# Thread: The Big Bang and Maths(Question)

1. I am looking for some solid reads

on the maths behind, what I perceive( notice please I am not saying it is the biggest issue with the big bang theory) as the biggest flaw in the big bang theory and that's with the limited knowledge that I have:

So this is the question:

What makes it possible and logical for a single entity, the situation before the big bang (all space and matter in a single point) implying a 1 dimensional object expand and explode into 4 dimensions

So does anyone know or have a good simple explanation of how scientists made this leap of "faith"

I always think of it as similar to a stick man on a piece of paper stepping out of the paper and influencing the 3rd and 4th dimension, just illogical to me but again emphasis here on I might not have read enough to know...

also I would like to make the connection between this 1 state entity(the big bang) and the similarities to a black hole which as far as I am aware also influences and the 4 dimensions, we call the universe.(time included).

Hope I get some good explanations on the topic and the logic and maths behind it all.

(my maths is not what I would call excellent, but I have some solid university maths under my belt so dont throw out a ton of figures in the hopes of explaining it I am looking for information on how it was decided that this was ok to do)

2.

3. A single point can exist in 4 dimensions. Just liek a single point can exist in 2 Dimensions. A single point can exist in any number of dimensions.

As to why physicists made this "leap of faith": it's what the data points to. There was a lot of resistance when it was first proposed. Because on the surface it does sound silly. "Big bang" was a pejorative term. But it fits the data so what else can you do?

4. Originally Posted by Numsgil
A single point can exist in 4 dimensions. Just liek a single point can exist in 2 Dimensions. A single point can exist in any number of dimensions.

As to why physicists made this "leap of faith": it's what the data points to. There was a lot of resistance when it was first proposed. Because on the surface it does sound silly. "Big bang" was a pejorative term. But it fits the data so what else can you do?
what is the data could I view it for example and and why would it point to that, what made scientists so convinced(would like to see the logic and maths and evidence) basically what they saw.

and as for a single point existing in any number of dimensions... I didnt know that was possible thanks for the knowledge update..I always thought that the dimensions are

1. right angles to each other(at least as far as space and time is concerned)
2. layed, by which I mean a 1 D object has no length and breath etc, implying that it cannot exist on multiple dimensions, and cannot exist in space

what is the data could I view it for example and and why would it point to that, what made scientists so convinced(would like to see the logic and maths and evidence) basically what they saw.
Wiki has a good list.

and as for a single point existing in any number of dimensions... I didnt know that was possible thanks for the knowledge update..I always thought that the dimensions are
You've done algebra, right? Consider the 2D Cartesian grid. If I asked you to graph the point (1, -3), you could do that, right?

The actual big bang singularity (if there was such a thing. There's some recent work suggesting it didn't start off as a singularity) was space and time compacted. So not quite a point. More that every point in physical space was 0 distance from every other point in physical space.

1. right angles to each other(at least as far as space and time is concerned)
2. layed, by which I mean a 1 D object has no length and breath etc, implying that it cannot exist on multiple dimensions, and cannot exist in space
You know what a plane is, right? Basically an infinite sheet of paper. The 2D cartesian grid is a plane. A plane can exist in higher dimensions. You can pick up a piece of paper in our 3 dimensional world.

Or a line. A line is 1D. But a line can exist on a 2D Cartesian grid.

6. The actual big bang singularity (if there was such a thing. There's some recent work suggesting it didn't start off as a singularity) was space and time compacted. So not quite a point. More that every point in physical space was 0 distance from every other point in physical space.

that does make more sense to me the whole 0 distance apart from each other

You know what a plane is, right? Basically an infinite sheet of paper. The 2D cartesian grid is a plane. A plane can exist in higher dimensions. You can pick up a piece of paper in our 3 dimensional world.

Or a line. A line is 1D. But a line can exist on a 2D Cartesian grid.
yeah i agree with that, but was just making the paper example because it seems to me at least that the piece of paper is picking itself up and out of the 2 dimensional world.

and yeah I know how to draw dots...

7. “What makes it possible and logical for a single entity, the situation before the big bang (all space and matter in a single point) implying a 1 dimensional object expand and explode into 4 dimensions”

Think of the three spatial dimensions as vectors in an energy field. At the very small or quantum level (where virtually anything can and does happen), the energy fluctuates up and down, positive and negative. If it ‘hangs’ at the negative level for even just one instant (10^-43 second), then you get explosive growth from ‘negative pressure’. This is what Alan Guth figured out:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/guth...h02_index.html
As the universe expands exponentially, a Grand Unified or Superforce separates into the four forces we know today (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). This separation releases energy that eventually becomes the 10^50 tons of stuff we see in the night sky, as well as you and me. The negative pressure manifests itself as dark energy today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...iverse.physics
The Big Bang/Inflationary universe is the most tested theory in science, according to NASA.

Additionally, there is also some research into the possibility of extra dimensional colliding Branes causing the Big Bang, or tiny loops not requiring a Big Bang, simply a ‘bounce’. The research just needs some of that proof thing.

“also I would like to make the connection between this 1 state entity(the big bang) and the similarities to a black hole which as far as I am aware also influences and the 4 dimensions, we call the universe.(time included).”

The singularity at the Big Bang inflated into the visible universe. (It is theoretically possible that an infinitely large universe of dense energy inflated and thus, is now an infinitely large universe that is like the visible universe.) Negative pressure and the separation of the superforce produced an inflationary universe from the original singularity. The singularity in a Black Hole is caused when gravity overwhelms the other three forces. Negative pressure does not cause such a singularity to suddenly expand, because there is no superforce left to fuel the expansion.

8. AA

The most prominent beginnig for the BBT is that its beginning can only be started at Planck time of 1^-44 seconds.
At this point, GR is supposed to break down and is unsolvable.
One prominent scientist (Zeilik) starts the BBT off with 'super gravity' from zero to Planck time.

So. according to him, there is no singularity or black hole.
Besides when you turn the clock backwards, time starts at zero.

So I have been posting that the BBT is not science, but cosmogony that obviously is a creation theory with no real evidence for its beginning.

It is a 'subjective' creation and substitute for the Doppler implied cosmological red shift (CRS) that is replaced by the 'expansion of space' (EoS).
Doppler had to be replaced because it portrayed us as being in the center of the universe that is a virtual impossibility.

So, IMO, research is stagnated by this false science that has no real proof for the
EoS concept except the Doppler evidence that was refuted.

If you are familiar with Arp's Red Shift Anomsly, that is currently the strongest evidence that refutes the EoS as the cause of the CRS.

Cosmo

9. Originally Posted by Cosmo
So I have been posting that the BBT is not science, but cosmogony that obviously is a creation theory with no real evidence for its beginning.
I am confused by this sentence. Cosmogony is science. Are you saying it is not? You appear to be, though the ambiguity may arise from punctuation and sentence structure.

cosmogony
1. a theory about the origin and the evolution of the universe.
2. the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution of specific astronomical systems and the universe as a whole.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cosmogony

10. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Cosmo
So I have been posting that the BBT is not science, but cosmogony that obviously is a creation theory with no real evidence for its beginning.
I am confused by this sentence. Cosmogony is science. Are you saying it is not? You appear to be, though the ambiguity may arise from punctuation and sentence structure.

cosmogony
1. a theory about the origin and the evolution of the universe.
2. the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution of specific astronomical systems and the universe as a whole.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cosmogony
My Medrriam Webster dictionary defines it as,
The origin and 'creation' of the universe.

This is more applicable to the biblicable version.

Cosmo

11. Cosmo u definitely seem to disagree with some of the theory surrounding the Big bang. What evidence if any do u have to say its not true as u put it 'aligned with the creation theory'

I am not a believer in any of the theories surrounding the beginning of the universe but that doesnt mean I shouldnt learn as much as possible about what everyone thinks, I think as soon as belief comes into the any scientific situation the rigor of science vanishes, and in general I am a disbeliever(this statement is not an attack on ur views I am just curious as to how u explain the beginnings of the universe, ur theory)

12. Must every thread asking questions about the Big Bang devolve into a discussion of why it's wrong?

13. Originally Posted by Numsgil
Must every thread asking questions about the Big Bang devolve into a discussion of why it's wrong?
the first thing I learned as a scientist is question everything its the basis of the entire existence of the specialty we call science irrespective of what field we specialize in. The second we stop interacting in debate with skeptics of anything in science is the same moment we become no better than the religions and other dogmas that exist in this world.

I am not saying its wrong or asking why its wrong I am just open minded about situations like this for example a couple hundred years ago, dinosaurs didn't exist and there was nothing to prove that they did or didnt exist maybe even so called proof that they couldn't of existed

But alas they did....hence the skepticism on the predictions of about a span of time that cannot even be conceptualized by the human mind.

But I also think that the only way to say something can be refuted is for that person to become a complete master on the subject before 1 ounce of doubt is thrown at that theory and if u become a master of a subject and still do not think it is build on reasonable assumptions or solid evidence then and only then can it be doubted as a topic or subject and for me at least it seems to simple... and again thats why I was asking him what his views were, I DID NOT ASK WHY THE BIG BANG IS WRONG as u state in ur quote, I asked what he thought the answer was, its called debate, If I could find out what his view is if any and if he has evidence or lacks it makes it easier for me to be sceptical of his view, just as I am sceptical of all views around the so called beginnings of the universe

Another example of people using the mastery of a concept before the questioning of it, recently alot of pro christian advocates have been using the irreducible complexity theory on life as a means to prove the bible is accurate, and it took micro biologists experts in bacteria to prove them wrong and that even the bacteria they used to advocate this so called theory, could be simplified even further

I have read some comparisons in on the big bang for example at one point in its expansion it was the size of a fist, think about that, does that mean I could stand outside it and at that point in time what was it made of...

And that makes me think about the following(can we stand outside it and what evidence besides the usual "all matter was at that one point" hence u couldn't stand outside it) I know time is said to be started when the big bang started but its a circular definition and by that I mean time is defined as the interaction between things and hence underlies the theory of the big bang that there was nothing else in the entire universe (the universe didnt exist) hence nothing to interact with hence no meaning of time, that doesn't at least from my understanding mean that there was no time, just no interactions according to the theory as far as I am aware correct me if I am wrong on any of these things

Cosmo u definitely seem to disagree with some of the theory surrounding the Big bang. What evidence if any do u have to say its not true as u put it 'aligned with the creation theory'

I am not a believer in any of the theories surrounding the beginning of the universe but that doesnt mean I shouldnt learn as much as possible about what everyone thinks, I think as soon as belief comes into the any scientific situation the rigor of science vanishes, and in general I am a disbeliever(this statement is not an attack on ur views I am just curious as to how u explain the beginnings of the universe, ur theory)
Granted: If someone refutes something, than they should have a replacement or alternative.
So my alternative is a 'Flat Space' universe.
I wrote an article about it
Originally promoted by Hoyle and et al, it was called the Steady State Universe.
So my universe can be described as a SSU but since Hoyle identifies with the SSU, I renamed mine as a FS universe.

A flat Space universe is a non expanding or contracting space. And it is not a static universe like Einsteins static univerese that would collapse.
Since my FS universe has NO curvature like Einsteins 'curvature of space' static universe, then his would collapse because his CoS would erode the momentum of the revolving objects that would cause his universe to collapse.

My non curvature space universe complies to all the Laws of physics like the Conservation of Matter Law. So it had no beginning and will have no end.

As a relpacement for the cosmological redshift that the BBT uses like the expansion of space, I use the Expansion of the Light Waves that I also wrote an article about.
So these two points are the reason for my FS universe .

Cosmo

15. “the first thing I learned as a scientist is question everything its the basis of the entire existence of the specialty we call science irrespective of what field we specialize in. The second we stop interacting in debate with skeptics of anything in science is the same moment we become no better than the religions and other dogmas that exist in this world.”

Except when some skeptic repeatedly states that 1+1=3. If someone insists that everything that you can prove scientifically is simply an opinion to them, then there is not a debate. To have a scientific debate, both sides must agree to use the same rules.

“I DID NOT ASK WHY THE BIG BANG IS WRONG as u state in ur quote, I asked what he thought the answer was, its called debate, If I could find out what his view is if any and if he has evidence or lacks it makes it easier for me to be sceptical of his view, just as I am sceptical of all views around the so called beginnings of the universe”

I believe Numsgil was referring to Cosmo’s posts, not yours.

“I have read some comparisons in on the big bang for example at one point in its expansion it was the size of a fist, think about that, does that mean I could stand outside it and at that point in time what was it made of... And that makes me think about the following(can we stand outside it and what evidence besides the usual "all matter was at that one point" hence u couldn't stand outside it) “

Two possibilities exist for the size of the universe. The visible universe is finite but unbounded, and as time passes we can see objects that are farther and farther away. Also, at least theoretically, the entire universe may be infinitely large (which is not to say that it is infinitely old as in the SSU). One could not “stand outside” the universe in either case, since there would be no space to stand in. The universe is everything and it can expand or contract. We cannot interact with anything that is not part of the universe, so the concept of something “outside” is still philosophical not scientific. Researchers are looking into this, however. It may be possible to find a “fingerprint” of other dimensions on the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe image, but there is no proof yet.

“I know time is said to be started when the big bang started but its a circular definition and by that I mean time is defined as the interaction between things and hence underlies the theory of the big bang that there was nothing else in the entire universe (the universe didnt exist) hence nothing to interact with hence no meaning of time, that doesn't at least from my understanding mean that there was no time, just no interactions according to the theory as far as I am aware correct me if I am wrong on any of these things ”

Correct. We do not have a theory of time, but it would be difficult logically to explain the meaning of time where there is no interaction. If you have no way of proving how much time passed before the start of an inflationary universe, then the notion is unscientific.

Research is ongoing as to what caused the Big Bang, or if a Big Bang is even necessary. However, scientific research is not scientific fact. A mathematical model of a universe very much like our own can describe a lot, but these models do not always satisfy everyone. There are approximately 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. If someone finds a few that appear to be an anomaly to the theory of an inflationary universe, that doesn’t really sink the theory. For example, when Arp had an image of a galaxy that is more distant than a quasar in the same image, this was interesting in 1966 because back then we thought that quasars preceded all galaxies. We now know that occasionally hydrogen clouds collapse directly into galaxies without forming Super Massive Black Holes, and thus without quasars. So an anomaly from the sixties is now explained through scientific fact. Eventually, the other anomalies will meet the same fate.

16. Arch

If you are confused about time, than this is my definition:

Time is MOTION or CHANGE.

To have this, you need the presence of forces and to have the presence of forces, you need matter.

Cosmo

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement