Bang/Crunch Revisited

[HydrogenBond]

There is a way to get the mass singularity to expand, without using anything new. It only requires looking at what we know, in a slightly different way. If you look at photons they exist as a particle and wave duality. Mass particles also exist within such a duality, but are much more slanted to the particle side.

The double slit experiment helped to demonstrate the wave nature of photons because a particle should not be in two places at once. Another way to interpret this experiment is the wave aspect of the wave-particle duality has more entropy than the particle aspect because it can be in two places at once.

Let us get back to the singularity. All that needs to happen to the mass singularity is for it change the ratio of wave to particle, within its wave-particle nature so we can increase entropy. The singularity begins to inflate because now the higher wave ratio allows it to be in two places at once like in the double slit.

[Michael Mooney]

Busting singularity theory is really very simple, and I suspect Hawking realized this when he gave it up.

A point with no volume can not "contain" anything. (Anyone who denies this, I call irrational.)

How densely matter/energy/plasma can be compacted by gravity is another question. How big a sphere of super-density matter/energy/plasma is depends on the amount of "stuff" and gravitational dynamic involved, as per the Schwartzschild radius for black holes. I think the same principle holds... held... for the primordial sphere of matter/energy/plasma regardless of which state all cosmic "stuff" was in before and after the bang.

And the answer to my most fundamental cosmological question above about the origin of all "stuff" (generic for "all there is whatever the form) now observable in the cosmos (and beyond observation)... is..., that it did not magically appear out of nothing... "the void." It must have come back from a previous expansion half-cycle and "crunched" into that primordial "ball of stuff."
See my "cosmic juggling act" model for details about how multiple bangs and crunches would allow for a super-mega-nova model of actual explosion (now denied as being possible), which would not work in an "all at once" Crunch--Bang.
Michael

[Moontanman]

Michael, have you heard of Hawking's idea of a quantum wave universe? I just read a brief description in a science magazine, it seemed kind of interesting.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Busting singularity theory is really very simple, and I suspect Hawking realized this when he gave it up.

What are you talking about? Hawking has changed his mind about a lot of things. What specifically are you referring to and what relevance does it have? Links!

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

How densely matter/energy/plasma can be compacted by gravity is another question. How big a sphere of super-density matter/energy/plasma is depends on the amount of "stuff" and gravitational dynamic involved, as per the Schwartzschild radius for black holes. I think the same principle holds... held... for the primordial sphere of matter/energy/plasma regardless of which state all cosmic "stuff" was in before and after the bang.

Read the link. Learn something:

Is the Big Bang a black hole?

~modest

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

A point with no volume can not "contain" anything. (Anyone who denies this, I call irrational.)

Michael, our modeling of the early universe is not based on what is "intuitive" or on what "makes sense". Our modeling is based on data from various sources, being interpreted in context with each other, and the data points to:

a) An expanding universe. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, the Hubble Flow points to a common origin for everything we see.
b) Expanding space. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, some of the furthest objects in the universe are receding from us at faster than the speed of light. Now this is demonstrably impossible; the only way that that could happen, was if the space between us and that particular object, was also expanding. It turns out that the space expansion and the matter expansion is happening simultaneously and in all directions, evenly.

Now, Michael, if you were to roll this back in time, you get to a point where all the matter of the universe is concentrated in "zero" space. Is this a problem? Not at all. Because all the space for which this might be a problem, does not exist yet, there is no way for you to measure this ball of infinite density. Seen from the outside (which it can't) it can be zero cms across or a billion miles across. There IS NO SPACE WITH WHICH TO MEASURE. So "common sense" and "intuition" has very little to do with how things panned out in the beginning. Don't look for things that make "sense". Look for things for which the math works out.

