Bang/Crunch Revisited

[Michael Mooney]

modest;270582]Ok. I think I see what happened. When you mentioned Turok it clicked. Hawking bet Turok that the Plank satellite would find relic gravitational waves from inflation supporting a more classical type singularity over a M-theory / colliding brane scenario (which Turok's model is). The exchange is described in the book you mention (page 213):

Endless universe: beyond the Big Bang - Google Books

I don't know if the bet has been settled, but I doubt it because Plank has only just been launched in May.

The "Hawking Loses Bet" link was about another bet.
Bottom lines of link:

"He sent a note saying `I have solved the black hole information paradox and I want to talk about it,"' Cutler said.

If Hawking succeeds in making his case, he will lose a bet that he and theoretical physicist Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology made with John Preskill, also of Caltech.

The terms of the bet were that "information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden and can never be revealed."

Ironically he did "succeed in making his case" about information retrieval from black holes (from interpretation of BH "radiation"... No longer "forever hidden" as he earlier theorized), and therefore "lost his (and Thorne's) bet" with Preskill.
Quite convoluted... but I respect his willingness to change his mind as new evidence comes to "light."

It certainly has *not* been established by any stretch of the imagination that inflation did not happen while colliding branes did happen. These are very much open questions. The thing you should realize is that the big bang singularity is where general relativistic physics breaks down. So, we need some kind of new physics to understand what (if anything) came before the big bang.

"Colliding branes" are of course quite imaginary, as is the "expanding space*" required for "inflation" after all cosmic "stuff" magically appears out of nothing... whether from a "point of zero volume" or a Plank-length sized volume of super-concentrated primordial cosmos.
(*The ontology of what is expanding remains unanswered!)

What I already "realize" is that a "Singularity" "containing"
"all-there-is" in the cosmos" (first) was not "contained in zero volume" and (second) did not just magically appear out of "nothing."

Further, I don't think we need to re-invent physics for a Bang/Crunch model as I have presented it. Please review before engaging "auto-pilot" standard criticism precluding extremely large supernova-like *explosions* (see "cosmic juggling act" model) of actual, incoming, "crunching" cosmic stuff... mostly super,super "supermassive black holes" becoming even more "super" as they crunch together. If such super balls of extremely condensed matter can not explode, per se, maybe they can "spew out jets" of the "stuff" of new born cosmi as per the BH/neutron star/pulsar models.

And, yes, this is in total contradiction of the standard dictum that the above (stuff exploding out into empty space) is now a thoroughly debunked cosmology.

What that new physics will be is a very open question in cosmology and it is certainly not possible as of yet to say conclusively if inflation vs. M-Theory is correct (if indeed either are).

I am glad to hear that you see it as an "open question." "How open" is yet another question. Open enough to entertain the possibilities I have again outlined above? I doubt it.

Michael

[maddog]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Now that this thread has apparently hit a stride that is more scientifically based I think it is worthwhile to remind all concerned that nomenclature here is paramount. There is an extreme difference between Quantum Gravity theories and Loop Quantum Gravity theories, somewhat analagous to the boost that Ed Witten gave String theory with supersymmetry resulting in M Theory.

In general, Quantum Gravity theories is the melding of QM with GR. Yes, LQG attempt is
an extension coming from GR; whereas String Theories (all types: Superstring, M-Theory, etc) are derived from Particle physics. What I found interesting in your link
to the presentation was the LQG is a QM quantization of spacetime that involve Spin Networks
similar to Twistor Theory. Ed Witten has already been considering Twistor Theory in
adjunct to String Theory (M-Theory).

Originally Posted by enorbet2

It isn't that Quantum Gravity has just led directly to Loop Quantum Gravity after the former "hit a wall" in 2004, it's that the "crash" branched out into many theories, with some saying LQG being the most simple, elegant and well-developed.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

It is said that Quantum Gravity replaces the Big Bang with the Big Bounce but Loop Quantum Gravity does not require it. So this thread goes on, soon to be "quantum leaped" by several new experiments and instruments as divers as LHC and numerous new space telescopes, some at LaGrange points, such as Herschel-Planck. This is a very exciting time!

Yes, a very exciting time it definitely is !

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Oh yeah and only very slightly OT but this thread could benefit greatly from some humour

YouTube - TBBT S02E02. Loop Quantum Gravity Vs String Theory

This was hilarious! I do think though that the main character was a bit snobbish, even
if both sides could see the other's point of view.

IMHO, I think the answer lies with both theories being merged in some way we don't forsee
yet. Maybe Penrose was right after all and Twistor theory is also involved !

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Do you have an unresolved problem with me personally which ensures that your every reply will be framed as a personal attack?

Nothing of the kind. I have no personal vendetta against any member of Hypography. That
includes you. No animosity whatsoever.

I do phrase questions when I feel the post wasn't being clear. In this post you added a lot of
links while discussing none of the points. I misunderstood your "innuendo" of how you
"bested" Hawking. Since I wasn't present to that debate I will refrain further of what I
might really think. As it would be unfair of me.

Going with the clashing of branes is the fashionable thing to do today in M-Theory whether
it is wrong or right. To me, I am still hedging my bets as M-Theory is directly untestable.

I am interested in what inroads that Ed Witten has done in last few years integrating
Twistor Theory with various variations of String Theories. I see this may have some
future. As well as considering using the group F12.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by modest

Ok. I think I see what happened. When you mentioned Turok it clicked. Hawking bet Turok that the Plank satellite would find relic gravitational waves from inflation supporting a more classical type singularity over a M-theory / colliding brane scenario (which Turok's model is). The exchange is described in the book you mention (page 213):

Endless universe: beyond the Big Bang - Google Books

I don't know if the bet has been settled, but I doubt it because Plank has only just been launched in May.

Ohh. I see where I had goofed. I was thinking of the bet Hawking made with Berkenstein about information getting out of Black Holes. That one was resolved. I didn't
know of one made to Turok. My apologies to Michael Mooney. Oops!

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"Colliding branes" are of course quite imaginary, as is the "expanding space*" required for "inflation" after all cosmic "stuff" magically appears out of nothing... whether from a "point of zero volume" or a Plank-length sized volume of super-concentrated primordial cosmos.
(*The ontology of what is expanding remains unanswered!)

Yes, these are still theoretical (and as yet, directly untestable). It is symantic, yet somewhat
inaccurate to say they are "imaginary" (maybe ok to you). Both M-Theory and Inflation
are so far to date internally consistent yet unproven theories. This does not make a theory
imaginary. Mathematically, even make no sense. The imaginary number
is even though not "real" does exist! I would consider this a poor use of the word. Maybe
what you mean is that these theories are as yet untestable.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

What I already "realize" is that a "Singularity" "containing"
"all-there-is" in the cosmos" (first) was not "contained in zero volume" and (second) did not just magically appear out of "nothing."

This is another fallacy. The volume is not "0" [zero]. It is called a "limit" from Calculus.
One approaches 0 yet does not reach it (Zeno paradox).

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Further, I don't think we need to re-invent physics for a Bang/Crunch model as I have presented it. Please review before engaging "auto-pilot" standard criticism precluding extremely large supernova-like *explosions* (see "cosmic juggling act" model) of actual, incoming, "crunching" cosmic stuff... mostly super,super "supermassive black holes" becoming even more "super" as they crunch together. If such super balls of extremely condensed matter can not explode, per se, maybe they can "spew out jets" of the "stuff" of new born cosmi as per the BH/neutron star/pulsar models.

This spewing does happen according to the Blandford-Znajek method which I have discussed at
length with Pluto.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And, yes, this is in total contradiction of the standard dictum that the above (stuff exploding out into empty space) is now a thoroughly debunked cosmology.

Here we go again. What particular Cosmology got debunked, when and by whom ???

maddog

ps: enorbet2 -> I am not sure how that happened. I was totally cutting & pasting off of Michael's Quote.

[enorbet2]

psssst! Maddog! I didn't say that stuff you quoted as mine, not even one of three. Please fix.

[Michael Mooney]

Assuming you have sorted out who said what as requested by enorbet2...

Originally Posted by maddog

Yes, these are still theoretical (and as yet, directly untestable). It is symantic, yet somewhat
inaccurate to say they are "imaginary" (maybe ok to you). Both M-Theory and Inflation
are so far to date internally consistent yet unproven theories. This does not make a theory
imaginary. Mathematically, even make no sense. The imaginary number
is even though not "real" does exist! I would consider this a poor use of the word. Maybe
what you mean is that these theories are as yet untestable.

How are membranes not imaginary? My version is not yet testable either, but seems much more likely, reasonable and possible than absurd "points" with little or no volume... originating from nowhere, or membranes made of one dimensional strings vibrating in lots of very speculative "dimensions" based on extremely esoteric math... and not much else.

This is another fallacy. The volume is not "0" [zero]. It is called a "limit" from Calculus.
One approaches 0 yet does not reach it (Zeno paradox).

Please refer to the direct Hawking quote above from his website. Again, he said that a singularity is "infinite matter density in a point of zero volume." If you want to correct him, write to him and tell him how he said it in error.

This spewing does happen according to the Blandford-Znajek method which I have discussed at
length with Pluto.

Of course "it happens!" We have pictures of it! The question here at hand is, "on what scale might it happen?" Might "it" work on the scale of cosmic origin?

It might help if you would review the supernova model. The explosion disperses "supernova remnants" (SNR) and the stuff that did not "launch" falls back into a "compact body of matter" (of whatever technical name.) From such bodies, "jets of near- light- speed plasma are often "spewed out" into the *empty space* around the epicenter of the explosion... and will eventually cool into elements known as "matter." This dynamic happening on cosmic scale makes mor sense that the nonsense of singularities and the metaphysical membranes of M-Theory.

The same model might work for cosmic origin if "incoming" and "outgoing" matter( and plasma/dust/gas/energy) are phased implosion/explosions. The scale might be one tiny "bubble" deep within a "greater cosmic expanding balloon."

Do you want evidence and supporting math? Don't we all, including the major "players!'

Here we go again. What particular Cosmology got debunked, when and by whom ???

Well that is an "easy one." The traditional "Bang/Crunch" cosmology based on all cosmic "stuff" perpetually exploding and imploding out into the infinite emptiness of space and then back to crunch and explode again... is said to have been debunked. Look up a few sites on Bang/Crunch Cosmology and save me the trouble of doing your research for you.
I've been there already. My version is officially off the the list of favored cosmologies. Singularities and clashing membranes are much more *popular*....

And... sorry to say, it seems to me that cosmology has become more of a popularity contest than unbiased inquiry into possible origins. ... i.e., science which might still have a shred of reason and observable evidence to back it up... without re-inventing physics!!

Michael

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

How are membranes not imaginary? My version is not yet testable either, but seems much more likely, reasonable and possible than absurd "points" with little or no volume... originating from nowhere, or membranes made of one dimensional strings vibrating in lots of very speculative "dimensions" based on extremely esoteric math... and not much else.

Being "imaginary" and imagined (as fictional) are quite different. Being imagined as being
fictional questions it's existence. Being imaginary only addresses it not being real. Very
different. Not being real can still have existence. Look at any image in a mirror.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Please refer to the direct Hawking quote above from his website. Again, he said that a singularity is "infinite matter density in a point of zero volume." If you want to correct him, write to him and tell him how he said it in error.

I don't need to correct Hawking as I don't see he made the error. You made it I think by
not including that a limit was involved. Makes all the difference. I can't imagine Hawking
not including it [even if he didn't even say it]. Thus I would error on simplicity and say
you didn't include limit of such.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Of course "it happens!" We have pictures of it! The question here at hand is, "on what scale might it happen?" Might "it" work on the scale of cosmic origin?

Good question! I see nothing directly prevent such an occurrence. Though you will likely
have to differential geometry into account. As more mass is taken into account, will cause
the local geometry to deform somewhat. In fact the whole initial bang can be thought
of a jet forming this bubble universe from another universe; at least in theory...

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Do you want evidence and supporting math? Don't we all, including the major "players!'

I always like supporting mathematical derivation backing up theory.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Well that is an "easy one." The traditional "Bang/Crunch" cosmology based on all cosmic "stuff" perpetually exploding and imploding out into the infinite emptiness of space and then back to crunch and explode again... is said to have been debunked. Look up a few sites on Bang/Crunch Cosmology and save me the trouble of doing your research for you.
I've been there already. My version is officially off the the list of favored cosmologies. Singularities and clashing membranes are much more *popular*....

There has no "debunking" of BBT or "Bang/Crunch" per se. Any sites you found were not
of the credible variety. The papers you mentioned do question some of the hypotheses
of BBT [I have yet to finish them all]. This was my point in the first place. You post a
link and think it does the work for you. No, it does not.

If that were allowed in giving a PhD Thesis, we would just list the citations be done with it.
You have to make a case.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And... sorry to say, it seems to me that cosmology has become more of a popularity contest than unbiased inquiry into possible origins. ... i.e., science which might still have a shred of reason and observable evidence to back it up... without re-inventing physics!!

On your highlighted comment -- sad to say -- I agree with. To me Cosmology has sunk
to a new low, allowing any old idea to get some merit...

maddog

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Well that is an "easy one." The traditional "Bang/Crunch" cosmology based on all cosmic "stuff" perpetually exploding and imploding out into the infinite emptiness of space and then back to crunch and explode again... is said to have been debunked. Look up a few sites on Bang/Crunch Cosmology and save me the trouble of doing your research for you.

Can you find me a science source describing the big bang or a bang/crunch where stuff "explodes... out into the infinite emptiness of space"? The reason I ask is because you will find no such source, and perhaps by looking for it you will discover the misconception that it is.

Big bang theory does *not* claim that stuff explodes *out into empty space*. No credible description of the theory would ever claim such a thing.

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest