Check the history of that Wiki page for a familiar name
Can you describe “a point in time”?
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
You can call it what you want. Gravity is only one factor. I'm not sure what you mean by each point having its own gravitational signature. The fact is that you will never be able to convince someone else at another point in space that time was frozen at frame 31. Hypothetically, you both will agree that time was frozen but you will disagree on the frame it froze on. As for time being considered a point. I see nothing conceptually wrong with that. This is along the lines of how I view photons and electrons. I just can't see how you could freeze all of space on the same time frame. Maybe you can explain your reasoning a little betterOriginally Posted by quantum_wave
Time dilation then? Each point has its own gravitational signature and so there is gravitational time dilation between any two points? Is that your point
?
It is conceptual. You say there are variables that mean no one will be convinced that when time stopped they were all at frame 31. Conceptually I am saying that is exactly when time stops at each point in space. So what I meant to ask you earlier is what causes the difference in the frame from one point to the next that makes each point freeze at a different frame time-wise..You can call it what you want. Gravity is only one factor. I'm not sure what you mean by each point having its own gravitational signature. The fact is that you will never be able to convince someone else at another point in space that time was frozen at frame 31. Hypothetically, you both will agree that time was frozen but you will disagree on the frame it froze on. As for time being considered a point. I see nothing conceptually wrong with that. This is along the lines of how I view photons and electrons. I just can't see how you could freeze all of space on the same time frame. Maybe you can explain your reasoning a little better
You replied that it was due to time having different increments, i.e. "each point in space is capable of experiencing a different increment for one second relative to another point" ... "The same amount of frames (60) from another point in space may represent half or double the amount of time" ... "Distance is only one varible. You'll have to account for the strength of each points surrounding gravitational fields, each points relative velocity as well as the different pressures and densities".
I agree with you and I am thinking that the conditions that you describe are similar to how I understand gravitational time dilation and relativistic time dilation.
The stronger the gravitational field, the slower time passes. The time that passes differs due to both gravitational time dilation and to relative velocity, but those effects are not occuring at the instant of the freeze frame because there is no motion. It takes multiple consecutive frames to determing motion and velocity at each point in space. Freeze frames simply show location. I'm starting with frame 31 for example in every frame and describing the difference in the past and the future due to relative mass and motion, i.e. the inertial connection.
Last edited:
There it is, I'd say. Tip of me finger.
There is nothing conceptual about which frame each point froze at. I think you are mixing up my words ... I see nothing conceptally wrong with time being a point. If you want to get philosophical about it then there is no way to know that time was frozen in the first place so this entire discussion is mute.
For the most part, yes. Other points may have froze along with your frame but that depends on the variables.
Look, if you were to compare frame 1 throughout every point in space there would be nothing to distinguish between the points (except relative position) until frame 2 is plotted. What I think you are saying is that every frame in the stack of 60 should be considered the first frame. This is counter intuitive to my frame dependent mindset. You can't kearn anything by recording one frame then throwing it away just to record another.
This is a contradictory statement. How would you describe the inertial connection with only one frame to compare? I see what your trying to say but I'm not understanding how it works.
I was attempting to explain myself better to you like you asked me to do. I said it was conceptual and attempted to describe the concept.
I reiterated the reasons you gave to say that each frame would be frozen at a different point in time. I acknowledged that relative momentum and gravitational fields would come into play from one frame to the next, and that would be true for every frame.
The concept of freezing time at all points in space that I was invoking was that there is something happening at all points in space at all points in time and when I conceptually freeze time I do so in every frame at the same instant as if there was a universal "now" at each instant. What ever was happening in each frame at that universal instant was frozen. I said that the frozen frames, all of them, show location but not momentum. I said that to determine history and future, you have to look at sequential frames.
Can you respond to which part of the above needs to be explained better unless all of it seems counter intuitive to your frame dependent mindset. You can't determine the inertial connection with one frame but I didn't say you could. We are discussing the same concept, but there is more than one mindset.
My mind set is that there is a gravitational force the connects all mass and it is not the curved geodesics of spacetime, it is an inertial connection established across space at the speed of light, i.e. gravity; two mind sets aimed at the same reality. Mass moves in curved paths but the reason it does so is orchestrated differently in each of the two mindsets.
I see the confusion ... sorry.
This is exactly how I first envisioned time. I called it the "speed of now" to signify that one point in time was instantaneously transported throughout the hole universe at a single frame. I told myself that the sun is doing something right now that we will not be able to see for another eight-minutes, just because I can not measure what is happening right now did not mean that it doesn't exist. I come to find out that this is a singular mind set. It requires my point in space to be special, to be a singular frame from which the rest of the universe should be compared. I should be able to compare the same observation from other points in space. When doing so you find that each point need not be on the same frame for any given moment in time.
oke:We obviously have a different set of preconceived notions. On one hand we agree that ...
(If "all of them" means "one by one".) And that ...
We even agree that ...
It seems we disagree on which frame time would be frozen on at any given moment.
:Chuckle: I get that. The universal “now” concept is the rule used to invoke the time freeze. You’re not buying the concept in spite of the fact that this thread invokes the concept of universal “now” as mentioned. You are on safe ground to feel that way since my concept is alternative to current theory.
Once the freeze is invoked, then from the frozen locations of each individual point in space at the universal “now” there is a history and a future. Each history and each future consists of frames in sequence. If the frozen “now” doesn’t agree with your mind set as to which frame we are frozen at, then the history that you see ends at a different point in time than mine and the future that you see begins at a different frame than mine.
But my opinion is that we can reconcile the history and the future for each point by examining the very things causing the difference that you have already pointed out. The two mindsets, yours and mine, will have the same frames, say frame 1 to frame 60. The difference is that some of the frames you see in the future, I see in the past because we have not transformed the individual frames to what I conceptually have invoked as the “universal now”
.So shall we discuss what it takes to make the transformations and then see what theories you are invoking that differ from the “universal now” idea?
If so, let's start with what it is you learned that made you think that my view makes my frames or points in time special as you put it? And yet your view of the frames that get frozen are not special because .... why?
I'm not sure how else to explain it. Let me try a different example. If we were to freeze time we could have one point stuck near time zero (big bang) and anothet point stuck at a time 13.7 billion years later. Now we can ask the question, how far away are these two points from each other? Well, from one perspective the two points would be 13.7 billion light years apart but from the other points perspective the two points would be right next to each other. All of this is happening at the exact same moment of the freeze frame. What matters the most is the point from which you choose to make the comparison.
Lawson's Criterion
Registered Senior Member
Dear Quantum Wave:
You can describe it by using a mathematical entity called a ''state vector.''
LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.
You can describe it by using a mathematical entity called a ''state vector.''
LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Yes, I see where you are coming from. But if I invoke the universal "now" today, there is no point at which "now" is 13.7 years ago. The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago at a point in space but 13.7 billion years have past for all points in space since then. Every point in space has a history that goes back infinitely and so each point in space has a different history for the frame that occurred 13.7 billion years ago, and for every other point in time before that and after that.
Now about the theory you are invoking that says that the Big Bang point in space still exists; General Relativity (Einstein), Inflationary Theory (Guth), Cosmological Principle (Gold and others)? All of those theories taken together make up my view of Big Bang Theory. Is that your thinking, i.e. that Big Bang Theory (BBT) says that a single point in space inflated, first exponentially and then to the rate we observe today (accelerating expansion)?
So in your view the Big Bang point is included in the sequence of frames that reside in the history file of every point in space. If you back track all the points will get closer to the Big Bang point until they converge at that point 13.7 billion years ago?
When I describe the universe "now" I am saying that though the Big Bang could be said to be a start point for General Relativity, it is not a start point from my alternative view. My view is that the universe was already in existence before the point in time and space attributed to the Big Bang event.
I'm not saying that there was no Big Bang. There pretty certainly was an event that caused the expansion of the observable universe. What I am doing is speculating about the preconditions and the cause of the Big Bang, features that are left out of the current cosmological consensus (BBT). I speculate about the preconditions as if the Big Bang was an event that took place within the landscape of a greater universe, infinite in space, time and energy.
Thanks for your last post because it was descriptive of the standard theory and allowed me to contrast your view to mine. Now if you would confirm that I understand your mindset and that you understand mine, how do you respond to speculation in general and to speculations about preconditions to the Big Bang specifically?
I see, a state vector can be used to describe universal "now" by assigning a mathematical value to all points in the infinite universe
. State vector:
A state vector in general control systems describes the observed states of an object in state space, e.g. in variables of the degrees of freedom for motion (i.e. translatory variables distance, velocity and acceleration for location and orientation in e.g. any right handed system of coordinates).
Just as I thought
.You can only say that is true for our point in space.
From what I can tell nothing really needed to be set tn motion. I say this out of the side of my mouth because I've only been able to "look at it" from a single reference point.
I can personally track the universe back to a time 1.105x10-61 seconds after the BB yet our concept of "time zero" didn't began until 2.977x10-36 seconds after the BB. Our concept of space-time started 8.926x10-28 seconds after the BB. How do I know this? Well, I don't want to get into it right now, maybe another time. What I can say is that these numbers hold true at every point in space and every time frame from which I can calculate them. It seems that the universe was moving well before we were given a frame to record it but to say that the universe was already in existence before the point in time attributed to the BB is nothing less than being persumptuous. We will never be able to understand what was happening before that first time frame until we understand the transitions that the universe went through which brough us to our current point in time. Even though I can find those numbers using things like the electric constant, magnetic constant, impedance of a vacuum, gravitational and elecrostatic influences (+2 other) along with the independent time frame for each point in space, I will not say that this is the correct answer. That is not for me to decide.
I'm not expecting the correct answer
. I'll put you down for sticking with standard theory because it would be presumptuous to speculate about the actual event that took place or what might have caused it.
Consider this Acitnoids. If the Big Bang occurred in pre-existing space instead of creating space when it occurred, we don't even know if the existing universe even still occupies the point in space where the Big Bang occurred as depicted in this graphic:
What is there about the observations we have made that indicates that space originated with the Big Bang? How do we know that our universe isn't moving through space?
What is there about the observations we have made that indicates that space originated with the Big Bang? How do we know that our universe isn't moving through space?
I'm not trying to be facetious or anything but I honestly do not understand what that graphic is showing. It looks like they are trying to show that as our universe expands, the central point of the Big Bang is left behind and our universe "centers itself" on a new point within the pre-existing space? If this is true then wouldn't one side of the universe be warmer than the other side do to its motion through the pre-existing space?
Lets start with a uniform temperature were every point in space becomes cooler at a constant rate.
I was right, this is what that graphic shows. Any motion through space would certainly change the shape of the universes and would cause a change in the visible horizon over large areas of the sky. Your graphic should show each circle as being bowed in the direction of motion. How fast would you say the universe is traveling and in which direction? I'm interested because the universe has a lot of mass, something would have had to of moved it in the first place. Is it speeding up or slowing down? What is the temperature of the pre-existing space relative to our universe (hotter, colder or the same)? If it's colder then by how much and at what point will this no longer be true?
Let me point out that the graphic was intended to convey the idea of the Big Bang occurring in pre-existing space. I don’t actually think it has any meaningful momentum through space.
I’m glad though to see that you have been able to speculate because you are speculating when you say it would appear flattened to us if it was in motion. It might well be flattened but if we can’t see to the edge then we don’t know. But I would agree if you said you doubt that we have any momentum through existing space to speak of.
The temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is thermalized at ~2.7 degrees K.
I don’t see why that means that space didn’t already exist with its own thermalized energy background?
Well, I’ll have to speculate. I’d say that the infant universe was billions of degrees K, maybe hundreds of billions.
I would speculate that the existing space surrounding the expanding Big Bang was very cold, colder than 2.7 degrees K and that it was thermalized also. And I speculate that the billions of degrees tiny ball of what we now call the visible universe began expanding exponentially into that cold surrounding thermalized space.
If a tiny hot ball expands exponentially into cold essentially empty space and inflates from Planck size to billions of light years across, how can we tell the initial temperatures of each of the two separate energy density environments? We only know about the net background conditions which show it to be ~2.7 K, homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale. If we are wrong to think there is no pre-existing space we get the wrong answers about the time-line.
And if such inflation did take place I speculate that it is the nature of thermal energy to equalize its temperature across its entire energy density background environment. That means that as the universe inflated by encompassing existing surrounding space, the temperature at the energy density boundary where the advancing energy density differential exists would show a consistent and steadily declining thermal temperature over the entire surface of the expanding sphere. I speculate that the inner ball of the sphere started equalizing with that surface temperature at the instant inflation began and has been equalizing its temperature with that of the surface of the advancing differential as inflation proceeds making the entire interior background thermalized, homogeneous and isotropic.
So I don’t see how any of that lets us determine that space didn’t already exist at the instant of the Big Bang.
Ok, now you've lost me. Two posts ago you say:
.
You seem to be arguing against space originating with the BB but then you say things like:
.
Please look up the word, thermalized. What is your moderator?
Then in your next post you say:
You can't have it both ways. Which way is it? If the BB no longer occupies the same point then it is in motion which can be observed as a temperature difference in the direction of motion. The bowed appearance would not end at the horizon and would cause a discrepancy in the observed distribution of matter.
.
You seem to be arguing against space originating with the BB but then you say things like:
What you're discribing is the BB with added bells and whistles. Do you view the Planck size as an absolute lower limit to the universe or as an absolute lower limit to our understanding of natural units?
The only way that this can happen at every point in space simultaneously is if we live in a closed system. What you are discribing is an open system. If our bubble is moving through a cold environment then the leading edge of the bubble would be cooler than the trailing edge. Over 13.7 billion years of expantion this discrepancy would have been spread out over the entire sky.
.
Please look up the word, thermalized. What is your moderator?
Originally Posted by *quantum_wave*
... we don't even know if the existing universe even still occupied the point in space where the Big Bang occurred ... How do we know that our universe isn't moving through space?
Originally posted by *quantum wave*
I don't actually think it has any meaningful momentum through space ... I would agree if you said you doubt that we have any momentum through existing space to speak of.
When you reposted what I said you left out the central point. There is no contradiction if you accept my explanation that I discussed the possibility that at the instant of the big bang, space already existed. The graphic and text with the graphic was still back on the topic that there were multiple points in space prior to the Big Bang, not just one where the Big Bang originated. If space already existed there would have been a potentially infinite number of points in space as opposed to one point in space which inflated into all of the points our observable universe now occupies. That was the point of the graphic that lead off with a depiction of pre-existing space. The motion discussion was not a speculation of mine, it was an example of how there was space surrounding the Big Bang that included an infinite number of pre-existing points in space.
Originally posted by *quantum wave*
... the existing space surrounding the expanding Big Bang was very cold ... (the) tiny ball of what we now call the visible universe began expanding exponentially ... If a tiny hot ball expands exponentially into cold essentially empty space and inflates from Planck size to billions of light years across, ...
It might appear to you that I am just jazzing up the existing Big Bang Theory. I don’t know what my motive would be unless I thought that one of the major short comings with the theory is that it leads to speculation about the initial conditions of the Big Bang, the cause of the Bang, and the question of the origin or at least an explanation for the physical existence of the universe, let along the Big Bang model of the universe. That brings us back to the point you made earlier and that I referred to when I said, “I'll put you down for sticking with standard theory because it would be presumptuous to speculate about the actual event that took place or what might have caused it.
Any discussion beyond that is addressing the departure point between the scientific consensus of cosmology called Big Bang Theory, and speculating about the questions that the theory leaves open.
I don’t think the universe was ever finite, let alone Planck size. But if you refer to some interpretations of General Relativity it tracks back and works down to Planck size. That is the point where the quantum realm comes into the picture. That is all I was referring to.
Yes, I view the universe as infinite in space, time and energy. But the inflation of a hot ball of energy into an existing lower energy density environment surrounding it would assume spherical expansion such that all points of the surface of the sphere (which is the energy density boundary between the hot ball and the surrounding greater universe) would be exposed to the surrounding extremely low temperature, the same low temperature over the entire expanding surface. Under those circumstances why would there be anisotropy in one direction if the expansion or inflation is spherical?
http://books.google.com/books?id=C2...&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=true
The second sentence in the Introduction addresses thermalization in the way that I use it. “The hot Big Bang model which had been used to project the CMBR, this radiation is simply a remnant of the thermalization of the hot dense early stages of expansion of our universe.”
When I read this I get this picture in my head:
