The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a smart and engaging radio show, Quirks & Quarks. Yesterday’s show focused on a big question: What happened at, and before, the Big Bang? Mavens queried included Robert Brandenberger, Paul Steinhardt, Justin Khoury, and of course me (otherwise it’s somewhat less likely that I’d be blogging about it, I guess). The blurb:
The Big Bang theory of the origin of our universe is widely accepted by the physics community. The idea that our universe started out as some infinitesimally small point, which expanded out to what we see today, makes a lot of sense. Except for one small thing. That initial point, called a singularity by physicists, is a physical impossibility. According to the models we have today, the temperature of the universe at that first moment would have had to be infinite, which mathematically makes no sense. Also, the singularity doesn’t do a good job of explaining where all the matter and energy we see today in the universe came from. So, physicists are increasingly starting to look at other branches of physics to see what they can do to replace the singularity with a more reasonable proposition, one which can actually be explained by existing science.
Listen here. As we’ve talked about on this very blog, the time is right to push our understanding of the universe back before the Big Bang and ask what was really happening. Current ideas are understandably vague, but the only way to improve them is to keep exploring.
One slight clarification, to those who listen: in the interview, I give an entropy-based argument against bouncing cosmologies. That’s appropriate for the ekpyrotic universe, but not necessarily for the most recent versions of the cyclic universe. In these models, the universe never really crunches; it keeps expanding, but at some point flares back to life — particles are created without space ever contracting. Some sort of thermodynamic sleight-of-hand is still being pulled — the entropy of the whole universe rises monotonically for all of eternity, which seems a bit fishy — but the argument is somewhat different.
Dear John,
“So how do you propose to get out of that box?”
Please see the links in Norn Nason’s post in this thread.
I think time (relative interval, and that which is “represented” by a clock) definitely is just a consequence of motion and the capability for physical continuity in Nature. That is, it is not the other way around with time enabling motion and change.
Best wishes
Peter
Well John there are such scientists known as SuperCosmologists and they think outside the box.
Hmmm…. questions float around in my mind. 🙂
It is about, going from a false vacuum to a true? What”Genus Figure” would explain this? A journey into the mathematical abstract with Mandelstam.
I think reductionistic physics has pointed to the direction from this universe has undergone?
A “relativistic condition” in the gluon plasmatic state? Of course Steinberg talks about the Granular, so to some it may not seem smooth.
Is there not a direct link between “reductionistic physics” and the start of our universe? There is between cosmic rays and the work at Atlas.
Seems to me that a physicist’s knee-jerk reaction to “what happened before the big bang” is that this is most likely not a “good question”. It also strikes me that this is one of those ubiquitous physics-speak words that maybe is not appreciated by the general public, so maybe that is a good chance to explain that concept. Of course I am far from being fluent in the collection of answers given to that question, it may well be that the knee-jerk reaction is one of them already.
Peter,
If you accept that time is a consequence of motion, then the real question is how to include the entire cycle within the physical reality of the present. Heat, as radiant energy, expands out from hot bodies into space, but gravity is creating these bodies. So the cycle is of collapsing mass and expanding radiation. In this sense matter and energy constitute opposite effects and thus opposite directions of time. Consider a factory. The objective product is going from initiation to completion, but the process goes the other direction, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. Matter is the product, as it condenses out of interstellar gases, to ever larger bodies and eventually burns up, either radiating as light before it reaches the horizon line of the black hole at the core of a galaxy, or shot out the poles as a jet of plasma, if it falls in. The process is akin to a convective cycle, with galaxies as storms and CMBR as the atmospheric level of radiation, with the 2.7K cutoff as dew-point. Just as gravity causes our measure of space to contract, radiation would cause it to expand. Since there is no gravitational vortex to actually curve the path of light around, the only visible effect of this negative curvature would be red-shift. That is why the expansion mirrors a cosmological constant, not the rate associated with Big Bang Theory, so there would be no need for dark energy.
