Bang/Crunch Revisited

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by modest

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.~modest

There must be some misunderstanding here.
I already said above that the bang/crunch model I favor is said to have been debunked.

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.

In summary, as I already said... and you seem to have missed:

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.

As I said above, the standard inflation model which requires "expanding space" does *not* address the ontology of what it is that is posited as "expanding." Obviously as things move away from each other... stuff moving in outward trajectory from the bang... the "expanding universe"... there is more and more space between them. This is different than positing that "space itself expands"... as an entity of some sort. We have been through this dozens of times in the "spacetime" thread already, and the ontology of what the "space" component is is still in hot debate... as noted and linked many times in that thread.
Here is another Wiki link on the Bang/Crunch model:
Big Crunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity.
Overview:

If the universe is finite in extent and the cosmological principle (not to be confused with the cosmological constant) does not apply, and the expansion speed does not exceed the escape velocity, then the mutual gravitational attraction of all its matter will eventually cause it to contract. Because entropy continues to increase in the contracting phase, the contraction would appear very different from the time reversal of the expansion. While the early universe was highly uniform, a contracting universe would become increasingly clumped. Eventually all matter would collapse into black holes, which would then coalesce producing a unified black hole or Big Crunch singularity.

The Hubble Constant measures the current state of expansion in the universe, and the strength of the gravitational force depends on the density and pressure of the matter and in the universe, or in other words, the critical density of the universe. If the density of the universe is greater than the critical density, then the strength of the gravitational force will stop the universe from expanding and the universe will collapse back on itself. Conversely, if the density of the universe is less than the critical density, the universe will continue to expand and the gravitational pull will not be enough to stop the universe from expanding. This scenario would result in the 'Big Freeze', where the universe cools as it expands and reaches a state of entropy.[1] Some theorize that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then initate another Big Bang, so in this way the universe would last forever, but would pass through phases of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch)[2]

Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.[3]

You will notice the standard phrasing right up front, to which I object on the above ontological grounds: "...metric expansion of space..."

We have previously debated the "entropy" question as a possible spoiler for a perpetually cycling Bang/Crunch cosmology, and we have likewise discussed the "missing matter" objection and the open question of the cosmic density required for a reversal and implosion back into a "crunch."

I simply suggest a model of actual cosmic plasma, energy, matter (of all kinds)... "stuff" for short... expanding outwardly into empty space, which is endless/infinite. The dynamic is open for debate. My model has it as a super-duper supernova kind of explosion or sequence of explosions (or "jetting out plasma form an axis of spin) as more incoming "stuff" crunches and then bangs (or "jets stuff out.) For me, the alternative makes no sense, as above.... that "space itself expands"... whatever "it" is supposed to be, and this is after somehow stuff magically appears as The Singularity... of whatever size... or no volume at all.

All of the above is why I asked you to avoid engaging the "auto-pilot" of standard mainstream cosmology... and its denial outright of the bang/crunch model I advocate.

If you object to "stuff" either exploding or jetting out from a primordial body of extremely compacted matter into infinite, empty space (having imploded after reversal of the expansion phase) please give specific reasons why that model will not work... and is no longer considered a viable model. Just saying that modern cosmology now rejects the model (which it does!) is not enough.
And wile you are at it, please address the unresolved ontological question of what this "expanding space" actually is.
Michael
Ed: Here's another link on cyclical cosmology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

It raises again the entropy objection which I addressed in the "entropy..." thread spun off from "spacetime." It also presents the M-theory version, including the following (my bold):

One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[3][4] The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

As you know, the membranes have no referents in the observable cosmos (being imaginary) and this theory's extra "dimensions" beyond the 3-D space (and time) we all know and love are purely metaphysical speculation. But an "exploding" cosmos is basic to the theory, and an explosion throws "stuff" into an outward trajectory... into space... as we do observe in this expanding universe.

[Michael Mooney]

More on Bang/Crunch from:
Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science
“Big Bang” or “Big Crunch"?
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
(The site is religious... sorry... but Thomson seems to be looking at cosmologies as a scientist.)

The Big Bang model replaced the Steady State theory by postulating that all the matter/energy in the observable Universe was condensed into a particle smaller than a single proton (the famous “cosmic egg”). The Big Bang model, however, suffered from at least two major problems. First, it required that the “cosmic egg” be eternal—a concept clearly at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. John Gribbin, a highly regarded evolutionary cosmologist, voiced the opinion of many when he said: “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the bang?” (1976, pp. 15-16).

Second, the expansion of the Universe could not go on forever; it had to end somewhere. The Universe had a beginning, and would have an ending. Robert Jastrow has addressed both of these points: “And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up” (1978, pp. 48-49). Matter could not be eternal, because eternal things do not run down. Furthermore, there was going to be an end at some point in the future.

Such a scenario is unacceptable to evolutionists. Jastrow himself admitted: “Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a Universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind” (1977, p. 31). To avoid any vestige of a beginning, or any hint of an ending, evolutionists invented the Oscillating Universe model (also known as the Big Bang/Big Crunch model, the Expansion/ Collapse model, etc.). Dr. Gribbin suggested: “[T]he best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the Universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely” (1976, pp. 15-16).

That is to say, there was a Big Bang; but there also will be a Big Crunch, at which time the matter of the Universe will collapse back onto itself. There will be a “bounce,” followed by another Big Bang, which will be followed by another Big Crunch, and this process will be repeated ad infinitum. In the Big Bang model, there is a permanent end; not so in the Oscillating Universe model, as Dr. Jastrow explained:

But many astronomers reject this picture of a dying Universe. They believe that the expansion of the Universe will not continue forever because gravity, pulling back on the outward-moving galaxies, must slow their retreat. If the pull of gravity is sufficiently strong, it may bring the expansion to a halt at some point in the future.

What will happen then? The answer is the crux of this theory. The elements of the Universe, held in a balance between the outward momentum of the primordial explosion and the inward force of gravity, stand momentarily at rest; but after the briefest instant, always drawn together by gravity, they commence to move toward one another. Slowly at first, and then with increasing momentum, the Universe collapses under the relentless pull of gravity. Soon the galaxies of the Cosmos rush toward one another with an inward movement as violent as the outward movement of their expansion when the Universe exploded earlier. After a sufficient time, they come into contact; their gases mix; their atoms are heated by compression; and the Universe returns to the heat and chaos from which it emerged many billions of years ago (1978, p. 118).

Again, all this banging and crunching requires a theater of activity, a volume to expand/explode into and back again. Since there can be no "end of space" (no wall or boundary but in man's finite mind) space must be infinite, not a finite, expandable, contractable entity. The "stuff in space" does the exploding and imploding, not "space itself.)

So "bang!"... out into space... then "crunch" back to whnce it came.
For me this is the only cosmology which makes sense... and it still doesn't require that space be an entity which expands.
Michael

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

There must be some misunderstanding here.
I already said above that the bang/crunch model I favor is said to have been debunked.

In summary, as I already said... and you seem to have missed:

You're not following. It has never been the case that big bang theory was described as stuff exploding out into space. It has never been "traditional Bang/Crunch cosmology". The very first rendition of big bang cosmology was Friedmann's and Lemaître's in the 1920's which is pretty-much indistinguishable from the theory today. No exploding stuff moving out into empty space.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As I said above, the standard inflation model which requires "expanding space" does *not* address the ontology of what it is that is posited as "expanding."

There is nothing special about inflation as far as expanding space. Big bang theory requires the metric expansion of space today just as it did during inflation. The only significant difference is the speed at which space expanded.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I simply suggest a model of actual cosmic plasma, energy, matter (of all kinds)... "stuff" for short... expanding outwardly into empty space, which is endless/infinite. The dynamic is open for debate. My model has it as a super-duper supernova kind of explosion or sequence of explosions (or "jetting out plasma form an axis of spin) as more incoming "stuff" crunches and then bangs (or "jets stuff out.)

The universe is isotropic.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

For me, the alternative makes no sense, as above.... that "space itself expands"

Yes, I can tell it doesn't make sense to you.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

If you object to "stuff" either exploding or jetting out from a primordial body of extremely compacted matter into infinite, empty space (having imploded after reversal of the expansion phase) please give specific reasons why that model will not work...

The universe is isotropic. Read the first 3 paragraphs of this link:

Robertson-Walker Metric

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Just saying that modern cosmology now rejects the model (which it does!) is not enough.

It's not that modern cosmology *now* rejects the model. What you are describing has never been a working model. It has always been a misconception. You'll find it corrected on every "common misconceptions about the big bang" website... and I've given you links to several over this issue.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

And wile you are at it, please address the unresolved ontological question of what this "expanding space" actually is.

It's expanding distance. I've told you that a dozen times. Cosmological distances expand over time in a manner roughly proportional to the distance itself. It's Hubble's law.

I know we have our disagreements, Michael. But, I think that what I'm about to recommend would help tremendously. With the best intentions I offer this. Read the whole tutorial:

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial - Part 1

~modest

[Boerseun]

Michael, I think one of your biggest problems with the current understanding of the Big Bang is that you envision the universe to be a bubble with a defined border.

Yes, the universe has a border. But that border exist in time, not in space. If it was ten minutes after the Big Bang, you'd have a border to the universe of ten minutes - but you will never, try as you might, reach that border - because it's ten minutes in time. You will have to outfly light to get there - which is impossible. This "edge" of the universe is expanding away from you at the speed of light, and with the space between you and the border expanding as well, the furthest reaches will expand away from you at what would appear to you to be faster than the speed of light.

There is no way for you to reach it.

It's not a "balloon" with a "border" or "edge" in space.

The space in which we exist is bordered in time.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. But I can clearly see where your problem lies.

[enorbet2]

Yes...please google "background independent cosmology". It is the biggest problem w/ String Theories and the reason so much focus is on Gravity, it's weakness relative to the other 3 forces, and it's possible coherence within QM. The answers may lead to discovering if SpaceTime is truly a "fabric" possibly at Planck Scale, or whether that concept is just a useful construct. In any case one cannot begin to understand BBT unless one understands "from nothing" really means "no thing" as in nada... no enclosure required.

[Michael Mooney]

modest;270902]You're not following. It has never been the case that big bang theory was described as stuff exploding out into space. It has never been "traditional Bang/Crunch cosmology". The very first rendition of big bang cosmology was Friedmann's and Lemaître's in the 1920's which is pretty-much indistinguishable from the theory today. No exploding stuff moving out into empty space.

Your "you're not following" assumes a body of established scientific knowledge which I just don't get.
An alternative, which you just don't get, is that "stuff exploding out into empty space" is correct and "expanding space" is a misconception.
I said:

Again, all this banging and crunching requires a theater of activity, a volume to expand/explode into and back again. Since there can be no "end of space" (no wall or boundary but in man's finite mind) space must be infinite, not a finite, expandable, contractable entity. The "stuff in space" does the exploding and imploding, not "space itself.)

You gave no critical feedback about what you see wrong with the above. Rather you do the science version of bible thumping, citing textbook science. Do you understand that there can be no "end of space" as above... that it *must* be infinite, no matter what lies beyond our cosmic event horizon? I think not. That which is already infine emptiness does not expand or contract, tho the stuff in space can be observed to be moving as described by the Big Bang theory... and the Big crunch has not been ruled out.

There is nothing special about inflation as far as expanding space. Big bang theory requires the metric expansion of space today just as it did during inflation. The only significant difference is the speed at which space expanded.

As Doctordick has pointed out many times, as have I, you and the staff here (and others) assume that space expands and contracts and ignore the possibility that space is the infinite emptiness in which all cosmic "stuff" exists and moves... expanding outward as our visible cosmos is doing, and maybe eventually contracting again, crunching and then banging again.
For instance, you simply ignore my objection to this assumption as presented in the Wiki "Bang/Crunch" link above, as follows:

You will notice the standard phrasing right up front, to which I object on the above ontological grounds: "...metric expansion of space..."

... which you here repeat above as if it were indisputable.

The universe is isotropic.

I know. If you bothered to read (or review) the cosmology I have presented in this thread and elsewhere, you would see that I have repeatedly endorsed the isotropic nature of the observable cosmos... and explained how this is consistent with the cosmology I have presented.
There can be no respectful conversation if you keep repeating stuff I have already addressed in detail as if I am not even aware that the universe is isotropic. (Ref: The mini-cosmos as an atom in proportion to the "rubber" of the maxi-cosmic expanding balloon membrane... deep within the membrane. Looks homogeneous in all directions. Yes it does. )

Yes, I can tell it doesn't make sense to you.

If it makes sense to you, please explain what space is other than the emptiness in which observable phenomena exist and move around.
Do you understand what Thomson and Jastrow were saying in the "sensible science" link above? It appears not.

The universe is isotropic. Read the first 3 paragraphs of this link:

Robertson-Walker Metric

Yup. It assumes "curvature of space" and the ontological existence of "Space Time" as an entity.... etc, etc. I have always and still do consider this a false assumption, albeit, the standardized "body of knowledge" accepted by mainstream science today.
Do you even acknowledge that the ontology of spacetime including space as curving/expanding and time as dilating, etc... both *entities* comprising a "fabric"...is still debateble not established beyond all doubt?

It's not that modern cosmology *now* rejects the model. What you are describing has never been a working model. It has always been a misconception. You'll find it corrected on every "common misconceptions about the big bang" website... and I've given you links to several over this issue.

If space is not an entity (or time) then the cosmology I have presented makes sense, and the stuff of cosmos is presently expanding out into empty space, which is infinite volume in which all stuff exists and moves... not "space itself" as some "thing" which curves and expands.

I will search out what I have called the "traditional" bang/crunch cosmology, which is now called a "misconception," and share it here when found.

It's expanding distance. I've told you that a dozen times. Cosmological distances expand over time in a manner roughly proportional to the distance itself. It's Hubble's law.

I have said dozens of times that, as objects move further apart (as we observe on cosmic scale, the distance between them obviously increases, yet this does not mean that an entity "space" is expanding. Can you understand the difference?

I know we have our disagreements, Michael. But, I think that what I'm about to recommend would help tremendously. With the best intentions I offer this. Read the whole tutorial:

There is really no point if I must accept from the beginning the "fact" ((treated as such anyway) that space is an expanding entity, etc., and that time is a local phenomenon, different for each observer, etc.

ichael

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun;270923]Michael, I think one of your biggest problems with the current understanding of the Big Bang is that you envision the universe to be a bubble with a defined border.

You misunderstand what I envision. To define terms: I call "the universe" all there is, both known and unknown. I have said repeatedly that there can be no boundary *to space*, as it *must be infinite. I see the *observable cosmos" as one tiny sphere of visibility deep within a metaphorical "balloon membrane" of an expanding "maxi-cosmos." The only limit here is the limit of visibility, sometimes called the "cosmic event horizon"... how far we can see out into this micro-cosmic sphere within the expanding maxi-sphere.

Yes, the universe has a border. But that border exist in time, not in space. If it was ten minutes after the Big Bang, you'd have a border to the universe of ten minutes - but you will never, try as you might, reach that border - because it's ten minutes in time. You will have to outfly light to get there - which is impossible. This "edge" of the universe is expanding away from you at the speed of light, and with the space between you and the border expanding as well, the furthest reaches will expand away from you at what would appear to you to be faster than the speed of light.

I know you disagree with me about time (event duration) and believe that an absolute universal NOW is impossible. We have beat that one to death, so lets not repeat the debate. Naturally, our cosmic event horizon is limited by lightspeed, which has, of course a "time element" to its velocity.
You are *assuming* that "space is expanding" while I "see" stuff expanding outward *into empty space.* Nothing travels faster than light.

There is no way for you to reach it

.
I'm not positing "reaching" anything... as above.

It's not a "balloon" with a "border" or "edge" in space.

Neither you nor I nor anyone knows what lies beyond the cosmic event horizon (CEH). I "see" (say "envision" for your context of meaning) the CEH as one small sphere of visibility within a maxi-cosmic expanding balloon membrane, as I just posted to Modest above. Do not tell me what does and does not exist.
(The galaxies, etc. are the "molecules" in this metaphore, and stars are atoms.) We can not even "see" out of the "rubber of the whole balloon membrane.

The space in which we exist is bordered in time.

Suggest you read my comments on time near the end of the old "What is Time" thread.
http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...tml#post249111

I am not going to keep repeating how treating time as an entity is a misconception.... nor space (read "empty space"... 'cept where "things" exist.)

I don't know how else to explain this to you. But I can clearly see where your problem lies.

It is obvious that there is no possibility in your mind that I don't have a problem and that you do... following the textbook reification of time and space as you do. I disagree. Let's leave it at that. There is no chance for agreement here.

Michael

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

An alternative, which you just don't get, is that "stuff exploding out into empty space" is correct and "expanding space" is a misconception.

You're beating a dead horse to dust. It's already dead. I would like to move on. No
matter how many times you repeat "expanding space" being a misconception over your
proffered "empty space" to which "stuff" "explodes" out to, does not make it true. You say
it once; there is dialogue and a result. This is no longer a discussion. This is preaching
to the masses about a better belief system and you are the prophet. I and others here
have said, "fine. OK for you. I am not buying what you're selling". Why do we have to
go over it again. It was over 800 posts in the other thread without a result. Why do it
again now here. Please cease and desist. Enough. I'm bored with your rhetoric. You
have added nothing in the way of content.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

You gave no critical feedback about what you see wrong with the above. Rather you do the science version of bible thumping, citing textbook science. Do you understand that there can be no "end of space" as above... that it *must* be infinite, no matter what lies beyond our cosmic event horizon? I think not. That which is already infine emptiness does not expand or contract, tho the stuff in space can be observed to be moving as described by the Big Bang theory... and the Big crunch has not been ruled out.

This really is in the "eye of the beholder". From mine, Modest and the others point of
view, it you who is doing the "thumping" with little to back you up with other than what
you think is the "truth".

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

... that space expands and contracts and ignore the possibility that space is the infinite emptiness in which all cosmic "stuff" exists and moves... expanding outward as our visible cosmos is doing, and maybe eventually contracting again, crunching and then banging again.

Expanding or contracting space does require space being finite. See models created by
Wheeler in the 50s. Even Hoyle in 70s (one of his last lectures) considered a Steady State
model where space could contract or expand.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I know. If you bothered to read (or review) the cosmology I have presented in this thread and elsewhere, you would see that I have repeatedly endorsed the isotropic nature of the observable cosmos... and explained how this is consistent with the cosmology I have presented.

IMHO Modest probably rose that objection due to your suggestion of universal jets causing
the Big Bang. Those are kinda' directional.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

If it makes sense to you, please explain what space is other than the emptiness in which observable phenomena exist and move around.
Do you understand what Thomson and Jastrow were saying in the "sensible science" link above? It appears not.

We have done this already. Repeatedly. You have repeatedly disagreed. Why go over it
again.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

It assumes "curvature of space" and the ontological existence of "Space Time" as an entity....

It is you who call "spacetime" an entity. I do not see it as such. So stop attempting to make
me swallow that one. It is not to me.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I have always and still do consider this a false assumption, albeit, the standardized "body of knowledge" accepted by mainstream science today.

Fine with me. To you it is false. I can accept that.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Do you even acknowledge that the ontology of spacetime including space as curving/expanding and time as dilating, etc... both *entities* comprising a "fabric"...is still debateble not established beyond all doubt?

That manifolds are deformable, that a diffeomorphism can be set to describe the deforming,
that Differentiable Geometry defines the differential form, is definitely no longer debatable.
Sad that you dismiss this out of hand because you dismiss all mathematics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

If space is not an entity (or time) then the cosmology I have presented makes sense, and the stuff of cosmos is presently expanding out into empty space, which is infinite volume in which all stuff exists and moves... not "space itself" as some "thing" which curves and expands.

The cosmology you describe does NOT make sense (except to you).

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

There is really no point if I must accept from the beginning the "fact" ((treated as such anyway) that space is an expanding entity, etc., and that time is a local phenomenon, different for each observer, etc.

Great! Then lets drop it.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

It is obvious that there is no possibility in your mind that I don't have a problem and that you do... following the textbook reification of time and space as you do. I disagree. Let's leave it at that. There is no chance for agreement here.

It is definitely obvious that you and I (along with others) are in disagreement on this (and
other) issues. I would agree with you that it is best to leave it at that. I am also resigned
that there is no change for eventual agreement on this subject.

maddog

[modest]

Michael, your cosmic balloon thing didn't work because it did not translate to isotropic observation. The molecules in the surface of a rubber balloon don't expand isotropically in 3 dimensions from any point on or in the surface. It's a simple and demonstrable fact. You likened the molecules of the balloon to galaxies. Galaxies move isotropically and the rubber molecules in the surface of a balloon don't. It's falsified.

~modest