T=0; before the universe.

[HydrogenBond]

I would like to ask if anyone has any theories about t=0 or the beginning of time before there was substance in the universe. No matter which creation theory one begins with, they all start after t=0. Whether the universe came from a singularity, was always here, began as energy, strings, coming from other dimensions, etc., they all have some type of substance already in the universe, i.e., t=0+.

[Boerseun]

I would like to ask if anyone has any theories about t=0 or the beginning of time before there was substance in the universe. No matter which creation theory one begins with, they all start after t=0. Whether the universe came from a singularity, was always here, began as energy, strings, coming from other dimensions, etc., they all have some type of substance already in the universe, i.e., t=0+.

This is a topic that's been bugging me for years.

 

But, alas - the simple fact remains that if you were to describe the Universe at t=(or even <)0, where would you place your observer? For the simple fact is that if you run the clock backwards to zero, space itself would shrink to disappear into the "singularity" (for want of a better term).

 

This does not rule out possibilities like pulsation theory, where the current universe is just the latest expression of a permanently exploding -and then collapsing- universe; the irritating fact is simply that nobody knows, and because there's no vantage point for an observer, it's difficult even to hypothesise about it.

 

I eagerly await our more learned members' opinions regarding this...

 

Another thing I don't quite get, is why the Universe is here at all. Considering all we know and hypothesise about black holes, as such, the Universe should have sucked itself into a massive black hole milliseconds after the Big Bang, not so?

[infamous]

There are a couple theories that suggest that the universe is eternal in nature and that the observed evidence of the big bang is only a local event, all-be-it an enormous local event that we cannot see beyond. The mechanism for such an occurrence might be a limit to the size of black hole formation. If this limit were large enough and very infrequent we might interpret the explosion of one of these massive objects as the big bang when in truth, there may be numerous identical events occuring within an infinite universe that are so far removed from our local frame as to be indistinguishable to us. Not sure that I buy into this idea but it is an intriguing thought anyway. If one holds to this theory, t=zero has no meaning because there was no beginning. The universe is, was, and always will be.

[HydrogenBond]

If one assumes a closed universe, one has a shot at addressing t=0, since a cyclic universe will periodically return to t=0 for another cycle. For the sake of argument let us assume a closed cyclic universe, even though there is no conclusive proof for or against. Also let us also measure time not as a stop watch ticking but rather in terms of life expectancy. In other words, say the cyclic life of our closed universe is run by a battery and the time potential within the battery lasts for 40 billions years per complete cycle. The time potential of the universe will be a maximum at birth t=b and a minimum at death t=d. Between death and rebirth, or dead battery and fresh battery, we are recharging the battery for another time cycle. The new cycle can not begin without a full charge of time potential . With a partial charge it would be similar to an almost dead battery. This would be like trying to escape a black hole. It needs a full time charge to break the hold of death and carry the whole life cycle to completion. One way to recharge the time battery is use the potential energy in time dilation associated with v=C , by causing the relativistic velocity of t to become less than C. The exothermic release due to the decreasing relativistic velocity recharges the battery, while the new terminal velocity close to C defines the life of the battery. The first aspect breaks the grip of the black hole and second aspect is its life expectancy, i.e., ticks until t=0. When it dies at t=0, it gets a new blast from C or the cycle stops if it was a one shot deal.

 

All I did was assume time is a particle/wave that can go from C to finite instead of it being an esoteric ether. This particle/wave is in everything that has time in its equation, like energy (frequency), force (acceleration), velocity, kinetic energy, half life, while the mass-energy equvilency implies even matter has time potential. Common matter has more time potential as displayed by its long battery life.

[Tormod]

Another thing I don't quite get, is why the Universe is here at all. Considering all we know and hypothesise about black holes, as such, the Universe should have sucked itself into a massive black hole milliseconds after the Big Bang, not so?

 

That is (basically) what inflationary theory saved the Big Bang theory from. :Waldo:

[Dark Mind]

Post 4 had me doing this: :hyper:. :(. That's a lot for 17 year old to wrap their head around...

 

After reading Stephen Hawkings: Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, and Michio Kaku's Beyond Einstein (Excellent book) I generally subscribed to the Super String Theory and some of the implications it had about what our Universe was before the big bang.

 

I have Stephen's book right in front of me, but I think it was Michio's that had a sort of "timeline" of what the Universe was like before the Big Bang according to the Super String Theory (I've been looking for that book for weeks so I could finish up a couple of discussions I had in other threads... I think I'll have to find a new book ;)). He presented the timeline using basic, simple English: At .00034^10-1000000 seconds the Universe would have been about the comparative size of a [insert commonly used object here, like a baseball or bowling ball] and [whatever forces are presumed to be present] were [still joined (Super Symmetry)/ tearing apart/ breaking down/ whatever]. It made me feel as if I were in God's shoes watching him create the Universe :Waldo:.

 

So a few questions I guess I have: Are you assuming there was nothing before the Big Bang? Are you basing your timeline on events ocurring only after the Big Bang? And, are either of these questions null and void based on your wanting us to assume a cyclic Universe?

[emessay]

I think probably t= square root (-1) before the universe, it means meaningless or nothing for us as current physical observer. Thus universe needs conscious mind to generate function of space-time and mass-energy, so universe always there, exist forever,and a 'conscious dancer' would exist in space-time observing mass-energy, a clock-watcher is.

[Dark Mind]

:Waldo:

 

I think we stated above that we were just going to assume that no observer was necessary.

 

I think that answers your statement... :hyper:

[C1ay]

No matter which creation theory one begins with, they all start after t=0. Whether the universe came from a singularity, was always here, began as energy, strings, coming from other dimensions, etc., they all have some type of substance already in the universe, i.e., t=0+.

I don't think matter and energy can come from nothing therefore I think they have always existed but have no particular theory about t<0.

[HydrogenBond]

How about slow down from the speed of light into inertial reference resulting in the beginning or t=0. And object moving at C has complete time dilation so there is only an eternal time reference. This seems to imply energy condensing into matter so that V<C. The only problem with this energy explanation is that although energy travels at the speed of light, it defines finite distance and in time, or wavelength and frequency in inertial reference, unless it was the longest wavelength energy with infinite period that condensed into matter.

[jetzeppelin]

I don't think matter and energy can come from nothing therefore I think they have always existed but have no particular theory about t<0.

 

Not trying to fire up a debate here, and I come from more philosophical/historical studies than actual cosmology and astronomy, so the knowledge I have of these theories is limited somewhat to a philosophical sense, I do understand them but I tend to take more of a metaphysical view of things, as in what is logical, what makes sense, rather than what mathematical formulas or speculations suggest.

 

And in regards to this question, from my experience matter has a beginning, and thus far if the properties of matter were have always been as they are (maybe I am ignorant but I don't believe there is any concrete laws or empirical evidence besides pure speculation that would lead anyone to believe that the very properites of matter have not(always) been universally constant), due to the principles of the laws of thermodynamics the material universe would have suffered a heat-death due to entropy at the atomic level. This coupled with the observances of cosmic redshift and blueshift lead me to believe that in a very basic sense this universe did have some type of starting point. I cannot postulate using good science that matter would have always been, even through an endless cycle of an exploding and collapsing universe. If matter did exhibit different properties at one time, and the universe we observe is infinitely old, I believe that matter would have ceased to exists or is slowly in the process of doing so.

 

In conclusion I would say that I cannot believe in a universe with infinite matter, that is the axiom that I support. From there I would seek to discover how the universe came about.

[adc]

I don't think matter and energy can come from nothing .

 

But as per the Uncertainty Principle: Energy can be borrowed and exist where there was none before?? And obviously where there is energy there can be matter-no???

[questor]

whatever the answer to this question, it will undoubtedly be counterintuitive, just like quantum mechanics. this is probably why we don't understand it and may never, because it doesn't lend itself to experimentation, or fall within man's ability to reason. just a nugget of thought: wouldn't an intelligent creation answer all these questions , until proved otherwise? is that not counterintuitive enough for most of you?

[HydrogenBond]

The question of t=0 or before t=0, comes down to something quite simple, i..e, what is time before finite time appears in the finite universe. Time that is distinct from finite time is infinite time. If we use special relativity, this would imply that before t=0, all finite reference was at C an eternal reference of time. A simple slow down from the speed of light reference to finite reference, will cause finite time to appear.

 

This eternal reference can not be an energy reference per se, because eternal time means frequency equals zero or infinite wavelength energy, i.e., the outer most limits of energy. The formation of the primordial atom of the BB theory would imply infinite wavelength contracting to a point wavelength until the frequency becomes infinite or t=0. The clock then starts ticking from there as the finite universe begins to expand. This progression toward t=0 can be viewed as the potential energy within the eternal or speed of light reference becoming condensed within the finite universe. The finite amount of the mass/energy within the finite universe also implies that the potential within the eternal reference is not spent in the process (still has eternal potential minus this finite potential).

 

Blackholes convert energy back to the eternal state of time before t=0, ie., infinite wavelength conversion at the event horizon.

[Little Bang]

First, we have no guarantee that a Big Bang occurred, nor that time was ever equal to zero. Right now the Big Bang is the consensus opinion.

At T = 10^-37 sec. the expanding sphere would contain nothing but high energy photons(gamma). Somewhere between T = 10^-37 sec. and T = 3 X 10^12 sec., those photons were transformed into electrons and protons. I for one think the search for how this anomaly occurred should be at the head of the list.