So the measure of time is the relationship of content to context, which go in opposite directions. To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise. The sun goes east to west, as the earth rotates west to east and individual days go from future to past. Energy is constantly breaking out of old forms and creating new, as these forms go from being new to old. Just as our bodies cycle cells, the larger organism of the species is going on to new generations, as it sheds the old, while our individual lives start in the future and end up in the past. Consciousness is a function of this proceeding into the future, but thought is the structure of information receding into the past.
Congratulations on your successes, you’ve been an inspiration of mine.
Moshe, I think that even physicists get led astray by the difference between the prediction of classical GR and the real world. Most working cosmologists have a practiced set of explanations for why there is no such thing as “before the Big Bang,” as that’s where time and space come into existence. But the truth is, that conception comes out of classical GR, where the BB is a true singularity. But there’s no reason to believe anything that classical GR says at the singularity; the theory breaks down. In the real world, the BB might essentially be a boundary to spacetime, or there might be some perfectly well-defined spacetime that was “before” the Bang. So the properly correct answer is simply “we don’t know, but we’re thinking about it,” and I see no reason not to be honest about it.
Hi John,
“If you accept that time is a consequence of motion, then the real question is how to include the entire cycle within the physical reality of the present.
I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying, although I would say that I do not think that the present exists either.
Thanks for your kind words. I’m not sure about success though. I feel as though I’ve got an awfully long way to go. In relation to my cosmology model, I think a feature of this thread (or lack of it) probably gives an indication of why. Although the devil in me disagrees, I’ll bite my tongue though.
Best wishes
Peter
Peter,
The problem with any conversation is getting on the same page and when we do, it isn’t always the best one, since politics is as much a factor as reason, even in science.
As for whether the present exists, it is only the physical that exists and it’s mostly moving about at the speed of light, so our minds think by consolidating all the input into flashes of individual thoughts. Otherwise it would just be a blur of energy. Our mind moves forward, consuming energy and the information it is recording, as the thoughts created quickly recede into the past. It is this sequencing that makes time seem like it must be a fundamental dimension.
Another analogy for time is Complexity Theory, with chaos as future potential, order as past circumstance and the present as complex interface.
Order for one person can be chaos for another. That is life.
Regards,
John
On the relationship of reason to politics;
Three dimensions are not an objective description of space. They are the coordinate system of the point that these three lines cross. While it takes a coordinate system to make sense of circumstance, any number of such frames can be used to define the same space. The tensions caused by this are politics. The linear sequencing of any particular frame isn’t as important to other frames, thus concern for the future and consideration of the past do not resonate across a fractured political landscape. In this case, the levels of activity and energy, i.e. temperature, are more descriptive then any linear accounting. It is only when the wave of potentialities has passed and winners and losers have been determined, with winners writing the history books, that it all gets squeezed into one frame and everything is linear and logical.
Or, as has been said of politics in science; Change happens one funeral at a time.
Sean,
I’m not sure I agree that we need to explain why there should be compactness. I look at the history of the universe like an electron in a box: there are your set of equations which permit a set of solutions and all solutions exist. If these equations look anything like GR then probably more of the solutions have one or more points where the size of the universe gets very small are stable. The question is, is our universe what we expect, i.e. is it typical of the all solutions to the equations that are habitable.
Of course you have the advantage over me of knowing what you are talking about. Is it true that stationary cosmologies are rare solutions to the equations of GR and if so what is the reason that you feel we need to explain the Universe “getting small”.
If all of the physics is reversible and the solutions are discrete then picking a history of the universe at random with equal probability and looking at the state of the history at a given time is the same as picking at random with equal probability from the set of possible states of the universe at that time. I’m just restating the second law of thermodynamics – sort of.
Does the Anthropic principle explain everything, i.e. habitable universes are not homogeneous? I don’t think it adequately does, but I do think that it begins to.
Pingback: Singularity is, like…, so yesterday | The Big Picture
Another reason to throw out eternity: This is the eternal time paradox.
