[Fredrick]

I would like to know what you think of the idea that first materialization came into being and subsequently the Big Bang happened.

Everyone knows that matter in our universe is moving outwardly from one center, but when we are reading about the first moments our universe came into being, we are reading about extrapolated facts, not actual facts. The theory that everything came out of one center is not disputed, but when being told that everything came out of a center the size of a pea, then that is a theory I have to disagree with. Or at least, I have a different version that can be applied to the same set of facts as well.

There is no evidence that our universe started from a pea; it may have been the size of a football, the size of our planet, it may have started hundred thousands of miles and miles around and away from the 'center.' The center of the materialized area may have actually been empty.

Why have it all start at a center the size of a pea? I don't know. It is an easy answer, but it doesn't solve anything extra nor does it deliver less mystery then when it started to appear in a larger area. Yet by having it start at the site of a center the size of a pea, it is impossible to have a spatial segment in front of the Big Bang to which we can apply the theoretical parts of the laws of our universe. However, if materialization started in a larger area with an 'empty/unmaterialized' center then we will have a spatial segment in front of materialization to which we can apply theory.

What if the outward movement was ongoing already in the unmaterialized universe? Why not? In theory we can say whatever we like as long as it fits the facts. And this fits the facts as easily as the pea-pod. You may ask: where did the unmaterialized center come from, but you may as well ask where the pea-pod came from: different question, same answer. By creating space in front of the Big Bang we can at least use that space to theorize, while the pea-pod does not allow us to theorize.

By having the stage of materialization start after the outward movement began, we then also have a Big Bang that started after materialization took place. The matter enabled the Big Bang while this delivered an extra push outward to the already outwardly moving matter.

Let's look at the spatial - theoretical - stage before materialization. The outward movement already existed; this still means that a center spot is the point from which the movement started. Yet instead of having materialization be the driving force of our expanding universe, we may find another reason. What is needed is a catapult to explain the outward movement. Just like a balloon under high pressure, once you put a needle in the skin all compressed molecules want one thing only: out!

But there were no molecules before materialization. What did exist? Was it something or was it nothing? This theory needs the idea that what existed before materialization had to be something, but this something also needed to be a something where nothing did not yet exist. The premortal soup had everything in potential, but the full potential had not come out yet. The phenomenon of nothing had not come out either: everything was unified. The phenomenon of nothing - if it existed - was totally unimportant.

What is also needed is a pinned-up area of tension before materialization happened because a catapult means tension. Yet the moment of release can again be a simple one: letting go!

The phenomenon of nothing was not a part of the premortal soup, but when it was first created at the center of the already mentioned tension, we then have our source for releasing the catapult: the creation of nothing, which in ordinary words means: separation. Separation comes naturally - don't you agree - when under high tension.

The creation of separation would then have occured at the center of our universe. Then, the catapulting premortal soup had to incorporate this phenomenon of separation and this delivers materialization. While the premortal soup moves outwardly the tension becomes fixed because of the now existing separation.

The materialization then gets into conflict with... materialization itself: it is hard to incorporate separation and especially when not everything falls in place the same way... Kaboom: sparks fly.

So, what do you think? Are there any facts known that would obstruct this theory from being taken seriously? I do apologize if the story reminded you of your parents' worst days. I am truly sorry. But hey? What else is new?

[force5]

I agree. I don't think the BB (expansion) began as a pea size volume. If you can't create or destroy energy, then all of this energy must have been around prior to the BB. I think the idea of "center" only applies after the fact when looking back in time. The idea of a center would not be relavent if nothing else exist. I could talk for hours on this subject.

I think we think alot alike.

[ccristi99]

I agree there must have been something "like that". But there are still some serious gaps:

1. the theory begins with "everything" in an unified form. Then the "everything" already existed at the time.
2. when "nothing" is created why should a kaboom occur? can't they just be an "everything" and a "nothing" peacefully side-by-side? I don't quite understand this: "The materialization then gets into conflict with... materialization itself"
3. why would the explosion occur radially around a center? who invented 3D space and linear motion anyway?

Therefore for a big-bang explosion to happen you need a number of things: matter (the sutff that actually pops), some forces which rule that matter cannot stay pressed together, and some space around. And since all these things had to exist just before the bigbang, there are two options:
1. they were created just before the explosion
2. they were around for longer

And if space, matter and fundamental forces were already there at the time of the boom then I believe the following theory is more plausible:

The idea that the big-bang did not actually create the universe, but is just a local phenomenon, doesn't seem to be very popular for some reason. I posted it somewhere on this site already, but here it is again: what if the big-bang is just one of many others like it out there, and there's nothing special about it, is just like a big star, keeps sucking matter until it pops, matter flies all over until inertia wears out and gravity pulls everything back.

I'm not talking about a pulsating universe, but about a "local phenomenon", meaning there are other balls of matter out there which follow the same pattern. We can barely see the margins of our big ball, and we'd have to squint really hard to see further.

The pea-size ball, right before it exploded, is then plausible. I believe that particular size has something to do with Planck scale times all known matter in the universe (at least what we can see).

It all adds up: the REAL universe is infinite and time did not suddenly begin some billion years ago. But at the same time we're back to square one: everything adds up but nothing is explained.

By the way, do you happen to have a theory about what space is? At least some vague ideas; nobody comes even close to trying to explain it. And, quite literally, nothing moves without it. It is most likely an illusion created as the side effect of some rule, but why 3 dimensions? I have a hunch it can be approached by studying numbers, more dimensions may appear out of necessity, like in the case of complex numbers. There's your second dimension, it appears out of nowhere as a consequence of the properties of numbers. But the darn complex numbers seem to be self sufficient, there is no hint of a second imaginary number.

Can't wait for your comments

[force5]

Hi ccristi99;

I think alot of people take the term "BB" literally which I think is a mistake. I don't think it's intended to imply an actual explosion took place, but, instead a very rapid expansion because of the relative smallness of the volume in question.

1. I do think "everything" should be taken literally. And, I think the "everything" is referring to the total energy in existence then and now.

2. I think you hit the nail on the head. Everything and nothing had to co-exist before during and after the so called BB. I prefer to use the terms as existence vs. non-existence. I'm very satified with the fundamental law that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

3. I don't think it's a "who" but a what. The BB is understood by many that both "normal" matter and space were created at the very beginning of this process.

On your two options pertaining to where it all came from, I choose option 2.

If it's okay with you I'll just jump ahead and address the issue of "what is vacuum space?"

I think this is one of the most mis-understood problems related to understanding the big picture. In my humble opion;

1. Space is not some form of aether.
2. Space is not and endless volume of nothingness that goes on forever.

Space is simply another form of energy. Any volume of space that is absent of matter is vacuum energy. This includes the various forms of radiation as well as dark energy and ZPE.

Please understand that I'm not trying to act like a professor, but just trying to present my thoughs on the subject.

I just love trying to figure things out.

John

[cristian]

Thanks force5
"On your two options pertaining to where it all came from, I choose option 2."
Option 2 said that all components of the BB (matter, space and some rules for interaction) already existed, and were not created together with the BB. This makes the BB itself not very special. If you cram all those elementary particles in such a tiny space it's no wonder they will "expand rapidly" like you said.

Therefore the BB is not all that interesting, but the actual creation of these things is, regardless if this creation happened together with BB, or long before it.

Fair enough to say that the amount of energy created at the beginning is the same as the one floating through space now (conservation law). It's not very clear how this energy forms into matter, and how matter interacts, but many people around here seem to have some ideas. But my question was about space itself, not as in "what's in an empty space" but rather "what does movement through space mean".

Ok if there exists a "vacuum energy" but how does it explain concepts like "direction" or "distance"? What does it mean that a particle has "moved"? Why do things tend to move in a straight line until told otherwise? These concepts are taken for granted when one talks about particles or their interaction.

I insist on this because all known forces seem to be functions of space, that is they affect a particle's position rather than anything else. How can you understand the force if you don't know what "position" is?

[force5]

Hi cristian(ccristi99)?

I copied your questions and comments so I can respond to as much as I can.

"C"
Option 2 said that all components of the BB (matter, space and some rules for interaction) already existed, and were not created together with the BB. This makes the BB itself not very special. If you cram all those elementary particles in such a tiny space it's no wonder they will "expand rapidly" like you said.

"J"
1. Matter existed but space did not. The space that exist today began comming into existence at the beginning of the BB.
2. I think the term "tiny" is relative. The actual volume of matter at that point is very speculative.

"C"
Therefore the BB is not all that interesting, but the actual creation of these things is, regardless if this creation happened together with BB, or long before it.

"J"
IMHO, the BB was the beginning of the current expansion cycle.

"C"
Fair enough to say that the amount of energy created at the beginning is the same as the one floating through space now (conservation law). It's not very clear how this energy forms into matter, and how matter interacts, but many people around here seem to have some ideas. But my question was about space itself, not as in "what's in an empty space" but rather "what does movement through space mean".

"J"
1. Sorry, but I didn't state that the energy was created "at the beginning".
2. IMHO, the energy is not floating thru space, but "is" space.
3. The "space" energy recombined with the "matter" energy as a result of the previous Big Crunch.
4. Consider the possibility that mass is not "moving thru space" but maybe the space itself is being produced, consummed or pushed aside. or reflection, refraction or radiated. (not the best analogy)

"C"
Ok if there exists a "vacuum energy" but how does it explain concepts like "direction" or "distance"? What does it mean that a particle has "moved"? Why do things tend to move in a straight line until told otherwise? These concepts are taken for granted when one talks about particles or their interaction.

"J"
1. Things like distance, direction and movement are simply methods of comparing one or more objects with other objects in relative terms.
2. I believe the laws of inertia are well defined by others who have explained it much better than I could.

"C"
I insist on this because all known forces seem to be functions of space, that is they affect a particle's position rather than anything else. How can you understand the force if you don't know what "position" is?

"J"
I think of it in a slightly different way;

1. When you refer to space, to me, this is just another form of energy.
2. I think of the fundamental forces as the inter-action of energy at different stages.

Keep in mind, I'm simply stating my personal view of things that has evolved over the last 50 plus years. I will change my understanding of things if either someone else or myself can come up with a better explanation.

Stay curious..........John

[Fredrick]

This thread is looking good already with some interesting angles. I am not going to answer each specific question and idea, but rather pick one thing that interests me for now.

When I mention that nothing did not exist before the Big Bang (the BB is more seen like an inflation of matter — though I did read somewhere about an extra speed-up of matter occurring not long after the initial expansion, which may have been caused by an extra expulsion, explosion, or what you have) then I mean a nothing that is important, functional, fundamental. Whatever existed before contained potentially everything that came out of it. Yet while all matter could have existed in concord with all matter that was, I imagine the nothing (before the BB) to be highly unimportant. In potential it could be created, but as such it did not exist. There was no concord between (unmaterialized) matter and the (unmaterialized) phenomenon of nothing; the nothing was simply not important.

If you have problems understanding this, it may be easiest to replace nothing with the word separation. Before the BB there was no separation, after the BB (with the BB) there was separation. Separation indicates a nothing that is in-between, it is a nothing that takes up space (nice discussion, fellows, not my cup of tea actually, for me space is just a whole lot of nothing). Before the BB there was a concord in which separation was only potentially available. When separation was created the absolute aspect of concord was gone. It would now only exist as part of the materialized matter.

While before the BB there was no separation, after the BB the separation does not only exist between matter, but also within matter. The matter used to be (before the BB) in concord with everything. Well it is mighty hard to be in concord with everything if separation is part of everything. No matter how short or long you think about it, separation indicates choice (going back together, going it alone, going with this but not with that), and as such each particle of matter — each separated entity if you wish — has to make a choice (out of fairly limited options) to become materialized. Whether it was really a choice is ofcourse a different discussion. Let's replace that with option, possibility.

Becoming materialized in various ways indicates conflict (Kaboom) for me. Water and fire don't go together well.

[yanniru]

Of all the variuos cosmologies including finite ones like the Big Bang and infinite ones like the Cyclic cosmologies, I prefer the hypothesis of Smolin of an evolution of generations of universes with baby univeres being spawned by black holes.

Smolin says his hypothesis can be falsified by finding brown dwarfs above a certain size. He also makes the point that the fittest universes are those that maximize the number of black holes; and that such universes must be in perponderance now, and be ours as well. If I recall correctly, conditions for maximum numbers of black holes are consistent with the creation of lifeforms.

Anyway I see some hints that the mechanism of baby universe creation may soon become established physics.
1. Bojowald's treatment of singularities in GR, according to Coule (Ref provided if there is interest), based on LQG indicates that baby universes will be created in the singularity; and that the singularity nulls entropy, a necessary property for Smolin's hypothesis to be true.
2. Even classical solutions of Einstein's GR equations for a black hole (see Hamilton) with both baryonic and Dark matter available, indicate the existense of a Cauchy horizon beyond which, under certain conditions, baryonic matter will flow into a new space not of this universe. Under other conditions the Cauchy horizon shrinks back into the black hole singularity where I expect it continues to provide entry into new universes.

Brain Greene's book "The Elegant Universe" has pictures of a new universe being pinched off from a black hole.

Bottomline, about as much material exists before the BB as after.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by yanniru Bottomline, about as much material existed before the BB as after.

I agree fully with the statement that as much material (as in potential energy/mass) existed before the BB as after. If however you mean that there was materialization before the BB then I need to place a question mark there.

We cannot know if there was materialization before the Big Bang, and if there was this also establishes for our currently materialized universe that it too can return to a state of pre-Bang preparedness. It is an interesting set-up, but it would be in conflict with the significance of nothing I discovered - where separation is seen as the reason of our universe's existence; a return would not be possible for our universe. With the action of letting go - by creating separation - our universe exists in a changing but non-reversable state.

The second problem I have (though I do think it is an interesting set-up) is that it does not help explain the working of our universe: it may only help to establish a position of balance, but does not help explain. A fundamental nothing has a function that may be of help in explaining the forms of materialization we find: energy/mass finds expression in various ways while incorporating an external nothing (as in: independent forces exist due to fundamental separation). As such it helps explain that what we find. I do not get any extra tools out of a set-up with baby universes. How does it help creating a better understanding of our universe?

Though I can see how the current result may deliver instances on which a return to the initial state of the Big Bang is theoretically available (but according to me not in reality), this still does not deliver enough evidence that this has happened before. What I am trying to say is that it may be (theoretically) available now, but was not available before the Big Bang.

Sorry for the lousy analogy but when quick enough a chicken can be put back into an egg (theoretically), but it doesn't mean that before the chicken came out of the egg, the chicken had gone through a phase of being put back into an egg before. It happened once and only theoretically can the chick be put back.

Please see me as an interested party - even when I do not see how it can be possible.
__________________
The difference between a structure containing unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is fundamental.

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by Fredrick I agree fully with the statement that as much material (as in potential energy/mass) existed before the BB as after. The difference between a structure containing unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is fundamental.

I too think there the amount energy in Universe has not increased nor decreased i.e. energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Nothing is just plain nothing.
gavity is the buffer-zone between infinite nothing and finite something.

Rybo