I am starting this new topic at the suggestion of Kaptain K which occurred in the "Questions and Answers" heading.

Is there such a thing as "before" the Big Bang?

I don't know if I agree with his suggestion but here goes anyway. I will re-post the original post and also Kaptain K's reply so that everyone will be "up to speed".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

04-April-2006, 03:14 PM Squashed #45

The Slowing Universe & Relativity

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as time and the universe I believe that time is relative to the speed of light as Einstein alluded to with the theory of relativity. Since physics deals with the four physical forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear; and with matter (which is really just "condensed" energy) then time began with the appearance of energy. The big flash, which is what the big bang really was, began time by the flash of electromagnetic energy that it produced. Energy is what creates spacetime.

The "emptiness" of space is only an imaginary state because space is filled with electromagnetic waves (star light being one), the background microwave radiation, as well as the gravitational fields of countless celestial objects. We measure time by counting the transfer-of-energy cycles within natural processes: the vibration of cesium atoms is our latest method.

So the big flash had an origin and spacetime has expanded ever since outwardly from that origin - at the speed of light. So there is a "universal" time which is the amount of time that light takes to travel from the origin of the big flash to the edge of spacetime. Time continues because spacetime continues to expand in all directions from the point of origin.

According to inflation the expansion of spacetime stretches the waves of electromagnetic radiation and so if inflation stretches spacetime then so should regular expansion of spacetime. This stretching slows the transfer of energy by stretching the wave. This stretching also slows the speed of time (since we measure time by energy transfer). If this is the case then the speed of time becomes relative to the point on the universal timeline at which time is observed. So things happened much faster in the beginning because of the compressed spacetime than happens currently in our "stretched" universe. We are all unaware of this slowing because our methodologies for measuring time "self-calibrate" to the universal time.

But the slowing is not without observable consequence because the amount of time for energy transfers to occur is dependent upon the distance between the originating object and the receiving object. Star light is an energy transfer and since the distances are so great then the stretching of spacetime cause’s red-shifting of the star light as compared with fresh sunlight. Isotopic decay is an energy transference which is slowed in lock-step with the universal slowing and so the rate of radioactive decay is constantly slowing. This all leads to the fact that it is impossible to positively know the age of the universe because our methods of reading age are "stretch-dependent".

It seems that Einstein truly had a stroke of genius when he realized that time is dependent upon the speed of light for it is the speed of light that stretches spacetime and so relativity is not only gravitationally (general theory) or velocity (special theory) dependent but also timeline dependent. So natural energy-transferring events when viewed from differing points on the universal timeline of history occur at different speeds.

.

05-April-2006, 01:45 PM Squashed #47

The Slowing Universe Continued

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KK,

I suppose you're right about the ATM thread but since I am new to this forum I do not know if I am the one to initiate the move or if the moderator will do it for me.

My post was an "off the cuff" reply but after thinking about some of the ramifications of the conclusions it would tend to turn our understanding of the universe on its head.

As far as the inflationary period I have always just blindly accepted its occurrence but now I wonder why it could go faster than light while the rest of the universe must obey this constraint.

Your answer seems to indicate a dichotomy between matter and energy and spacetime but the cosmic kernel would seem to suggest that all three are interrelated and/or interchangeable since it is from a single event that the three evolved.

If the cosmic kernel was created truly by chance then that would suggest that only one event would have happened the result of which formed the universe. If two separate, yet complementary, events occurred simultaneously then the probability of a chance occurrence greatly diminishes. To have three separate, yet complementary, events occur simultaneously points towards an engineering feat (???Intelligent Design???) rather than a chance occurrence. So sticking with chance leaves the below outcomes:

1.) Energy was created, matter and spacetime resulted;
2.) Matter was created, energy and spacetime resulted; or
3.) Spacetime was created, energy and matter resulted.

If number 2 was the scenario then I can see no reason why such a large amount of mass (the entire universe) would not immediately collapse into a black hole.

If number 3 was the case then it would require two sequential events: a.) spacetime was created and b.) matter/energy was created via vacuum fluctuations. Again this requires a non-logical complementary sequence in order for the universe to happen - which points toward engineering.

The only logical choice seems to be number 1 because matter would logically precipitate from the energy, but then this also implies that energy creates spacetime which leads to the declaration that: without energy then spacetime does not exist.

Since energy is transmitted via electromagnetic waves then it is only logical to conclude that spacetime expands at the speed of light and no faster.

If, as the big bang theory dictates, inflation stretches electromagnetic waves then that leads to the conclusion that energy-transfer events become dependent upon the stretching of spacetime which is itself dependent upon the speed of light. This leads to two consequences: spacetime decompression and a decelerating change in spacetime.

The change in spacetime stretching is a decreasing function as follows:

Going back to the very start, the 2nd second after the big bang produced a 100% increase in the size of the spacetime radius of the spacetime sphere.

The 3rd second after the big bang produced a 50% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 4th second after the big bang produced a 33% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 5th second after the big bang produced a 25% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 6th second after the big bang produced a 20% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 7th second after the big bang produced a 17% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 8th second after the big bang produced a 14% increase in the spacetime radius.

And so on ....

This percentage change in spacetime stretching results in differing speeds of “in-transit” energy transfers at different periods on the timeline of the universe. The transit distance of the energy transfer determines the amount of the effect of the percentage change in spacetime stretching. Therefore close, short duration (nuclear decay) energy-transfer events are less affected by the percentage change in spacetime than distant, long duration energy-transfer events (star to earth transfers).

Since inflation decompresses spacetime then the distances between energy-transferring objects is constantly increasing which tends to slow the processes since the transit speed of electromagnetic energy is constant.

The decompression of spacetime is an accumulating function as follows:

Going back to the very start, the 2nd second after the big bang increased the size of the spacetime radius of the spacetime sphere to 2 light-seconds.

The 3rd second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 3 light-seconds.
The 4th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 4 light-seconds.
The 5th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 5 light-seconds.
The 6th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 6 light-seconds.
The 7th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 7 light-seconds.
The 8th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 8 light-seconds.

And so on ....

This aspect of inflation decreases the speed of energy-transference because all of space increases proportionately which means longer distances over which to transfer energy.

Imagine an energy transfer between two objects that are separated by a distance equal to two wavelengths of the energy to be transferred. The percentage change effect would only affect a wave that is “in-transit” but the resulting space decompression affects every wave thereafter.

This would also be a foundational reason for the law that states that “entropy always increases” because spacetime decompression is making energy transfer harder and harder with each passing second.

What about energy always existed as potential and one event generated conditions for that energy to do work?

Why do you conclude that time is slowing? If the speed of light is a constant while space expands, then time must accelerate in order to keep pace otherwise c would not be a constant for all observers. In General Relativity, space contracts and time slows in the presence of massive bodies. The interior of the Big Bang must have been an extremely gravitationally dense environment where distances were short and a second would be eons relative to the present rate of time. The expansion of the universe might be compared to the emergence from a gravity well where space expands while time accelerates. The Big Bang was the Mother of all gravity wells and our emergence from those early conditions may have involved both the expansion of space and the acceleration of time. When we observe light from sources in deep space, we see that their light is redshifted relative to modern light. This is a clue that clocks in the distant past were running slower than clocks at present. If clocks in the past were running faster, then light from distant sources would be blueshifted…ignoring the expansion of space. I agree with your conclusion that it is impossible to positively know the age of the universe because our methods of reading age are "stretch-dependent" but the units that are "stretching" may be both space and time.

Pasqual Jordan proposed a theory that is still popular. He suggested that the universe consists of equal amounts of positive and negative energy. Positive energy is in the form of what we normally call matter and energy. Matter is just a more concentrated form of positive energy but the two are the same. Negative energy is what we call gravity. Gravity is a negative energy since it takes energy to separate matter from gravity. The universe may have begun as a quantum fluctuation with one part of the fluctuation producing positive energy (energy and matter) and the other part of the fluctuation producing negative energy (gravity). Since the universe consists of equal amounts of positive and negative energy, the net energy of the universe is zero and it took no energy to create the universe.

What I am proposing is that the appearance, to a "universal" viewer, is that our clocks are slowing because the transfer of energy is slowing. Universal time never slows because it is fixed to the speed of light which is constant. It is at this constant rate that spacetime continues to be stretched and enlarged.

The stretching effect is currently nearly irrelevant because of the current size of the universe. The stretching is defined by the declining percentage change with each passing second. One second of spacetime enlargement is inconsequential as compared to the 14 billion light years of previous growth.

It is the cumulative effect of spacetime decompression that slows the energy transferring processes as compared with earlier in time: like at age 7 billion when the decompression value was half of the value today. So at age 7 billion energy transfer occurred twice as fast.

The universe is logical and logic is symmetrical.

If inflation is true then the formula for general relativity needs tweaking to compensate for spacetime compression. According to general relativity when the mass of an object exceeds a certain value then a boundary called a Schwarzschild radius develops and relative time goes backwards inside that radius. The illogical result, though, is that the effect is only one-way. The outside viewer "sees" the traveler's time going backward but the traveler does not "see" the outside viewer's time going backward - which is illogical.

If the formula for general relativity were modified to include spacetime compression then the result would be that in no circumstance can logical symmetry be violated and therefore in no circumstance will time ever go backward for only one observer.

In the presence of massive objects time appears to go faster because of spacetime compression but inversely general relativity slows the time. For the special case of black hole singularities time moves infinitely fast at the origin of the singularity (when only considering spacetime compression) but as a traveler moves away from that origin the passage of time begins to slow (as measured by clocks) in a smooth gradient until the traveler’s time reaches the speed of universal time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The following scenario only outlines the effects of spacetime compression as a person's postion relative to a black hole changes. General relativity still applies but is offset somewhat by spacetime compression.

Take the case of two persons, one male and one female, at the edge of spacetime each with a light reflection clock constructed with the two mirrors separated by a distance of one meter (light speed is always constant for all participants). As the female departs towards a black hole spacetime gets progressively more and more compressed which causes the distance between the mirrors to shrink and so her clock runs faster.

At a point where the spacetime for the female is twice as compressed as the stationary male observer's spacetime then he sees that the female's clock is twice as fast as his clock and this is because the light in her clock is only moving half the distance as the light in his clock. The female "sees" that the male's mirrors are twice as far apart as hers so she concludes that his time is moving half as fast as hers.

As the female moves towards the black hole singularity the distance between the mirrors continues to shrink with the increasing spacetime compression. When the female finally reaches the singularity the distance between her mirrors equals zero at which point the male observes that her clock is infinitely fast. Logic is symmetrical and so the female "sees" the distance between the male's mirrors becomes infinite compared with her clock and so she concludes that time has stopped for the male. But in no case does time go backwards for either participant (sorry sci-fi buffs).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Both participants consider their distance value between the mirrors of "a distance of one meter" to be valid because distance is defined by a "compression-dependent" algorithm and so the shortened meter of the female seems correct to her as does the length of the stationary meter of the male. Whether the compression-dependent algorithm is simply the length of a metal meter stick or the distance traveled by light in the time of so many cesium atom vibrations both lengths, when examined, turn out to be compression-dependent. So the illusion is that no one can tell the effects of spacetime decompression.

So it appears to the female participant that energy-transfer speeds are normal because her clock speeds up in lock-step with the increasing speed of energy transfers (the light clock is an energy-transfer device).

I'm not sure what you're suggesting by your question but I'll attempt to answer anyway. I believe your question suggests that energy is eternal and that the big bang only triggered its release which may very well be true but that seems to fall under selection number 1.) from my previous post reiterated below:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So sticking with chance leaves the below outcomes:

1.) Energy was created, matter and spacetime resulted;
2.) Matter was created, energy and spacetime resulted; or
3.) Spacetime was created, energy and matter resulted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If I understand your question correctly then what I wrote in regard to situation #1 would apply. Until the potential was released spacetime did not exist, nor did matter, and after the release spacetime expanded at the speed of light from then on.

The potential that you refer to would have already existed at the moment of the big bang because otherwise the energy would not have spread outward and formed the universe because there was no "driving" difference in potential. Just like a battery will not start a car if enough volts (electrical potential) are not present

I hope this answers your question but if not then explain your question more thoroughly. Thank you.

This whole thread is based on an idea that came to me recently when contemplating the inflation scenario of the big bang. I do not think the consequences of inflation have been fully thought out, or applied, to our understanding of the universe and the laws of relativity ,especially general relativity, and also timeline relativity as it pertains to energy transfer speeds.

Cosmologists seem to just totally disregard any lasting effects of inflation and presume that it was only a fleeting transitory event when, in reality, it is lasting and has consequences that can affect our entire understanding of the universe and its evolution.

Squashed I am not too sure about everything you are saying, but to start with a quote from Bob Angstrom, “When we observe light from sources in deep space, we see that their light is redshifted relative to modern light. This is a clue that clocks in the distant past were running slower than clocks at present.” If light arrives at Earth and that light contains an absorption line which should be at a much higher frequency, I take it that the light was emitted according to the same laws that apply on Earth but has somehow been altered during its journey. To say that clocks ran slower in the past gets into a strange area. If a clock measures ‘time distance’ between events you could say that there is more ‘time distance’ between events now (i.e. pulses emitted at say one tick intervals arrive at ten tick intervals). Is that a feature of clocks or of events? Which brings up one point, that ‘time’ and ‘space’ are just our measurements of events. If ‘spacetime’ is taken as a real, physical phenomenon, then the value of our measuring systems is suspect, which I take as one point of ‘relativity‘. Reading some threads I wonder about the value of trying to measure anything far away.

The three possible mass-energy-spacetime ‘creation’ scenarios are interesting. But what if mass, energy and spacetime (as a physical entity rather than a measurement) are all faces of the same ‘thing’, which is not a ‘thing’ at all, but simply motion? And they all ‘move’ at once?

I think what you and Bob are referring to are the effects of the spacetime stretching process because that is the only process that can alter "in-transit" electromagnetic waves. I firmly believe that the speed of light can not be violated and that it is constant for all observers and so freshly generated light remains the same always until it encounters an object ... or ... when spacetime stretching occurs. Already compressed spacetime does not affect "in-transit" light, only the stretching of spacetime affects "in-transit" light. Stretching is the cause of spacetime decompression. Stretching is the act and decompression is the consequence of the act.

I know that what I write is confusing and I have already had to change my description of the blackhole encounter. It is very hard for my "small" mind to break outside the current paradigm but I believe that the formula for general relativity needs modified to include spacetime compression or decompression.

This is all necessitated by the fact that inflation is a mechanism of the big bang and I do not think it was only a transitory effect ... but it is a decreasing effect.


The consequence of decompressed spacetime is slower clocks (along with slower energy transfers) and so since spacetime is more decompressed now then time, as measured by clocks, was faster before - sorry if I have been confusing with my posts.


The big bang mechanism of "inflation" seems to indicate that spacetime is "a real, physical phenomenon" or else how could it elongate already existing electromagnetic waves to cool them.


That is an intriguing thought but I would rather believe that spacetime is a result of the propagation of energy and that matter is evolved from the energy emitted by the big bang. Matter can not move at the speed of light and so it would seem to be too slow a vehicle for the pushing back of the limits of spacetime.

Although the gravity of matter could be considered the vehicle that enlarges spacetime, according to the big bang, matter did not exist at first until after spacetime was "inflated" and so how could matter be the vehicle of spacetime?

I have briefly read about this theory but, according to relativity, doesn't it make more sense to conclude that gravity is more a change of spacetime than an actual particle or energy entity? I am tending to think that maybe magnetic fields, also, involve a change of spacetime rather than being transmitted via energy entities like photons.

Gravity-intensive events which are supposed to create "gravitons" are, rather, just spacetime "tremors" that ripple throughout the universe.

I have not really put a lot of thought into the magnetic field idea but at first glance it sounds like it may be a reasonable approach. If both magnetic and gravitational fields are simply changes in the structure of spacetime then the propagation of both fields would be constrained by the speed of light - I would think (can a spacetime tremor travel faster than light?).

Blackholes are a curious entity because the very structure of matter is crushed and so if matter does not exist then it is only logical to conclude that matter is crushed into its more elemental form: energy.

If a blackhole does crush matter into energy then why does it not simply explode like the cosmic kernel? Possibly it is because energy also has gravity but since it is such a small quantity, for even an atom, then the gravitational field of a single photon is even more inconsequential.

So if energy has gravity then why didn't the cosmic kernel remain collapsed? That leads me to compare the differences between the cosmic kernel and a blackhole.

When comparing blackholes to the cosmic kernel the only difference that I can fathom is that the cosmic kernel did not yet have the opportunity to expend energy creating changes to spacetime as demonstrated by a gravitational field. So the cosmic kernel could explode because it still had its "reserve" of gravitational power; whereas, a blackhole has already modified spacetime and expended this additional energy reserve.

The structure of spacetime would seem to be the interacting and interconnectiveness of the gravitational fields of every component of the universe: energy and matter. Energy, being faster than matter, is the primary vehicle for expanding/creating spacetime.

Matter having more mass-energy than just "plain" energy exerts more influence upon the structure of spacetime.

The cosmic kernel was the embodiment of the entire universe, including all matter and energy and by extension spacetime also. Until the energy was released only space existed which was completely void of any physical properties including the uncertainty principle a derivation of which is the vacuum fluctuation.

Vacuum fluctuations have been likened to temporary loans from the "energy bank" that are repaid when the two virtual particles annihilate each other. So it requires an "energy infrastructure" in order for the vacuum fluctuation mechanism to function and that energy infrastructure is spacetime.

So, unlike a blackhole which exists within spacetime and is shrouded inside a Schwarzschild radius, the cosmic kernel was a "naked" singularity. It was naked because the "clothing" via spacetime was not yet available - it was still contained within the cosmic kernel singularity.

Therefore; as I have been stating from the start, spacetime is created by the release of energy from the big bang and spacetime did not pre-exist the cosmic kernel. Spacetime, being dependent upon energy, is therefore limited by the speed of light constraint which means that believing in faster-than-light inflation is just plain wrong.

Okay, I will concede, for the moment, that the faster-than-light inflation occurred. But according to what I have read the universe only transitioned from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit (grapefruit = about 5 inches or 127mm) during this hyper-inflationary period. So the 127 mm would be the "baseline" from which "normal" light-speed expansion began. So, basically, my previous calculations are still valid:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The change in spacetime stretching is a decreasing function as follows:

Going back to the very start, the 2nd second after the big bang produced a 100% increase in the size of the spacetime radius of the spacetime sphere.

The 3rd second after the big bang produced a 50% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 4th second after the big bang produced a 33% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 5th second after the big bang produced a 25% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 6th second after the big bang produced a 20% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 7th second after the big bang produced a 17% increase in the spacetime radius.
The 8th second after the big bang produced a 14% increase in the spacetime radius.

And so on ....





The decompression of spacetime is an accumulating function as follows:

Going back to the very start, the 2nd second after the big bang increased the size of the spacetime radius of the spacetime sphere to 2 light-seconds.

The 3rd second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 3 light-seconds.
The 4th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 4 light-seconds.
The 5th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 5 light-seconds.
The 6th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 6 light-seconds.
The 7th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 7 light-seconds.
The 8th second after the big bang increased the spacetime radius to 8 light-seconds.

And so on ....


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It seems illogical to believe that only the hyper-inflation produced "in-transit" electromagnetic stretching and that "normal" light-speed expansion does NOT produce "in-transit" electromagnetic stretching.

I read in another thread about the "welling affect" of spacetime expansion in regard to galaxy separation (similar to the separation of boats by water welling between the two vessels). It seems wrong to believe that spacetime decompression can separate massive galaxies by spacetime welling but have no effect upon microscopic matter. The welling effect between boats is caused by a smaller particle (water molecules) interacting with larger objects (boats). The same is true with atoms and spacetime. It would seem, to me, that spacetime is infinitely divisible and so it should be able to be smaller than atoms, smaller than sub-atomic particles and even smaller than the fundamental particles that make up protons, neutrons, and electrons. So the welling effect of spacetime applies to all levels of structure: intergalactic and sub-atomic. I could even concede that the smallest size of a "spacetime unit" is the diameter of the particle-like attributes of a photon, since one of my contentions is that energy (photons being one form) creates spacetime, and; therefore, the welling possibilities of spacetime between sub-atomic particles still applies.

So the welling effect of spacetime decompression separates all matter entities and this separation causes the slowing of energy-transfers between said entities.

Also, going back to a point where no contention exists: spacetime welling separates galaxies; it can be seen from the following example that spacetime stretching (not decompression) can significantly elongate electromagnetic waves which, in effect, red-shifts the light. See the below example:


"The results show the young galaxy is as far as 13 billion light-years from Earth, based on an estimated age for the universe of approximately 14 billion years."

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new...eases/1997/25/

It seems logical to believe that the "young" galaxy referred to above is in a "young" universe that is only 1 billion years old. So if spacetime stretching is true then in the time that the light took to reach earth, which would be 13 billion years, the universe expanded as follows:

Size of the universe at age 1 billion years: radius equals 1 billion light-years.

Size of the universe at age 14 billion years: radius equals 14 billion light-years.

Percentage change in spacetime size from age 1 billion to age 14 billion years: 1,300% greater (or 14 times greater).

So the "in-transit" light waves from that galaxy were stretched to 14 times their original length.

Expounding on a subject of a previous post:

In various texts that I have read there is always a distinction made about blackhole singularities in regard to the "breakdown of the physical laws" at such a point under such conditions.

It seems to me that this is somewhat in error because if matter is simply crushed into its elemental form: energy; then the laws of physics should still apply since the laws of physics deal with energy and energy transfers. A fundamental characteristic of energy is that it has no mass nor volume with the distinction being that it has no "rest" mass. Since matter is composed of energy according to Einstein's famous equation E=mc² and since matter exhibits gravity then it is only reasonable to believe that energy, also, possesses the attribute of gravity.

By crushing matter into energy the blackhole can achieve infinite density through a zero volume because the energy composing the blackhole, by definition, has no volume. So the very gravitation of the energy contains the energy so that the possibility of explosion is nullified. So I would contend that blackholes do indeed fall under the realm of physical law and therefore must conform to these laws of physics.

It might also be noted that this would nullify the possibility of "mini-blackholes" because the gravitational field of the mini-blackhole would be insufficient to contain the energy and would; therefore, result in an explosive burst of that energy.

I could imagine that a super-bright super nova could really be the explosion of a blackhole which was caused by Hawking radiation allowing enough mass to exit a "smallish" blackhole until the tipping point where the energy's own gravity could not contain itself.