Think of the time-line for something eternal. Mark off the present on the time-line as P. Mark off somewhere in the past as X. For an eternal reality (something that has always existed) it takes an infinite amount of time to reach X (by definition of eternal). Now we can push back X as far into the past as we like. No matter how far we push it back it will always take an infinite amount of time to reach X. And there is no limit to how far back we can push X. From this we can conclude that for an eternal reality the present time P will never be reached. This is the paradox.
So anything eternal cannot exist. If something is to exist, it needs a beginning a finite time back in the past. Just like Bing Bang shows. As you all (maybe) know by now there are also other reasons why the concept of something eternal is logically impossible.
Or am I wrong? 🙂
Carl,
I think you’re right about it being impossible for the past to be infinite. But as Peter Lynds pointed out, the universe could equally also not have had a beginning at some finite time in the past. That is not to say that there was no big bang, because there almost certainly was. Rather that it couldn’t have represented a beginning.
Jo
How do we deal with the fact that past and future simply do not physically exist? I realize this is an intellectual conundrum, because our minds are a function of narrative, BUT this is physics, not history!!!!!! Only the physical exists and it only exists as its current state. That is a problem of physics that cannot be ignored forever. It is the elephant in the room.
I always get confused about the Einstein Frame/Jordan Frame/Matter Frame stuff. It seems (from statements like this comment) that observables are different when computed in the two different frames, therefore the different frames are not equivalent, but there is a frame in which the calculations should be done, and doing so in the other is incorrect.
Is this true or am I missing something? If true, which is the correct frame?Or could you please point me to a reference which discusses this issue?
Jo, either the beginning is a finite time in the past or else there is no beginning (eternal existence).
But no beginning is not possible. No beginning of existence = No existence.
rgb,
Observables are frequently different when observing in different frames of reference. For a rudimentary example, if we take the reference frame of the driver of the car, the car has zero kinetic energy (since the driver is at rest with respect to the car). From the frame of a person on the side of the road, however, the car has significant kinetic energy.
Dear John,
I don’t see the lack of future or past as representing any problem. Indeed, as far as physical continuity is concerned, I think it represents something of a savoir! Of course, gr tells us that events and times are all mapped out together, neither happening in the past, present or future, and sharing equal temporal status. My cosmology model actually says the same, while also saying that what we would normally call the future can equally be called the past, and vice versa. As long as one recognises that, like instants and spatial points, space-time points do not exist either, motion can still take place (and the hands of clock rotate etc). This is a given and doesn’t require time (past, present, future, time physically existing etc). If you like, and as I said before, it is motion that enables time (the hands of a clock to rotate), rather than the other way around, and, in physics anyway, one has to forget about the past, present, future, time physically existing, flowing etc. All there is the capability for physical continuity, motion, change etc, in Nature – something which is a given if there is some matter present – and this in turn enables one to represent time (interval) with a clock. The same can be said for space and a ruler.
Dear CarlN,
“either the beginning is a finite time in the past or else there is no beginning (eternal existence).
But no beginning is not possible. No beginning of existence = No existence.”
I think you’ll find that a universe with a beginning at some finite time in the past is just as impossible as one with an infinite past. Neither can be correct. There is, however, a third option that doesn’t involve contradiction and actually resolves some other troublesome problems in the process. Recognising what it is just requires one to closely examine one’s regular assumption about cause i.e., that events are always caused by ones (that we normally would term to be) in the past. I think recognising that there really isn’t any other option and that there must be something a little bit different to what we’re used going on, also helps.
Best wishes
Peter
Mr. LeFong:
Things like stock market prices, miniature golf scores, post-drugged semen levels, and chronic back pain and flatulence can fluctuate naturally and may regress towards the mean and uncalled for. The logical flaw is to make predictions that expect exceptional results to continue as if they were the average, a representativeness heuristic if I ever saw one! People are most likely to take action when dissent, like morning wood, is at its peak. Then after results become more normal or less turgid, they believe that their action was the cause of the change when in fact it was not causal, wherein cohesion between objects of similar silly appearance is assumed. While often very useful in everyday life, it can also result in neglect of relevant base rates and volumes, an inability to play funk, and other errors. Another snag you may encounter involves describing some occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem, when, throughout my garbled history, it’s been commonly identified again and again that, if the nuns of the order of Sisters of Saint Joseph are to be believed, I am the one with the “problem”. Though misleading vividness does nothing to support an argument logically, it can have a very strong psychological effect because of a cognitive forceful brainwashing called the availability heuristic. Another area that needs to be dealt with in a timely and thorough manner is several references in my late Elementary/Junior-high phase of mutational development, otherwise known as the “Parade of horribles”, originally referred to as a literal parade of people wearing comic and grotesque costumes, rather like the Philadelphia Mummers Parade or my yearly family reunion. It was a traditional feature of Fourth-of-July parades in dismal parts of the U. S. in the nineteenth century without indoor plumbing. A 1926 newspaper article about July Fourth celebrations in the White Mountains of New Hampshire notes “Old-time celebrations are to be held tomorrow at Littleton, Lancaster, Colebrook, and Conway, with all the usual features of street parades of horribles and grotesques, brass balls bands, decorated automobiles and vehicles, dance exhibitions by fire departments, basket picnics in convenient small groves, finger-sniffing contest sponsored by the local Catholic diocese, and the regional dwarf tossing semi-finals…”. And to further enlighten and confuse, in Hesse’s “Steppenwolf”, the protagonist affirms that the men of the Dark Ages (see “Living at Virginia’s house”) did not suffer more than those of the Classical Antiquity (see “Attending Catholic school in the 60’s”), and vice-versa. It is rather those who live between two times, those who do not know what to follow, that suffer the most. In this token, a man from Virginia’s house attending Catholic school, or the opposite, would undergo a gulping sadness and agony.
Peter,
I really do see a big problem with the concept of time where ” events and times are all mapped out together, neither happening in the past, present or future, and sharing equal temporal status.” It models time as a static dimension, when time is dynamic process. It’s like dissecting an organism to find out what makes it alive and then laying all the parts out in a line. Time is a vector because it has direction, but the point I’m trying to make, in pointing out that energy and information go in opposite directions, is that these two directions cancel out. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Thus; To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise. Therefore while it may have direction, it just doesn’t have dimension.
If time is a property and consequence of motion, then it is similar to temperature, as they would both be methods of defining and measuring motion. Scale and vector. Even thermodynamics is a vector of a scalar activity.
I’m not really setting out to be too heretical, but I don’t see space as being entirely relative. Maybe our mapping of it is, but the territory is another matter. Consider first that gravity is described as bending space because light passing though gravity fields is distorted. Distorted compared to what? To what would otherwise be a straight line through that area. Light passing through a medium such as a glass prism is distorted, but we don’t say that space is bent because we know what the medium distorting it is. We say gravity distorts space because we really haven’t figured gravity out yet, other then it affects the relationships of matter and energy, so we model it as bent space.
Now consider that Inflation Theory says that space itself is expanding, rather then the volume of the universe is simply increasing. What is it expanding relative to? Our most basic concept of distance in space is C, the speed of light in a vacuum. So if space is expanding, it would seem necessary that this basic ruler of distance be stretching as well, such that it would take the same amount of time/duration to cross the same proportion of space. Otherwise the speed of light is based on some other dimension of space then what is being expanded. Example; Say another galaxy is a billion lightyears away. If the universe doubles in size, is that galaxy now two billion lightyears away, or is it still only one billion years away, since our unit of measure, the lightyear, is being stretched as well? Obviously the problem here is that if our unit of measure was being stretched as well, we wouldn’t even be able to detect the expansion, since we would have nothing to compare it to. On the other hand, if C isn’t increasing, then we don’t have expanding space, we having increasing distance in stable space. To put this in context; Doppler Effect isn’t about expanding space either. It is also increasing distance in stable space. The train might be moving away down the tracks, but the tracks are not being stretched. The effect is due to this relationship of motion over distance relative to a stable measure of space.
