is. But really, we're just experiencing the shape of the Universe the same way the water drop is experiencing the shape of the globe. We see galaxies "moving" apart as the space between increases, just as the water drops move apart from each other as the latitudes increase. Remember, space is part of the Universe...you can't really say that space is expanding inside of the Universe any more than you can say that the walls of a box could expand "within the box."But again, space is expanding from our perspective. If you could see it from the outside, it would just have a certain shape, like our globe example. From our perspective they are. If you look at the Universe from the outside, the galaxies are like the longitudes of our globe. If you are one of those lines, the others are farther apart as you move South. But looking from the outside, you see that the Universe simply exists as a discrete entity with a defined shape. The surface area is different at each latitude, so the objects on the globe exist at different distances depending on how far North or South they are. Basically. "Change" requires time, because you need a "before" and an "after." Outside of time, which follows our analogy because we're outside the globe, there is no "change." Conditions are different on the globe at each coordinate, but "change" only exists to the perspective of someone on the globe travelling South. Slightly off there. It is the universe. You're treating this as if they've told you there's some sort of cosmic "seed" that "contained" the universe. Perhaps it's because peas have pods - but their description was only meant to describe the size of the Universe, nothing more. The Universe, in its entirety (meaning all of the space, matter, energy, etc that makes it up) existed as something the size of a pea. Even smaller, in fact, if you go back farther as Cavediver pointed out. Much like the North Pole in our globe analogy - all of the "stuff" in the Universe, represented by longitude lines, or water, or whatever, is in an incredibly small spot exactly at the North Pole, which represents T=0. And in this case, what you'd "like to think" is correct. That "pea sized object" is the Universe. This is a misconception. There is a singularity at the center of a black hole for the same reason there is a singularity at T=0: the math we use to describe the natural laws of physics stop working in black holes. You can't think of a singularity as an object - it's an idea promoted by scifi liek Star Trek and dumbed-down TV documentaries, but it's inaccurate. A singularity is simply any point where the mathematics physicists use stops making any sense. Singularities could be described as giant signs that say "I can't describe what's going on here." Extreme density will do that. I don't know if your temperature number is accurate, but "really freaking hot" will suffice. Because of the extreme energy density, the base particles that make up what we call matter were vibrating at relativistic velocities - significant fractions of the speed of light. It was that hot...and that's why matter didn't exist in the form we recognize today. The extreme density and temperature is one of teh reasons we have a singularity at T=0. The math breaks down when the numbers get that large. Gravity attracts other matter and bends space, but it has nothing to do with space expanding. Essentially. Which is why we can't describe T=0. Thats why there's a singularity. We can only describe the conditions a moment later. Note also that the universe was not the size of a pea at T=0...that was a moment later. At T=0, it was much smaller. The closer you get to T=0, the more the dimensions all approach 0 as well. The "pea" would be like the arctic circle on our globe. T=0 is the point at the Pole itself. You can't really say "yet" at T=0 either. That's a time=based descriptor. Nothing. That's why it's been expanding for literally all of time. You can't "hold" something without time. What you're saying is identical to taking a photograph of a falling object and asking "what's holding the object up?" The answer, of course, is nothing. It's not being held up at all.But once again we're drifting away from the globe analogy, and we've already acknowledged that you don't quite understand it yet. So let's keep trying - once you understand the model, we can finally start debating it.

Welcome to EvC McCartlennstarrison We had a 400+ message topic Herewhere I argued that the singularity could not be at T=O.Since I believe there was something (God) before T=O I agreed that there was something at T=O.So in this thread which starts a race at the T=10^40. I have been trying to find out what caused this miniature universe to start to expand.Maybe you could shed some light on the subject?My definition of T=O without God would be: T=O = an absence of anything. I agree that is the reason I keep insisting there is no time and no space at T=O. This miniature universe is in Hawking's imaginary time.
Because there is no time at Time = O.Time, Space, gravity, all matter and energy exists inside the universe.
Nothing exists outside the universe The universe don't exist without the Big Bang, as it causes the existence of the universe.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Esentially what you're getting at is that something got the wheels in motion, so to speak. Ok.Now you choose to answer that with God. Ok.Why?Even if the race had to "get started" so to speak, why would you answer the natural causes that "got it started" with something even more complicated than the question itself? It can't be answered with physics, and thats all anyone can give you is a math equation.I think understanding the descriptions that everyone has been kind enough to give you, and I leared a great deal from it as well, is suffice, your need for a causation is a personal question that won't be explained thru physics, and for that matter won't be debunked thru physics either.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies