Bang/Crunch Revisited

[Boerseun]

"Mystical Visions" and things like "Deja Vu" are perfectly real.

But they are satisfactorily explained by science as being nothing more and nothing less than neurological malfunctions - so being a "lay scientist", you should know this and not attach too much value to any mysticism mumbo-jumbo.

Stick to the Science, and the Scientific Method, and stuff gets done.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

A long tirade to get to this bottom line!

Like you don't behave like windbag at times.... I have seem the length of some of you
posts. The point you were attempting to make not all that clear.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I do have a MA in philosophy (as well as psychology) and I can tell you that if the premise is false, all the internally, logically consistent math in the world will not make the cosmology correct. And no one will ever "observe" 'strings' or the imaginary membranes they weave which are supposed to clash and create cosmi lke ours.

So now the truth comes out... You only have an MA [#2]. Even someone who claims
to be as "logical" as you can not keep your opinions (bolded orange above) from leaking
out into your conclusions.

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

Over a month ago, post 20, I asked my most fundamental cosmological question, and later, in post 30, Pluto shared some links on cyclical, "Bang'Crunch" models, but the subsequent discussion never really addressed my post's questions or his links.

So this is basically a "bump" of the above two posts.
From my #20:

...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?

(Last try/bump for this "origins" question.)
Michael

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

So this is basically a "bump" of the above two posts.
From my #20:

To answer a question regarding the early stages of the big bang or what came before the big bang requires some tool or some model of the universe. This is true because we cannot look through a telescope and see the early universe or 'before the early universe'. So, the answer to your question will depend on the model used.

Big bang cosmology is modeled with general relativity. Yet, general relativity breaks down at the point of a singularity. So, as we look further back in time (or, as we model the universe further back in time) we get to a point where matter is infinitely dense beyond which general relativity gives us no answers.

The only solution is to use some tool other than GR such as M theory or loop quantum gravity. Those theories have not yet given falsifiable results, so at the present time all we can say is that we don't know what came 'before' the big bang singularity. Astrophysicists have ideas, but no one really knows, yet.

~modest

[enorbet2]

Fortunately for all of us we live in a time of fantastic growth in scientific quest to understand such huge and fundamental issues. IIRC there are good models of high energy states in only tiny fractions of a second (by our frame of reference) after the Big Bang and there exists numerous leaps of well-designed experiments now and for the very near future.

The Large Hadron Collider has everyone's "fingers crossed" that it will soon be up and running since it is bound to deliver new answers as well as formulate better questions. Presently Particle Physics probably holds the key to the most productive gains in Cosmology. If that seems like a contradiction, get this:
http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~dine/chaihouse_big_bang.ppt

The ESA is just on fire! with great exploratory tools with the Herschel and Planck telescopes already launched and on the way
ESA - Herschel and Planck
Planck - Home Page

As mentioned by Lee Smolin in the above powerpoint presentation, while particle physics is in the sharpest tool for now, ultimately a better understanding of gravity with special consideration to QM will be essential. This is underway also in missions including one with ESA in the LISA mission (in two parts beginning with LISA Pathfinder) which eventually will be three satellites at the 1.5 Million kilometers from Earth Lagrange Point forming an immense array for mapping gravity waves. It was awarded the most scientific mission currently planned.
ESA - Space Science - LISA Pathfinder overview
ESA Science & Technology: LISA

If you're interested in digging deeper into studies of Gravity this website is a massive source, although some articles are for pay only, but even the highlights are often wonderful. Incidentally for those who don't already know if you can't find a "Home" button just "walk backwards" with your "backspace" key to see more general pages and the scope of this awesome site.

Classical and Quantum Gravity

The above are only samples of what lies ahead for the next decade predicting considerable grist for the discussion mills here at Hypography.

Cheers

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Big bang cosmology is modeled with general relativity. Yet, general relativity breaks down at the point of a singularity. So, as we look further back in time (or, as we model the universe further back in time) we get to a point where matter is infinitely dense beyond which general relativity gives us no answers.

The "infinite density" of matter is a bogus concept. I debunked Hawking's "Infinite matter density in a point of zero volume*" (at Myspace) several months before he abandoned his "singularity" theory of cosmic origin and joined the M-theory camp.

(...still bogus whether "infinite density" is posited as contained in a point of zero volume (the height of absurdity!) or in a ball of matter of whatever size.)
I think the Schwarzschild radius for black holes of all sizes is the limit to how much matter can be compacted by gravity into a given sphere's volume. I could be wrong, but it is both intuitive and reasonable to me.