This throws a large monkey wrench into the Inflation Theory/Big Bang model, because all the galaxies outside our local system are redshifted so that they appear to be flying directly away from us, as if ours was the center of the universe. Thus it was proposed that it is space itself that is expanding, not just the universe in space.
If, on the other hand, we have a negative curvature caused by radiation, being opposed to the positive curvature of gravity, this would explain redshift as a distortion of objective sight lines, as gravity distorts objective sight lines, as previously mentioned. Since it isn’t gravitational vortexes pulling matter and energy around, this wouldn’t actually curve the path of light, but cause it to redshift, as if it had to cross a greater distance then might objectively exist, like walking up the down escalator. Sort of like light climbing over a hill, as opposed to falling into a gravity well. Flat space would be if these two effects balance out. This idea first occured to me on learning that Omega must be very close to 1 for the universe to be as stable as it is. If expansion is balanced by gravity, then there is no additional expansion for the entire universe to expand, so it must be some form of cycle. Thus it can appear that all these other galaxies are flying directly away from us, because we only measure the light crossing the space, not all that falling into other gravity wells. Additionally the pressure of expansion would cause the outer bands of galaxies to spin faster, explaining the reason ascribed to dark matter.
One of your early observations about dimensions not being completely dimensionless, i.e. a point/line/plane cannot have a zero dimension, was very influential to my ideas about space, though I might describe it as a virtual dimension. The point is that they are still a point of reference and not zero. Zero in geometry isn’t the dimensionless point, but the absence of any point, with the potential for all points. In other words, empty space as the absolute. Both everything and nothing, complete neutrality. Flat line down the middle, as well as balance between the two sides. The vacuum that fluctuates.
To tie this back to the discussion of time, if time isn’t actually a dimension, then arguing whether it has a beginning or end is about as meaningless as arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The only point of relevance would be whether motion has cause. The most basic statement made on this is that the vacuum fluctuates. Space and energy are inseparable.
Fortunately this is advocation, not vocation, or I would be out of work. The only one with the fortitude to actually address these issues I’ve raised on various threads in this forum over the last few weeks has been Jason dick and while he has admitted I may have a point, at least that there are potentially two directions of time, his rebuttal has been that unless I can express it in the mathematical formulae by which time is currently described, any point I might have is meaningless. To which I’ve pointed out that math, like any language, is a model, not an ideal. It is not an argument against what I said, but a retreat into formula. It’s about like saying belief isn’t really religion unless the Mass is in Latin. I can understand the lack of reaction though. The discipline of Physics requires an overwhelming amount of study of a system that is implicitly or explicitly based on the modeling of time as a dimension, so saying it isn’t is like loading a mac program in a PC. Does not compute.
Regards,
John
Sure, but then there is a clear way of the observer physically going from one frame to another. These have to do with a physically different state of the observer. In your rudimentary example, you would tell me to get into a car of speed v wrt to the standing man to see the zero velocity (and hence KE).
Going from the Einstein to Jordan frame involves a conformal transformation and redefinitions of a scalar field. This seems like a more mathematical transformation somewhat like a use of a different coordinate system. In that case all observables must be independent of these frames.
Perhaps, you are saying that there is a physical way in which an observer can go from one of these frames to another. If so, I would like to know how. That would perfectly answer my question.
Thanks.
rgb, the difference between the frames is (as you seem to know) just a change of field variables. Morally, it’s not much different from a change of coordinates. In particular, any true “observable” won’t depend on the frame. But “size of the universe” (or really “scale factor”) is not an observable; something like “frequency of a photon in the observer’s frame” is. That can be calculated equally well in either frame, of course. In the Jordan frame it’s just a matter of solving the geodesic equation for the photon, so it’s tempting to think of that frame as “what observers really measure.” But you could also do it in the Einstein frame, where your description would involve a direct interaction between the photon and the scalar field.
Hi Peter, I think that a reality where time reverses on regular basis actually is an eternal existence. It has always “been there”. Now, why should there be something like this instead of nothing? Also, it seems that our universe will just keep expanding, and there will never be a “reversed time” state.
You wrote earlier:
“However, the universe can also not have had a beginning at some finite time in the past (if so, what caused it, and what caused that, and so on…). Both ideas result in very real contradiction. ”
I believe there is no contradiction here. What is needed is an explanation for how something exists rather than nothing. And the explanation cannot involve anything but nothing!
Nothingness takes precedence over existence. Nothingness does not need an explanation or a cause. Existence on the other hand, needs any explanation, but cannot be explained by something that exists. Trying to do so is circular logic. The explanation for existence cannot involve anything that exist. So existence has to come from nothing.
But that is easy to understand:
1. “When” nothing exists there are no hinders for something to start to exist. Any such hinders don’t exist “when” nothing exists.
2. There are no conditions the need to be fulfilled for something to start to exist
“when” nothing exist. Any such conditions don’t exist “when” nothing exists.
3. No causation is needed for something to start to exist “when” nothing exits. Such need for causation does not exist “when” nothing exists.
So creation from nothing is actually logical. And when something starts to exist, it also has a beginning (a big bang). And naturally there is no time that “runs” before the big bang. Time (in this universe)
started only to run at the big bang. So we have naturally a finite beginning.
This goes on further. One can for example argue that only self-consistent “things” can start to exist “from” nothing, so that its existence does not in any way contradict itself. So no wonder the laws of physics looks like mathematics. The math keeps the universe self-consistent.
Sorry for the bad English!
Regards,
Carl
CarlN: But no beginning is not possible. No beginning of existence = No existence.
Peter Lynds: Recognising what it is just requires one to closely examine one’s regular assumption about cause i.e., that events are always caused by ones (that we normally would term to be) in the past.
Unfortunately I can never agree with Carl’s logic. Mine, “may be” a contradiction.
But here”s the thing that sets the thought pattern for me about how we reduce our thinking and invite the greater potential of probability becoming into any discussion.
At first appearance of the ridicules would be the problem of the subconscious mind to introduce such outlandish circumstance to the objective mind to consider?
Based under this process is a mathematical pattern?
Now how could such “reductionistic features” produce such a probability in this situation.
This loop is inherent not only in the universe, but with our connection with reality? A Inductive/deductive approach. While this is a philosophical position, it is one that is necessary in providing that third option and enclosing the apparent contradiction with connectivity.
Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the “regress of reasons.” Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are “first principles.” The “Problem of First Principles” arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle’s answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.
Such acceptance of all things “already existing” allowed for the the provisions of Veneziano and others to introduce the a prior connection to our universe. It set the stage for further perceptions to be introduced? Also, verification.
Does anyone see anything wrong with this position?
John Merryman:
While this is has been my difficulty, I introduced a basis to the previous argument that is geometrically based. While it may have seemed “philosophical” it actually has some basis to it that one can retreat too, to see the ultimate form being expressed not only in our universe, but within the scope of our connection with reality.
So on that point you are wrong in my view and Jason Dick is right.
Plato,
I can see what you are getting at, that the whole is contained in the parts, but my problem is that trying to give form to function, which is what describing time as a static dimension does, is flawed. Think of it this way; Space is noun, time is verb. One is, the other does. It’s not like physics doesn’t understand this, consider the uncertainty principle, that you can’t measure both position and momentum. In more colloquial terms, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Trying to describe what is inherently dynamic as static misses the reality entirely. Is it any wonder that physics is trying to explain reality in terms of other dimensions and universes? It is science fiction. Psychedelic physics. Back in ’98, when Perlmutter and company found out that expansion didn’t match Big Bang Theory, there was no hint of reviewing the theory! Even though it did match a cosmological constant, the only possible explanation the cosmology establishment was willing to consider was that 70% of the universe is dark energy. Sometimes, there really are no weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes it’s the theory that’s wrong, not the evidence.