Study suggests time existed before the big bang!

[Moontanman]

A study has suggested that the big bang doesn't start or end in a singularity and that time can be extended back to beyond the beginning of the universe that we see!  

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/mind-bending-study-suggests-time-did-actually-exist-before-the-big-bang

 

Quote

"All the terms that are problematic turn out to be irrelevant when working out the behaviour of quantities that determine how the Universe appears from the inside," said Sloan, a physicist from the University of Oxford.

What this essentially adds up to is a description of the Big Bang where physics remains intact as the stage it acts upon reorientates.

Rather than a singularity, the team call this a Janus Point, named after the Roman god with two faces.

The relative positions and scales of the stuff that makes up the Universe effectively flatten into a two-dimensional pancake as we rewind time. Passing through the Janus Point, that pancake turns 3D again, only back-to-front.

What that means in physical terms is hard to say, but the researchers believe it could have profound implications on symmetry in particle physics, maybe even producing a Universe based primarily on antimatter.

While the idea of a flipped Universe is old news, the approach of working around the singularity problem in this particular way is novel.

 

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

two-dimensional pancake

A two-dimensional pancake? That was not my understanding. I thought it was more a point-like situation.

 

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

A two-dimensional pancake? That was not my understanding. I thought it was more a point-like situation.

 

It's explained in the link. 

[michel123456]

19 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It's explained in the link. 

At what point exactly?

 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

A study has suggested that the big bang doesn't start or end in a singularity and that time can be extended back to beyond the beginning of the universe that we see!  

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/mind-bending-study-suggests-time-did-actually-exist-before-the-big-bang

I often describe purposely, that the BB was an evolution of space and time "as we know them"....Plus of course the BB refers only to the observable universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

 

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

At what point exactly?

 

michel, I posted it because it was science news, I am pretty sure my knowledge on this is quite limited. The big bang seems to predict a singularity, these guys say that within the theory of relativity the singularity can be avoided via the method they propose.

I did notice it resembled, very vaguely, something I thought of in that what we see as a big bang is actually symmetry breaking of time and the expansion goes in two time directions each being negative from the stand point of the other when viewed from outside. In my idea the false vacuum is really static spacetime and the eruption of our universe results from "something" causing this false vacuum to destabilize. Probably not what they are talking about but trigger of the symmetry breaking could be the collapse of a black hole in another universe. Some scientists have suggest that the collapse of a 4d star into a 4d black hole could result in an expansion of a new universe 3d space time universe and now I'll probably be told to peddle my dog and pony show in speculations and they would be correct..   

The do mention that the opposite time direction could be a universe where anti matter dominates. 

I guess you would have to investigate further to figure out what they are proposing.   

Here is the paper.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318300637

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

I often describe purposely, that the BB was an evolution of space and time "as we know them"....Plus of course the BB refers only to the observable universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

 

Interesting beecee! 

Edited December 25, 2018 by Moontanman

[beecee]

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

At what point exactly?

 

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

michel, I posted it because it was science news, I am pretty sure my knowledge on this is quite limited. The big bang seems to predict a singularity, these guys say that within the theory of relativity the singularity can be avoided via the method they propose.

Most cosmologists now days do not accept the BH singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density, and I'm pretty sure that also applies to the BB singularity. The only defined singularity existing, is the singularity resulting from the failure of the application of our known laws of physics and GR. In essence this means a "surface of sorts" with a BH singularity, and a space and time with the BB we are simply not as yet familiar with. 

[Endy0816]

I still need to look at it but do like that they're looking at the math as to how the mathematical singularity might be avoided.

Points for them using Janus too, god of endings and beginnings.

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I often describe purposely, that the BB was an evolution of space and time "as we know them"....Plus of course the BB refers only to the observable universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

 

This link supports the concept of the Observable Universe getting more & more empty as time passes by. It gives the result of future generations (in billion years from now) observing a Universe made up of our single Milky Way galaxy, which is totally bogus to me. I hope I am not the only one with this opinion.

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

This link supports the concept of the Observable Universe getting more & more empty as time passes by. It gives the result of future generations (in billion years from now) observing a Universe made up of our single Milky Way galaxy, which is totally bogus to me. I hope I am not the only one with this opinion.

That is what we currently see, dark energy will eventually make all things not gravitationally bound disappear over the cosmic horizon.. 

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Here is the paper.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318300637

The paper flies over my head.

43 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

That is what we currently see, dark energy will eventually make all things not gravitationally bound disappear over the cosmic horizon.. 

And you believe that?

 

That an astronomer is observing the unique Milky way galaxy as the unique galaxy in the Universe? Simply because he happened to be borned several billion years from now?

[Strange]

6 hours ago, michel123456 said:

A two-dimensional pancake? That was not my understanding. I thought it was more a point-like situation.

 

I think this is a misrepresentation / misunderstanding of the result. (Not that I understand the contents of the paper, but I can't see anything that implies this. There seems to be a representation of the evolution of the universe in "shape space" (this is not "space" as in the three dimensional space we are familiar with) and that the Big Bang singularity is represented by a slice through this shape space. I think ...

 

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

This link supports the concept of the Observable Universe getting more & more empty as time passes by. It gives the result of future generations (in billion years from now) observing a Universe made up of our single Milky Way galaxy, which is totally bogus to me. I hope I am not the only one with this opinion.

You and the few remaining supporters of the quasi-steady-state model. 

The observation of accelerating expansion makes alternatives (like the "Big Crunch") seem unlikely.

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

And you believe that?

 

That an astronomer is observing the unique Milky way galaxy as the unique galaxy in the Universe? Simply because he happened to be borned several billion years from now?

Can you give any physical reason why that shouldn't be the case? (Rather than just incredulity.)

[beecee]

6 hours ago, michel123456 said:

This link supports the concept of the Observable Universe getting more & more empty as time passes by. It gives the result of future generations (in billion years from now) observing a Universe made up of our single Milky Way galaxy, which is totally bogus to me. I hope I am not the only one with this opinion.

That appears to be the most likely scenario based on current observational knowledge. A Cosmologists many billions of years in the future, will only really have reputable recorded data re  anything beyond the Milkdromeda galaxy. He will also occupy another planet on another star system most likely, as Earth will probably be engulfed by the red giant phase of our Sun and the White Dwarf of which it will eventually have become.

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by beecee

[michel123456]

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Can you give any physical reason why that shouldn't be the case? (Rather than just incredulity.)

Physical reason?

Or reason?

There are 2 ways to see things:

1. the Universe comes up, it is young, it gets old and older, then it dies. It is a Universe that looks like a living being. As it gets older, it changes and then yes, an observer in an older Universe will observe something different that what we do observe today. Which means that today in some sense we have the privilege to observe the "true universe" in contrast to future astronomers that will observe only a single galaxy.

2. All observers from any point of it are observing grosso-modo the same thing. From any point in space & from any point in time. That is the Copernican principle.

I support point 2.

Edited December 26, 2018 by michel123456

[Strange]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

I support point 2.

And the evidence shows that 1 is more accurate.

[michel123456]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

And the evidence shows that 1 is more accurate.

I strongly believe there is a misinterpretation of data. You cannot use a theory based on relativity and end up with an absolute result. You must end up with a relative result. That is to say that any observer anywhere & anytime in the Universe will observe a Universe 14 billion years old.

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

You cannot use a theory based on relativity and end up with an absolute result.  You must end up with a relative result. 

Really?

But, anyway, the age of the universe is relative: relative to now and our chosen frame of reference.

Quote

That is to say that any observer anywhere & anytime in the Universe will observe a Universe 14 billion years old.

As that is not what GR says, the misinterpretation would appear to be yours.

[koti]

Where is the paper itself, I can't seem to locate it, maybe someone could paste the abstract of it or is there no paper just that article which seems full of holes, contradictions and doesn't convey anything useful. 

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, koti said:

Where is the paper itself, I can't seem to locate it, maybe someone could paste the abstract of it or is there no paper just that article which seems full of holes, contradictions and doesn't convey anything useful. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318300637

Quote

All measurements are comparisons. The only physically accessible degrees of freedom (DOFs) are dimensionless ratios. The objective description of the universe as a whole thus predicts only how these ratios change collectively as one of them is changed. Here we develop a description for classical Bianchi IX cosmology implementing these relational principles. The objective evolution decouples from the volume and its expansion degree of freedom. We use the relational description to investigate both vacuum dominated and quiescent Bianchi IX cosmologies. In the vacuum dominated case the relational dynamical system predicts an infinite amount of change of the relational DOFs, in accordance with the well known chaotic behaviour of Bianchi IX. In the quiescent case the relational dynamical system evolves uniquely though the point where the decoupled scale DOFs predict the big bang/crunch. This is a non-trivial prediction of the relational description; the big bang/crunch is not the end of physics – it is instead a regular point of the relational evolution. Describing our solutions as spacetimes that satisfy Einstein's equations, we find that the relational dynamical system predicts two singular solutions of GR that are connected at the hypersurface of the singularitysuch that relational DOFs are continuous and the orientation of the spatial frame is inverted.

 

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

Physical reason?

Or reason?

There are 2 ways to see things:

1. the Universe comes up, it is young, it gets old and older, then it dies. It is a Universe that looks like a living being. As it gets older, it changes and then yes, an observer in an older Universe will observe something different that what we do observe today. Which means that today in some sense we have the privilege to observe the "true universe" in contrast to future astronomers that will observe only a single galaxy.

2. All observers from any point of it are observing grosso-modo the same thing. From any point in space & from any point in time. That is the Copernican principle.

I support point 2.

 

The distance to the other superclusters is increasing. Depending on when the light was emitted and how far it has to travel, it may or may not actually make it.

The speed limit is 60 kmph on a 100 km road, but at the end of each hour the road's length doubles. Will you make it driving the speed limit?

 

 

 

[koti]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318300637

 

Thanks Strange.
The paper is over my head math wise but it strikes me that they disregard quantum effects in their work concentrating only on classical GR.  It seems odd that they are using only GR as foundation for conclusions/assumptions related to grandiose subjects. 

Edited December 26, 2018 by koti

[MigL]

The paper's conclusion/discussion acknowledges that only classical GR is considered, and why quantum effects are not.

It seems to me that if this is a viable approach, and that no singularity is encountered in shape space such that world lines do not terminate, but change orientation at the 'Janus' point, then this should also be applicable to Black Hole homogenous collapse and their singularities.
BH singularities are not strictly in the past, however, as is the BB singularity, and separated from us by 14 Bill years.
If world lines can extend through the 'Janus' point with a ( possible ) matter/anti-matter reflection, should we not expect traffic through BH singularities, and vastly differing properties  to BHs ?

Edited December 26, 2018 by MigL

[michel123456]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

 

But, anyway, the age of the universe is relative: relative to now and our chosen frame of reference.

 

From current theory, the "date of birth" of the universe is an absolute. It happened at a specific time stamp.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

From current theory, the "date of birth" of the universe is an absolute. It happened at a specific time stamp.

It is not absolute. There is no such thing as "absolute" time; it doesn't exist.

[koti]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

The paper's conclusion/discussion acknowledges that only classical GR is considered, and why quantum effects are not.

It seems to me that if this is a viable approach, and that no singularity is encountered in shape space such that world lines do not terminate, but change orientation at the 'Janus' point, then this should also be applicable to Black Hole homogenous collapse and their singularities.
BH singularities are not strictly in the past, however, as is the BB singularity, and separated from us by 14 Bill years.
If world lines can extend through the 'Janus' point with a ( possible ) matter/anti-matter reflection, should we not expect traffic through BH singularities, and vastly differing properties  to BHs ?

I acknowledge that they ackowledge. I just don’t understand how they can come up with any viable discussion not to mention conclusion if they use only specific results of GR equations, only those which do not stand in contradiction with Hawking-Penrose. I presume its probably my ignorance but this seems really far fetched.