And if the laws of physics break down in a singularity (or the averge black hole, for that *matter*... then those "laws" are not universal and are therefore not science, as I see science.
Could be the assumptions about "singularities" are wrong after all.

And saying that what was before the Bang is beyond the realm of science (as many scientists do) is a major cop out. If the Bang/crunch (as I have modeled it) is ruled out and the fantasy physics of imaginary membrane "universes" takes over... pseudo-science will have taken over and science will be the poorer for it.

The only reasonable explanation for cosmic "origin" is that *all of it* has always existed and will always exist. So then the question becomes what was it all doing and where did it all come from before the Bang?
Out of nothing, from nowhere will not cut it any better than creationism does.

Michael

[enorbet2]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

The "infinite density" of matter is a bogus concept. I debunked Hawking's "Infinite matter density in a point of zero volume*" (at Myspace) several months before he abandoned his "singularity" theory of cosmic origin and joined the M-theory camp.

Michael, since you are trained in Philosopy, you should be familiar with Plato's concept of "Right Opinion" the one place Plato seems to hedge his bets leaning ever so slightly closer to the more scientifically based Aristotle. So do you mean the above statement to simply imply "right opinion" or are you actually comparing yourself, even suggesting superiority over, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and Ed Witten? Are your math skills on that level?

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

(...still bogus whether "infinite density" is posited as contained in a point of zero volume (the height of absurdity!) or in a ball of matter of whatever size.)
I think the Schwarzschild radius for black holes of all sizes is the limit to how much matter can be compacted by gravity into a given sphere's volume. I could be wrong, but it is both intuitive and reasonable to me.

This is exactly the point here. Human intuition and "reasonable", other than through math at least until the technology catches up sufficiently to do observation and experimentation where we yet have zero frame of reference, has no place at extreme scales of energy, size (in either direction) or even SpaceTime. I'm not as hardcore Science as some here, perhaps because I am also a musician and have seen the value of "getting out of the way" given sufficient programming and just let the program run, let instinct take over. That however has no place in discovering the nature of reality on extreme levels since we just don't live there and likely could make little sense of any data other than through higher cerebral functions. There are no short cuts to the Truth that I have ever witnessed.

<snip>

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And saying that what was before the Bang is beyond the realm of science (as many scientists do) is a major cop out. If the Bang/crunch (as I have modeled it) is ruled out and the fantasy physics of imaginary membrane "universes" takes over... pseudo-science will have taken over and science will be the poorer for it.

So please tell me how you avoid the "background independent" issue. Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Ed Witten and others are dying to know.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

The only reasonable explanation for cosmic "origin" is that *all of it* has always existed and will always exist. So then the question becomes what was it all doing and where did it all come from before the Bang?
Out of nothing, from nowhere will not cut it any better than creationism does.

That is a non sequitur just like the ones you deny. Just because you conclude something different when saying in effect "I don't know what it is therefore it must be A, B or C" No one letter of the alphabet, no concept is any better than another since it simply does not follow, whether it is reasonable and intuitive to you or anyone else.

We are all here trying to make sense of it all but for such an important job shouldn't we use the sharpest tools in the shed? I think it is safe to assume that when all we have is nails, everything starts looking like a hammer, but it is best to hold out till we actually have a hammer rather than destroy a screwdriver handle.... if you get my drift.
Regards

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

The "infinite density" of matter is a bogus concept.

Why? Do we even know enough of matter to assume this? For instance, if you were to scale an atom up to where the proton is the size of a pea, then an electron will be smaller than a gnat, orbiting at a distance (to scale) of more than fifty kilometers. Imagine, now, that the force that keeps the electron orbiting (instead of electrically falling straight into the proton) can be switched off, and all atoms can now fall together to fill up the void existing in the shell between electron and proton. How many peas and gnats can you fill in to a sphere with a fifty kilometer radius? That is how little we know and understand of matter in our everyday experience. And you cannot presume to apply your everyday experience to these extreme conditions as stated in the post above. It's just plain and simply wrong.

There is no place for intuition in Science. It spoils your samples.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I debunked Hawking's "Infinite matter density in a point of zero volume*" (at Myspace) several months before he abandoned his "singularity" theory of cosmic origin and joined the M-theory camp.

Sorry to pop your bubble, Mike, but I'm sure Hawkings' changing his mind about the matter has very much to do with coming to new insights based on new data, new models, new interpretations, and very little to do with what you, in particular, had to say about the matter for wholly different reasons.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

...still bogus whether "infinite density" is posited as contained in a point of zero volume (the height of absurdity!

You still don't get it, do you? Space itself was inside that "point of zero volume". There was no "zero volume", because space (the unit we measure volume in) did not exist. It's just a problem for you, because you deny the existence of "spacetime" which is plaible and bendable by gravity because you either think its counterintuitive or it simply makes no sense to you. Well, if the former, I told you intuition has no place here. If the latter, well - sorry.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I think the Schwarzschild radius for black holes of all sizes is the limit to how much matter can be compacted by gravity into a given sphere's volume. I could be wrong, but it is both intuitive and reasonable to me.

That "given sphere's volume" is only determinable in the presence of space, with which to measure that sphere. The Big Bang was a different kettle of fish in that there was no space to begin with. "Intuition" and "Reasonability" I think we've sufficiently dealt with. It's only up to you now to start understanding this.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And if the laws of physics break down in a singularity (or the averge black hole, for that *matter*... then those "laws" are not universal and are therefore not science, as I see science.

Nobody on this planet have ever seen a Black Hole first-hand. You won't find one in the corner shop for a buck-fifteen. Black Holes have been predicted by following those very same laws of physics to their natural conclusion under extreme conditions. They are predicted by the laws of physics. If you're presented with the laws of physics and have no prior knowledge of anything even remotely qualifying as a black hole, you will figure it out very quickly - because the laws of physics will tell you that under certain conditions, the formation of a black hole will be inevitable.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Could be the assumptions about "singularities" are wrong after all.

Nope. Our predictions as to their behavious and actions are merely more of the same - following physics to its natural conclusion. The point where the laws break down, is the physical analogue to dividing by zero. Take a calculator and try to divide by zero. You will get a big, fat Error on the screen. Is maths wrong, too? Or could it be that you merely misunderstand what you're trying to disprove? What would Occam have to say about the latter?

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And saying that what was before the Bang is beyond the realm of science (as many scientists do) is a major cop out. If the Bang/crunch (as I have modeled it) is ruled out and the fantasy physics of imaginary membrane "universes" takes over... pseudo-science will have taken over and science will be the poorer for it.

The Big Bang is a cusp of information annihilation. Nothing from before it, can come through it. There is no way for us to speculate with any certainty what came before. It's not a cop-out, however unfortunate it might be that we can't get to peek past it.

It's just amazingly ironical that you can hold any concerns about pseudo-science getting the better of science, what with your Pyramid Prophesy and all... I really don't think you're the best qualified here to call anything pseudo-science.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

The only reasonable explanation for cosmic "origin" is that *all of it* has always existed and will always exist. So then the question becomes what was it all doing and where did it all come from before the Bang?
Out of nothing, from nowhere will not cut it any better than creationism does.

However much we might want to attach any value to what explanations make sense to us, the plain and simple truth is that we don't know. Like it or not, Mike, them's the breaks. We Do Not Know. Now you can latch on to any particular theory that cheeses your melon, but you cannot exclude the posibility of any other theory. Myself, I'm still rather partial to the intergalactic rubber duckie exploding.

[Michael Mooney]

I invite everyone here capable of rational thinking to think about a geometric point (no volume) "containing" *anything.* Then think about what the phrase "infinit density of matter" might mean.

It would mean that there is absolutely no space between the smallest particles of matter. Even then it would require volume to contain this absolute matter.

We do know that the mass of Earth if compressed enough to become a black hole, would be about pea sized. The sun as a black hole would be about 3KM in radius, and the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy has a radius of about 8 million KM... and we can "see" matter orbiting it and then disappearing.
Saying that there is a "point of zero volume and infinite density of matter" (direct quote of Hawking) at the center of each black hole is based on totally irrational thinking.
As I said, I raised this criticism several months before Hawking "recanted" and abandoned his singularity-as-source-of-cosmos theory. Whether or not he or his staff saw it (at Myspace) or not is entirely beside the **point**.
Michael

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I invite everyone here capable of rational thinking to think about a geometric point (no volume) "containing" *anything.* Then think about what the phrase "infinit density of matter" might mean.

It would mean that there is absolutely no space between the smallest particles of matter. Even then it would require volume to contain this absolute matter.

Michael, as I've explained in my previous post, we know too little of matter to say that it's impossible. That's besides the initial couple of hundred thousand years after the Big Bang there not being any matter present at all, only energy in a very dense plasma. It took a long time for even Hydrogen to condense out of this plasma. So I really don't see your point being valid at all. Once again, you're trying to fit cosmology into your everyday experience of matter - which is plain and simply wrong, given the nature of matter and energy under the extreme conditions under discussion.