I don't know how many times or in how many different ways I have to repeat the above. I hope this was sufficient, and enough. [/quote]

[Michael Mooney]

=Boerseun;269661]Michael, our modeling of the early universe is not based on what is "intuitive" or on what "makes sense". Our modeling is based on data from various sources, being interpreted in context with each other, and the data points to:

a) An expanding universe. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, the Hubble Flow points to a common origin for everything we see.
b) Expanding space. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, some of the furthest objects in the universe are receding from us at faster than the speed of light. Now this is demonstrably impossible; the only way that that could happen, was if the space between us and that particular object, was also expanding. It turns out that the space expansion and the matter expansion is happening simultaneously and in all directions, evenly.

This is one hypothesis, not a final outcome as implied in your "it turns out that..."

Now, Michael, if you were to roll this back in time, you get to a point where all the matter of the universe is concentrated in "zero" space.

"Bullshit." Totally irrational and impossible. The smallest particle requires a volume... it takes up space. All "stuff" in the cosmos required a sphere of volume... whatever size... in which to exist, and "it all" did not just magically appear out of nothing... as "creationism " would have it.

Is this a problem? Not at all. Because all the space for which this might be a problem, does not exist yet, there is no way for you to measure this ball of infinite density. Seen from the outside (which it can't) it can be zero cms across or a billion miles across. There IS NO SPACE WITH WHICH TO MEASURE. So "common sense" and "intuition" has very little to do with how things panned out in the beginning. Don't look for things that make "sense". Look for things for which the math works out.

I don't know how many times or in how many different ways I have to repeat the above. I hope this was sufficient, and enough.

Regarding your last statements above: I can say the same about how many times I've shared a quote on "Math's place in physics," last time from a thread of that title spun off from the "spacetime" thread... as follows (edited to the essentials... my bold):

The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry

Quote:
Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding. The mathematics of Newton's theory of gravity were beautiful and successful for two centuries, but it conferred no understanding about what gravity was. Now we actually have two competing ways of understanding gravity, either through Einstein's geometrical method or through the interaction of virtual particles in quantum mechanics.

Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions. In non-Euclidean geometry and its application by Einstein, the most important conceptual question is over the meaning of "curvature" and the ontological status of the dimensions of space, time, or whatever. The most important point is that the ontological status of the dimensions involved with the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature is a question entirely separate from the mathematics. It is also, to an extent, a question that is separate from science--since a scientific theory may work quite well without out needing to decide what all is going on ontologically. Some realization of this, unfortunately, leads people more easily to the conclusion that science is conventionalistic or a social construction than to the more difficult truth that much remains to be understood about reality and that philosophical questions and perspectives are not always useless or without meaning. Philosophy usually does a poor job of preparing the way for science, but it never hurts to ask questions. The worst thing that can ever happen for philosophy, and for science, is that people are so overawed by the conventional wisdom in areas where they feel inadequate (like math) that they are actually afraid to ask questions that may imply criticism, skepticism, or, heaven help them, ignorance.

Further, your certainty that space is something that can expand totally ignores the ongoing debate among scientists on "the ontology of spacetime" (for instance in several yearly conferences of that title.) There is also an ongoing debate about the way redshift is commonly interpreted, which you believe supports stuff traveling at faster than lightspeed.

Finally, if you believe that all observable "stuff" in the cosmos came from a point of no volume, just by reversing the model of expansion "back in time" then you have fallen prey to belief that math and it's models "trump" what is reasonably impossible (cosmos in zero volume) and have made math your God, in error as expounded in the quote above.
Michael

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

This is one hypothesis, not a final outcome as implied in your "it turns out that..."

As opposed to your sure insight in what is true, correct and right. The Big Bang is a theory, Michael. And until such time as another theory with better explanatory powers come to the fore, it's the one in which direction the evidence points.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"Bullshit." Totally irrational and impossible. The smallest particle requires a volume... it takes up space. All "stuff" in the cosmos required a sphere of volume... whatever size... in which to exist, and "it all" did not just magically appear out of nothing... as "creationism " would have it.

Once again you stare blindly into your preconceptions about what is rational and possible. We're talking about conditions so far removed from your "gnosis of truth" that your opinion on the matter bear very little value, if you merely base it on "rationality" and "possibility". "Nothing" is also a human construct based on everyday experience. Consider, for instance, if you're on the "other side" of the universe's 15-odd billion year horizon. Look in the direction of the universe. Do you see anything? Zip. Nada. There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) with which to guage the universe. For all you know, the universe is the size of a pea. Or, it could be fifteen billion light years in size. But all the experiments you care to perform outside that horizon will return a size of exactly zero if you test for the existence or size of the universe. And that's the way it's always been on the outside of that particular horizon, since the Big Bang. The problem lies with you, Michael, in that you're trying to perceive the universe from outside that horizon and try to shoehorn what you will see into your everyday experience. No can do with an unfolding hypersphere.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Further, your certainty that space is something that can expand totally ignores the ongoing debate among scientists on "the ontology of spacetime" (for instance in several yearly conferences of that title.) There is also an ongoing debate about the way redshift is commonly interpreted, which you believe supports stuff traveling at faster than lightspeed.

Quite interesting. The debate is still going on, and you've already made up your mind? What do you know that the other guys don't? And no - your "gnosis of truth" is not admissable evidence, unfortunately. So don't even go down that route.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Finally, if you believe that all observable "stuff" in the cosmos came from a point of no volume, just by reversing the model of expansion "back in time" then you have fallen prey to belief that math and it's models "trump" what is reasonably impossible (cosmos in zero volume) and have made math your God, in error as expounded in the quote above.
Michael

Making math my God? I have done no such thing. But explain to me - all matter is running away from us. Yet, there is nothing special in our place in the universe - all matter is running away from all points in the universe, simultaneously. The furthest points seem to be running away from us at faster than the speed of light. Now you run these facts back in time, and you explain to me what would happen.

Keep in mind, of course, that the redshift we see of receding stars is not merely the filtering out of blue by intervening dust and particles in our line of sight, like those static-universe proponents will have you believe, much like a sunset will filter out the blue and pass the red. The redshift we see is a spectral shift in frequency, where the spectral lines for hydrogen, helium, all the elements you can detect, each with their very own and unambiguous "fingerprint", which cannot be mistaken for anything else, is shifted towards the red. And this phenonemon is only possible if the emitting particle is receding at a rate which can be calculated by how far the spectral lines have moved towards the red. There is no other mechanism that can do this. And also, keep in mind, that this very same mechanism have identified emitters that have shifted towards the red so far that their speeds exceeds that of light - which is impossible. And the only way to interpret the data here, is that space itself is expanding.

So please, Michael - go ahead and run the above facts back in time for me, and you tell me what we would see fifteen billion years ago.

Be my guest.

But tone down on the "gnosis"-bit. That don't cut it scientifically.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"Bullshit." Totally irrational and impossible. The smallest particle requires a volume... it takes up space. All "stuff" in the cosmos required a sphere of volume... whatever size... in which to exist, and "it all" did not just magically appear out of nothing... as "creationism " would have it.

Creationism wasn't invoked. You did that. This is not Bullshit either. Anyone can observe some event. In their mind's eye go back over the event. Run the event backwards. Imagine a spring with an input energy. It compresses. This is followed by
a recoil. Backwards the recoil precedes the compression. No problem. Time is reversed
in this model. All is fine. So in rolling back time on the universe would cause a collapse
of space. Sorry. To see this in all it's glory would require doing the work with the
mathematics involved. That is where the details are. The Devil is definitely in the details.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Regarding your last statements above: I can say the same about how many times I've shared a quote on "Math's place in physics," last time from a thread of that title spun off from the "spacetime" thread... as follows (edited to the essentials... my bold):

I am not sure I follow this remark. Are you saying that Mathematics should **Not**
be used in Physics (?!?).

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Further, your certainty that space is something that can expand totally ignores the ongoing debate among scientists on "the ontology of spacetime" (for instance in several yearly conferences of that title.) There is also an ongoing debate about the way redshift is commonly interpreted, which you believe supports stuff traveling at faster than lightspeed.

Redshift does not support traveling at FTL. Inflation get around yet doesn't support it.
Variable Speed of Light (VSL) Theory also gets around it with supporting such.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Finally, if you believe that all observable "stuff" in the cosmos came from a point of no volume, just by reversing the model of expansion "back in time" then you have fallen prey to belief that math and it's models "trump" what is reasonably impossible (cosmos in zero volume) and have made math your God, in error as expounded in the quote above.
Michael

Infinitesimally small volume would be More accurate. We are always talking about limits
here and not exactness. Remember Zeno's Paradox ? You can get arbitrarily close to
a wall without touching. This is why I doubt your debate and Win with Hawking tells the Whole tail. Hawking would have also mentioned of "not exactly" a zero volume.
Instead he would have mentioned a "limit" of that value. This subtlety may have escaped
you, being not up on Mathematics -- Simple Calculus. I would figure Hawking would have
dropped it rather than try to converse with you; assuming that you were even talking with
THE Stephen Hawking of Black Hole fame.

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

From "Steven Hawking's Universe:
Stephen Hawking's Universe: Strange Stuff Explained

The destiny of all matter that falls into a black hole is to get crushed to a point of zero volume and infinite density—a singularity. General relativity also implies that our expanding universe began from a singularity.

To be clear, I did not have a direct conversation with him. I debunked "infinite matter density in a point of zero volume" several months before he "ate crow" in regard to his misconception about singularities and wrote a favorable intro to a (then) new book on M-theory*, as it then made more sense to him as a cosmology than a singularity as cosmic origin.
(*My take on M-theory, as repeated here, is not favorable.)

Michael

[enorbet2]

Since a Big Bang singularity's existence is still controversial it is yet important to remember that The Singularity is not necessarily the same as A Singularity ie Black Hole. An excellent differentiation can be found here The Big Bang - Google Books as well as numerous other scientific books and sites but I am quoting this one because it also directly addresses the whole Bang/Crunch idea as at the very least highly unlikely.

[quote]The production of radiation of stars and galaxies imposes a limit on the possible number of cycles. Carried to it's logical conclusion we simply cannot say that a past singularity is unavoidable[quote]

It also quotes Hawking-Penrose who only "ate crow" among non-scientists. Following a path to a dead-end rules out that path and is therefore still worthwhile scientific research. Don't forget that many think Einstein's "greatest blunder", the Cosmological Constant", may also be his farthest-seeing work, despite his initial bias and misgivings.

There are also good books on the subject showing how even the existence of The Singularity does not help the Kalam argument for Creationism, so please drop that notion as it is not a given.

Here's one example Br J Philos Sci -- Sign In Page

This site is far more scientific (I included the last one since it specifies that it is about the philosophy of science, possibly more atuned to the OP) yet easy for laymen to understand and tackles the problem simply and directly.

What is the difference between black hole singularity and big bang singularity?

[quote]The differences are that black hole singularities, of course, do not contain all of the matter and energy in the Universe because there are so many of them. There was only one Big Bang singularity, and it contained the whole Universe. Another difference is that space and time were born from the Big Bang singularity, and black holes actually stretches out space to the point where it probably rips the fabric of space-time, and ends time altogether.[quote]

The above may be a subtle difference in definition to some but that "little difference" has enormous ultimate consequences.

Despite Hawking's popularity, he is not the most math savvy of serious explorers, but he does surround himself with many who are since his studies are not about self-aggrandizement but rather leaving something of value to posterity. That some denigrate him says more about them than he. It is all too easy to take potshots at someone who actually is subject to peer review by someone who is not - often typical back-seat driving by one without a license. It is nearly impossible to do proper science with an agenda of mere ego gratification and to impress a few lowly peers. Please do publish if anyone thinks they really do trump Hawking's team. They got there because they earned it.