Bang/Crunch Revisited

[Moontanman]

Well Michael, lots of words can accurately be used to describe me but "fool" isn't one of them. If you know more about this than Hawking does then I would be a fool to dispute you wouldn't I? I bow to your superior intellect.

[Michael Mooney]

Moontanman:

Well Michael, lots of words can accurately be used to describe me but "fool" isn't one of them. If you know more about this than Hawking does then I would be a fool to dispute you wouldn't I? I bow to your superior intellect.

Don't just settle for being a smart ass. I think your comment above is disingenuous. If you think M-theory is a viable cosmology, explain in your own words how those 11 dimensions make sense to *you.* If they don't, then don't bs me about it.

It is a fact that I knew better than Hawking that " infinite mass density in zero volume" (a direct quote describing his singularity as the origin of the cosmos) was nonsense. I have a "gift of genius" for seeing nonsense and calling it as such. The Myspace archives will show, chronologically at least, the truth of the above. It has been a few years since he "recanted" and endorsed the latest (at the time) M-theory book. So I would not know where to find those particular Myspace posts. And he would never acknowledge my input anyway. It is the way of celebrity to ignore those not in the inner circle... and then just admit they were wrong as if it came to them from their own genius muse.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

WOW! I just got another "infraction" for telling the truth about my firsthand lifelong experience of GNOSIS.
I probably will soon be banned. If science can not even let a mystic/gnostic speak his truth...

And I always add the disclaimer that this source of knowing (the omnipresent NOW in this case) is not presented as "science."
Maybe if my every comment acknowledging this gnosis were posted in the theology forum...
Like... not allowed to say this here, so here is the link to the proper forum....

Quite an inconvenience... and seems absurd... but scientists disdain mystics, and they have the "power over' here to ban us at their whim... or as violating the rules against honest expression of gnostic knowing.
I can see the trend here. I don't even know hoe many "infractions" a guy gets before he is banned. I've lost count. If anyone has anything besides smart ass remarks, this is probably the time for serious science. Mostly my whole life this IQ thing has made people use whatever "credentials" they have to get the upper hand and try to "slay me."

this place is no different. One in ten million. Am I lying? Does the guy who accused me of lying get an "infraction."
I'll tune in tomorrow to find out. Waht a drama.
Waht about serious cosmology. The old Bang/Crunch is not dead yet, and my intention in this thread is to make an *intelligent argument* to resurrect it from the dumpster designated by the 'expanding space' theorists.
Michael
Michael

[Boof-head]

This possibly has a chance of being ignored, but Ashtekar is a name that should be familiar to someone here (I hope):

Loop quantum cosmology ...
Abhay Ashtekar and Edward Wilson-Ewing

Loop quantum cosmology (LQC) [4, 5] is constructed by applying methods of LQG to mini-superspaces obtained by a symmetry reduction of general relativity. In the homogeneous, isotropic cosmological models with a massless scalar field, quantum geometry effects of LQG have been shown to create a new repulsive force in the Planck regime. The force is so strong that the big bang is replaced by a specific type of quantum bounce.

Detailed and viable quantum theories were constructed in the homogeneous, isotropic case using the so-called “” scheme. A key open question has been whether or not the qualitative features of their Planck scale physics will persist in more realistic situations in which these strong symmetry assumptions do not hold exactly. A first step in this direction is to retain homogeneity and extend the “improved dynamics” of [10] to anisotropic situations.

In the isotropic case, there is only one non-trivial curvature invariant, the (space-time) scalar curvature (or, equivalently, matter density). In anisotropic situations Weyl curvature is non-zero and it too diverges at the big bang. Therefore, now one can enter the Planck regime in several inequivalent ways which suggests that the Planck scale physics would now be much richer.

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Well Michael, lots of words can accurately be used to describe me but "fool" isn't one of them. If you know more about this than Hawking does then I would be a fool to dispute you wouldn't I? I bow to your superior intellect.

I missed the "fool" reference. Is it in this thread?

May I volunteer to be the fool so we can go on with a relatively adult discussion? It doesn't mean that much to me, but apparently, Moontanman, it means a lot to you.

Michael, I might owe you an apology, since I can readily see that you didn't start the name-calling this time. I hope I do have a chance to apologize. I always like both the giving and receiving of apologies. They facilitate so much more than the self-conscious avoidance of them ever will.

--lemit

p.s. I do have the feeling of being a small child trying to get the adults to stop fighting. In that vein:

Hey! I'm down here!

Thanks for noticing.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

These links are interesting reading.

[0711.1824] From Big Crunch to Big Bang with AdS/CFT
From Big Crunch to Big Bang with AdS/CFT

Authors: Neil Turok, Ben Craps, Thomas Hertog
(Submitted on 12 Nov 2007 (v1), last revised 27 Dec 2007 (this version, v3))

Abstract: The AdS/CFT correspondence is used to describe five-dimensional cosmology with a big crunch singularity in terms of super-Yang-Mills theory on R times S^3 deformed by a potential which is unbounded below. Classically, a Higgs field in the dual theory rolls to infinity in finite time. But since the S^3 is finite, the unstable mode spreads quantum mechanically and the singularity is resolved when self-adjoint boundary conditions are imposed at infinity. Asymptotic freedom of the coupling governing the instability gives us computational control and the quantum spreading provides a UV cutoff on particle creation. The bulk interpretation of our result is a quantum transition from a big crunch to a big bang. An intriguing consequence of the near scale-invariance of the dual theory is that a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of stress-energy perturbations is automatically generated in the boundary theory. We comment on implications for more realistic cosmologies.

and

[0712.4180] Quantum Resolution of Cosmological Singularities using AdS/CFT
Quantum Resolution of Cosmological Singularities using AdS/CFT

Authors: Ben Craps, Thomas Hertog, Neil Turok
(Submitted on 27 Dec 2007 (v1), last revised 9 Apr 2008 (this version, v4))

Abstract: The AdS/CFT correspondence allows us to map a dynamical cosmology to a dual quantum field theory living on the boundary of spacetime. Specifically, we study a five-dimensional model cosmology in type IIB supergravity, where the dual theory is an unstable deformation of $\N=4$ supersymmetric SU(N) gauge theory on $\Rbar\times S^3$. A one-loop computation shows that the coupling governing the instability is asymptotically free, so quantum corrections cannot turn the potential around. The big crunch singularity in the bulk occurs when a boundary scalar field runs to infinity, in finite time. Consistent quantum evolution requires that we impose boundary conditions at infinite scalar field, {\it i.e.} a self-adjoint extension of the system. We find that quantum spreading of the homogeneous mode of the boundary scalar leads to a natural UV cutoff in particle production as the wavefunction for the homogeneous mode bounces back from infinity. Translating back to the bulk theory, we find that a quantum transition from a big crunch to a big bang is the most probable outcome of cosmological evolution, for a specific parameter range. Intriguingly, the instability and approximate scale-invariance of the boundary theory lead to the generation of an approximately scale-invariant spectrum of stress-energy perturbations on the boundary, whose amplitude is naturally small. We comment on qualitative differences with holographic descriptions of large black holes, on four-dimensional generalizations and on implications for cosmological perturbations.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

True, but then cosmology is mostly theoretical, and evidence to back up each theory the more rare commodity.

Theory with attempts to back-up by evidence as it comes.
Sometimes (if not often) Theory gets ahead of Experimentation & Validation.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As you know, I keep hammering on String/M-theory with its 11 to 26 "dimensions" and clashing membranes/imaginary "universes for this very reason.

I empathize with on this subject. Though I do love the elegance of M-Theory, aside
from struggling to understand it. I find it hard to consider it credible when no current
corroboration is available (if even attainable).

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And I'd rather not even go into "time reversal" again. I don't see time as an entity.

The notion "time reversal" [is] not an entity as you say. This "reversal" of time is a
thing you [can] do to any model as though running a movie in reverse to understand
what is going on. It is the Model which is run backwards Only.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

There simply can be no "boundary" to space. What... a wall... of...?... and beyond that... hey, more space... no matter what may be out there floating around in it. (More Big Balloons with zillions of little expanding bubble/cosmi like ours as the "rubber molecules?")

Wheeler has theorized of a "Multiverse" where what is "outside" or observable universe
is "whole" other "bubble" universes in a higher (> 3 or 4) dimension vector space.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Please explain and document (this is a formal request) how seven of the eleven "dimensions" in String/M-theory (after 3-D space and "elapsed time for all movement"... 4-d) are derived and what there referents in the observable cosmos are.

For a detailed explanation will require more math than I think you are willing to bear
(or I am able demonstrate with proper authority). You might consult a book by Michio
Kaku on M-Theory (though I admit, I have struggled to get past page 30).

I will say the following: the Space(s) as a Subspace of a larger Vector space are treated
together as a Direct Sum when with respect to Dimension as follows

For M an 11-dimensional Vector space can be broken into V a 4-dimensional space and
U a 7-dimensional space. So the larger space can be formed as Direct Sum

M = V + U => 11 = 4 + 7

You can create a vector space when the underlying basis can form a group.

Our 4-dimension space (3 space, 1 time) is Isomorphic to the Quaternion Division Algebra (1, i, j, k).

Equivalently 7-dimensional space is Isomorphic to the Octonion Division if adding 1
dimension (Octonians are of order 8). Octonians along with other order-8 Alternative
Algebras (E8 for instance) are all Isomorphic to Tensors (often used in GR).

So for 11-dimensions (in order to work with Supergravity - which is a Supersymmetric
Gravity representation) for strings (or M-Theory).

BTW one of the variants of String Theory is Heterotic (E8 x E8) String which is the closest
String Theoretic representation of Gravity.

I learned from a book by Roger Penrose that recently Ed Witten has considered adding
one more dimension an to consider using the Group F12 (order 12 group) yielding a
12-dimensional Theory.

Alternately Ed has considered as of 2005-2006 to incorporate Twistor Theory in with
String Theory (M-Theory). Twistors is a representation where the coordinated are
Complexified (each coordinate is complex value instead of Real).

The above does not really do M-Theory justice and would require a whole thread itself and
an actual String Theorist to give the results.

Sad for you is it will require more math than most are willing to stomach (let alone
comprehend). This is the best I could do.

maddog

Moderation Note: Responses concerning math's place in physics were moved to "Discussion of math’s place in physics from a thread on cyclic cosmology" because they are off topic in this thread

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

WOW! I just got another "infraction" for telling the truth about my firsthand lifelong experience of GNOSIS.
I probably will soon be banned. If science can not even let a mystic/gnostic speak his truth...

I doubt the infraction was from your claim of a personal Gnostic Experience. Usually
infractions are from "not following rules", or personally attacking someone. However,
Michael the moderators have maybe added one just for 'you' -- that is your Cosmic
level Arrogance.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And I always add the disclaimer that this source of knowing (the omnipresent NOW in this case) is not presented as "science."
Maybe if my every comment acknowledging this gnosis were posted in the theology forum...
Like... not allowed to say this here, so here is the link to the proper forum....

That might be true. Gnosticism can be construed as a Religious experience, that would
put it in Theology.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Quite an inconvenience... and seems absurd... but scientists disdain mystics, and they have the "power over' here to ban us at their whim... or as violating the rules against honest expression of gnostic knowing.

I wouldn't think "Science" has disdain of Mysticism per se. Just unfounded claims or
something on the order of "I was abducted by Aliens". Not very credible in a science
forum.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I can see the trend here. I don't even know hoe many "infractions" a guy gets before he is banned. I've lost count. If anyone has anything besides smart ass remarks, this is probably the time for serious science. Mostly my whole life this IQ thing has made people use whatever "credentials" they have to get the upper hand and try to "slay me."
this place is no different. One in ten million. Am I lying? Does the guy who accused me of lying get an "infraction."
I'll tune in tomorrow to find out. Waht a drama.

Oh, there goes the Arrogance meter again. Really ... How do you keep that Ego in
check ? And you profess to be a Psychologist.... I wonder what your patients think of
you... Or do you even have a practice anymore.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Waht about serious cosmology. The old Bang/Crunch is not dead yet, and my intention in this thread is to make an *intelligent argument* to resurrect it from the dumpster designated by the 'expanding space' theorists.

Biggest hurdle I think is how to explain evidence from WMAP and other CMBR satellite
data.

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

While I'm waiting for Qfwfq to reopen the spacetime thread and allow my last two posts there (or for hell to freeze over), I would very much appreciate some feedback on what seems to me the most central and fundamental issue in cosmology:
If the cosmos is not cyclical (oscillating... Bang/Crunch wise) then how did all cosmic material/energy/plasma come into existence? If it is cyclical, then the answer is obvious. It all has always existed and will always exist (nothing created or destroyed but only changing form.) It goes "bang" and expands until gravity reverses it and brings it back to "crunch" and immediately go "bang" again... over and over perpetually.
Whether or not there exists enough mass for such gravitational reversal is still an open question.
Also See the "entropy..." takeoff from the "spacetime" thread for arguments pro and con on entropy as a spoiler for perpetual cycling.

Anyway a co-related question concerns the "linear thinking" alternative to a perpetually cyclic cosmology. Does anyone here believe that there was a "beginning of time" at the moment of the Bang (regardless of whether or not it eventually reverses and crunches again?)

And finally, how do advocates of an "everything out of nothing" cosmos and a "beginning of time" distinguish such a belief from Creationism as a miraculous creation of cosmos out of nothing?

Any takers?
Michael