# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  ROGER PENROSE: What was ther before the Big Bang

## UKSmartypants

Ok you have to stay with this, this is the smartest guy in the galaxy talking

----------

Big Bird (11-18-2021),Oceander (11-17-2021),Swedgin (11-18-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Ok you have to stay with this, this is the smartest guy in the galaxy talking


His book, The Road to Reality, is an awesome read.  Technically complex, but still written with the reasonably well-educated layperson in mind.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-17-2021),Swedgin (11-18-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Ok you have to stay with this, this is the smartest guy in the galaxy talking


The Universe didn't know how to keep time.

----------


## Northern Rivers

My own view is that there was nothing before the Big Bang because the Big Bang is/was/will be always there.

It's more of a blast...a continuous blast that never began and will never end. It's like a Cosmic Cornucopia...one end infinitesimally small...the other...infinitely big. When this thing reached our own Plane of Existence...it sure would look like a BANG!

That's my call, anyway.... :Smiley20:

----------


## Physics Hunter

So before the big bang there was another big bang with energy/mass that "nobody" has any idea where it might have come from.

SOSDD.

Atheists (who are really agnostics): Round and round, attack attack, like angry ants.

I am not impressed.



WHERE DOES ALL THE ENERGY/MASS FOR THIS BANG-BANG^10000000000000... COME FROM?



Or as someone once said it better: Who made who?

----------


## nonsqtr

> So before the big bang there was another big bang with energy/mass that "nobody" has any idea where it might have come from.
> 
> SOSDD.
> 
> Atheists (who are really agnostics): Round and round, attack attack, like angry ants.
> 
> I am not impressed.
> 
> 
> ...


It's way too early for questions like that.

Patience, Grasshopper.

----------

Oceander (11-18-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> So before the big bang there was another big bang with energy/mass that "nobody" has any idea where it might have come from.
> 
> SOSDD.
> 
> Atheists (who are really agnostics): Round and round, attack attack, like angry ants.
> 
> I am not impressed.
> 
> 
> ...


this is why we are having a debate about vaccum energy and zero point energy and the Cosmological Constant



Im in the M Theory school of thought.

The universe is a 4D hologram on a 2D Brane, from a compactified 11D Calabi Yau Manifold. Each dimension of the manifold is constrained by Heterotic strings (as per Nambu String Theory) and the energy for the Big bang derives from when quantum fluctuations cause multiple (in our case, 4) dimensions to uncurl, releasing the gigantic energy contained in them to create spinors then a twistor network (as per Penrose's Twistor Theory), causing 4D space to pop into existence within a 11D volume  of 1 plank distance, as a singularity, which then expands out, dragging 4D space with it.


this has been my fav theory for three or four years now.

----------

Swedgin (11-18-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> So before the big bang there was another big bang with energy/mass that "nobody" has any idea where it might have come from.
> 
> SOSDD.
> 
> Atheists (who are really agnostics): Round and round, attack attack, like angry ants.
> 
> I am not impressed.
> 
> 
> ...


Does it make you feel better to replace the unknown with "god"?

----------


## Swedgin

Very Interesting.

I may need to get this man's book, as he does explain it in a way that I can (almost) understand.

Would probably just need to go over it a few times.

Now, an ignorant question:

I have heard that the Universe seems to have expanded far faster and/or further than it should have.

Several theories have been postulated.  The one I heard, is that there was some sort of "new" system/element/energy that pushed everything out at the moment of the Big Bang, but, has since ceased to exist in our reality.

My question is:  Could the Big Bang not have somehow been MANY separate points, somehow united?  (Many 'droplets on the pond.')

Now the actual MATH may blow that all to hell, but...why, exactly, would there have to be ONE, SINGLE point from which everything appeared and spread out, at (impossible by our current understanding) speed?


Ignorant Question #2:  I understood Dr. Penrose' statement about the "universe not telling time, or, not realizing it's size," but...I was lost as to how the Universe would spread out infinitely, THEN, somehow, result in another "Big Bang."  Would it NEED to contract again?

That is, unless, as per Ignorant Question #1, the Big Bang was/will not be one SINGLE spot, but, many, triggered in the same moment, by some dynamic force?

Thanks to anyone attempting to approach my ignorant questions with an answer!

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Very Interesting.
> 
> I may need to get this man's book, as he does explain it in a way that I can (almost) understand.
> 
> Would probably just need to go over it a few times.
> 
> Now, an ignorant question:
> 
> I have heard that the Universe seems to have expanded far faster and/or further than it should have.
> ...



Because  if you run the expansion of the universe backwards, it collapse back to a single point. If there had been multiple points, then that would not be the case.

Penrose  is famous for many things, but this is one of the exact things he proved.  Einsteins  Field Equations showed that matter collapses into a black hole, but no one could show what happened  INSIDE the event horizon, and for a couple of decades the debate was does it collapses as a single point or as multiple points?  Penrose showed mathematically that all 'null lines' (light rays)  entering the black hole converge at a point in the centre. And then he played a blinder - his maths also showed that light rays trying to  LEAVE the black hole ALSO spiralled round and converged st the same point as the null lines entering. And whats more he THEN showed the same rules applied to the entire universe, because it also behaves like a black hole, and thus any collapse or big bang must always have a singular point.  Its called the Penrose  Hawking Singularity Theorem

I told you this was the smartest man in the galaxy. Even Hawking borrowed from his work.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penros...arity_theorems

----------

Big Bird (11-20-2021),MisterVeritis (11-18-2021),Swedgin (11-18-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

This is called "M Theory" right? (Or, is it "Nambu String Theory?")

----------


## Swedgin

Thanks!

I am going to have to study up on some of this, as I can roughly follow all of it, until we get to how the "next" Universe will be created, once ours has "dissolved" for lack of a better term.

I will check some of his work out.

But, ignorant question #3.  Does information LEAVE our Universe, once it enters a Black Hole, or, is it some how kept on the Event Horizon.  (I remember seeing a show in which one physicist suggested everything that entered the Black hole, was held, in the event horizon.  Hawking, instead suggested that it went through, to another universe, where the laws were not the same.  Or, something like that.  I did not like Hawkings explanation as much....)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> This is called "M Theory" right? (Or, is it "Nambu String Theory?")



no, those are two other theories about the structure of spacetime

its complicated. There are six rival string theories , all variants based on the original String Theory by Nambu, which baffled everyoen for a while, then somone pointed out all six could be manifestations of a deeper theory which has been labelled M Theory, which might turn out to  be the much sought after "Theory of Everything"

or not.





on the other hand

----------

Swedgin (11-18-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Thanks!
> 
> I am going to have to study up on some of this, as I can roughly follow all of it, until we get to how the "next" Universe will be created, once ours has "dissolved" for lack of a better term.
> 
> I will check some of his work out.
> 
> But, ignorant question #3.  Does information LEAVE our Universe, once it enters a Black Hole, or, is it some how kept on the Event Horizon.  (I remember seeing a show in which one physicist suggested everything that entered the Black hole, was held, in the event horizon.  Hawking, instead suggested that it went through, to another universe, where the laws were not the same.  Or, something like that.  I did not like Hawkings explanation as much....)



ah its all unproven. SO heres my theory. 


See i personally dont believe in White holes. AFAICS  black holes dont go anywhere. The singularity at the centre is a planck sized patch where the other compactified dimensions of the original Calabi Yau Manifold are exposed to our spacetime.  The problem of what happens to the information that falls into a black hole therefore, if it goes anywhere, must fall back into the Manifold.

Whats becoming obvious is  that the Matter=Energy Equivalence   is in fact matter-energy-information equivalence. Three forms of the same thing. SO we have energy entropy building up in this universe, what if information entropy builds up in the compactified part of the manifold? Maybe thats what dark energy is?  

black holes have many wierdnesses.

----------

Swedgin (11-18-2021)

----------


## Swedgin

Thanks!

THAT seems to make more sense (in my untrained opinion!) than the others.

While I would LOVE the concept of "White Holes" I do not think there is any evidence of it.

That said, I will have to review the concepts of the multi-dimensional Manifold, and the whole Matter-Energy-Information thing.

Thanks again!

----------


## UKSmartypants

this is worth watching its only 10 mins

----------

Big Bird (11-20-2021),Swedgin (11-19-2021)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> this is why we are having a debate about vaccum energy and zero point energy and the Cosmological Constant
> 
> 
> 
> Im in the M Theory school of thought.
> 
> The universe is a 4D hologram on a 2D Brane, from a compactified 11D Calabi Yau Manifold. Each dimension of the manifold is constrained by Heterotic strings (as per Nambu String Theory) and the energy for the Big bang derives from when quantum fluctuations cause multiple (in our case, 4) dimensions to uncurl, releasing the gigantic energy contained in them to create spinors then a twistor network (as per Penrose's Twistor Theory), causing 4D space to pop into existence within a 11D volume  of 1 plank distance, as a singularity, which then expands out, dragging 4D space with it.
> 
> 
> this has been my fav theory for three or four years now.


That's a lot of stuff/structure, where did it come from?

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Does it make you feel better to replace the unknown with "god"?


It lets me know, because of Jesus, that there is a God, he has purpose for all this, and removes a ton of unknowns.

I'm not too much of a feelings kind of guy.  I see no reason to deny the obvious.

----------

Swedgin (11-19-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Because  if you run the expansion of the universe backwards, it collapse back to a single point. If there had been multiple points, then that would not be the case.
> 
> Penrose  is famous for many things, but this is one of the exact things he proved.  Einsteins  Field Equations showed that matter collapses into a black hole, but no one could show what happened  INSIDE the event horizon, and for a couple of decades the debate was does it collapses as a single point or as multiple points?  Penrose showed mathematically that all 'null lines' (light rays)  entering the black hole converge at a point in the centre. And then he played a blinder - his maths also showed that light rays trying to  LEAVE the black hole ALSO spiralled round and converged st the same point as the null lines entering. And whats more he THEN showed the same rules applied to the entire universe, because it also behaves like a black hole, and thus any collapse or big bang must always have a singular point.  Its called the Penrose  Hawking Singularity Theorem
> 
> I told you this was the smartest man in the galaxy. Even Hawking borrowed from his work.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penros...arity_theorems


Under this theory which I don't necessarily disagree with what happens when that giant black hole can no longer pull in anything?  Would it collapse upon itself resulting in another big bang?

----------


## Wildrose

> It lets me know, because of Jesus, that there is a God, he has purpose for all this, and removes a ton of unknowns.
> 
> I'm not too much of a feelings kind of guy.  I see no reason to deny the obvious.


Usually the best answer is the simplest answer.

God works for me.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Usually the best answer is the simplest answer.
> 
> God works for me.


No, we work for God.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> That's a lot of stuff/structure, where did it come from?



well this is the bit thats hard for people to get thier heads round. Where it comes from there  is no concept of time of distance.  Those are artefacts of decompactified spacetime.  The Branes are infinite but occupy no space or time.  The Calabi Yau manifolds are contained into 11 compactified dimensions constrained with closed strings. This stuff is hard to grasp unless you let go of the concepts of spacetime.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> No, we work for God.


In a number of other god-myth constructs the gods created people to do all the work so the gods no longer had to. Then the gods criticized people for being too noisy so they killed us.

----------


## Wildrose

> No, we work for God.


We are supposed to serve him, he is the simplest answer.

----------


## nonsqtr

Compactification means something very different in math, than it does in physics.

----------


## nonsqtr

> well this is the bit thats hard for people to get thier heads round. Where it comes from there  is no concept of time of distance.  Those are artefacts of decompactified spacetime.  The Branes are infinite but occupy no space or time.  The Calabi Yau manifolds are contained into 11 compactified dimensions constrained with closed strings. This stuff is hard to grasp unless you let go of the concepts of spacetime.


All right, I'm going to be the fly in the ointment here.

We want to look into something called the Benz-Yaglom compactification.

It maps split complex numbers onto a single sheet hyperboloid, which turns out to be part of a quadric in real projective 4-space.

This method is basically used to get the base manifold for group action of the conformal group of spacetime.

This is a little bit weirder than just complex projective space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moto...mpactification

----------


## Physics Hunter

> We are supposed to serve him, he is the simplest answer.


You know I was just havin' fun there...   :Thumbsup20: 

Ya know, lighten up once and a while.

We actually have fun here without hitting others on the head.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Compactification means something very different in math, than it does in physics.


And in the kitchen.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> In a number of other god-myth constructs the gods created people to do all the work so the gods no longer had to. Then the gods criticized people for being too noisy so they killed us.


The biggest myth about God is that he does not exist.

----------

Wildrose (11-19-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> You know I was just havin' fun there...  
> 
> Ya know, lighten up once and a while.
> 
> We actually have fun here without hitting others on the head.


I was doing the same and playing off your ball.

----------

Physics Hunter (11-20-2021)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> I was doing the same and playing off your ball.



Yeah, but too much time in the Hannity mosh pit has crafted your style (and probably mine...) to not sound funny.

After a decade we get each other, culture here is way more peaceful.  We discuss, and even argue, usually quite agreeably, there are a very few assholes, most people here are gentle souls with just a little edge.

Hell, I even have Agnostics (they say Athiest  :Smiley ROFLMAO: ) that I consider friends and enjoy interacting with on certain topics.

Make a friend here.  It won't kill ya.

----------


## nonsqtr

> And in the kitchen.


Seriously. Let's look at this for a minute, it bears directly on the topic.

Compactification, in mathematics, means literally "to make a space compact".

For example, the real numbers R, are not compact. The real number line has two "dangling ends", one on the left and one on the right. We CONCEPTUALIZE these dangling ends as "infinities", even though there's really no such thing because they can only be so defined in the limit.

The point being, that "infinity" is not a Real number. So when we do math like dividing by 0 and we get an infinity, the result is OUTSIDE the set of real numbers, therefore the set is not compact.

We can MAKE the real numbers compact, by adding points at infinity. We can add "just one" point at infinity, that works (it's called the Alexandroff one-point compactification) - but to do that we have to curl up our real number line into a circle, and "equate" plus infinity with minus infinity.

So now, based on this description, one might say, "hey, we're curling up a dimension"!

But that's NOT what happens !!!

You can't just "curl up a dimension", there has to be something there to curl it into. Our compactified circle lives in 2 dimensions, not one. In topology it's called an "embedding", we have "embedded" our real number line into the two-dimensional (complex) plane.

Compactification specifically does NOT mean "curling up a dimension". HOWEVER - you'll notice our circle has a radius.

In the example, if we were using the entire Real number line, the radius of our compactified circle would be infinite.

But let's say, we map the entire Real line to the interval (0,2π), and now compactify. The radius of our circle is now 1.

And, the circle resembles a Bloch sphere, because when the arrow is fully vertical it points at infinity, which is an "imaginary" number. (Pun intended).

The observation is, that when the radius is 1 we have a convenient representation of a probability space, but when the radius is infinite we have nonsense.

Edit: I guess that should have been (-π, π). Sowwy... waycist math lol  :Grin:

----------


## Wildrose

> Yeah, but too much time in the Hannity mosh pit has crafted your style (and probably mine...) to not sound funny.
> 
> After a decade we get each other, culture here is way more peaceful.  We discuss, and even argue, usually quite agreeably, there are a very few assholes, most people here are gentle souls with just a little edge.
> 
> Hell, I even have Agnostics (they say Athiest ) that I consider friends and enjoy interacting with on certain topics.
> 
> Make a friend here.  It won't kill ya.


I've made quite a few based on my interactions and stats'.

----------


## nonsqtr

> well this is the bit thats hard for people to get thier heads round. Where it comes from there  is no concept of time of distance.  Those are artefacts of decompactified spacetime.  The Branes are infinite but occupy no space or time.  The Calabi Yau manifolds are contained into 11 compactified dimensions constrained with closed strings. This stuff is hard to grasp unless you let go of the concepts of spacetime.


So my question is (based on post #32):

How exactly do the closed strings "constrain" the radius of the circle?

Please describe the mechanism of constraint and how it results in "vanishingly small" geometry.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> So my question is (based on post #32):
> 
> How exactly do the closed strings "constrain" the radius of the circle?
> 
> Please describe the mechanism of constraint and how it results in "vanishingly small" geometry.



Ah this is complicated. I dont think i can explain this in even a long post.


The compactified dimensions are compactified manifolds, and types of manifolds called Oribifolds. Orbifolds have two interesting properties, they can contain defects called holes, and handles. The important point is that Oribifolds have a property called an Euler Number.   A sphere, which is topologically equivalent to a cube or a beaker, has no holes or handles, and thus has a Euler number of 2. A torus, like a doughnut has one hole, or handle, and has a Euler Number of 0/  Two doughnuts joiuned together to make a number 8 have Euler number of -2.  (i have no idea why it goes down in twos from 2) 


This is significant  because the process of compactification is symmetry breaking, and the number of particles, ie the number of generations of quarks and leptons is always half the Euler Number.  Mathematically, the Euler number of the 6 compactified dimensions must be 72.  This is absurd because we would thus have 32 generations of quarks and leptons, which we clearly dont!!    Now, on a orbifold  you get sharp points, called singularities, imagine a 3D triangle. Its possible for a string on the surface of the orbifold to slip over the point and then it is trapped, because it becomes topologically impossible to deform to get back over the singularities. Thus the string constrains the oribifold from decompactifying because of the enormous tension in the string and the energy needed to break it. And in fact the singularities may have millions of closed strings trapped round them - which may be why only 4D decompactified,  there wasnt enough energy in the initial fluctuation to break any more strings round the higher dimension singularities. And the beauty of the singularities is it lowers the Euler Number of the oribifold, so we can arrive at an orbifold with enough singularities  that spawns the correct number of particles, but was unable to decompactify the remaining six dimensions because of the strings trapped round the singularities.  Look at it like this.  A closed loop string on the surface of a sphere can be positioned anywhere on the sphere, and so all closed strings look the same.  But on a torus, a loop of string can move on the surface but cant loop round the body of the torus, like forming two interlocked links in a chain.   In other words, some strings cant be transformed into other strings which affects what particles can exist and also affects how a orbifold decompactifies, and how much energy is needed to do that. 


Also the singularities on Oribifolds may be  related to the singularities in black holes  IMHO


My personal theory is the black hole  singularity is the point where the compactified 6D orbifold singularity pokes through the fabric of 4D uncompactified spacetime, or at least spacetime tears and the orbifold singularities become 'visible'. 
Ok crude graphics time

euler.jpg

On the torus you can move loops A and B anywhere round the torus,  but to get A or B into position C  cant be done without breaking the string or the torus.

Similarly, below that is an oribifold with three singularities. Loop E cannot pass over the singularity to become loop D, it requires too much energy and would require the singularity to be smoothed out or the string to be broken, both of which would take gigantic amounts of energy. thus the loop keeps the orbifold constrained.

So the oribifold above is a 2D surface  in an 11D metaverse So, by combining three such oribifolds above we get a 6D oribifold with 27 singularities (3x3x3 )and an Euler Number of 6, giving us 3 generations.  

Final point, what is the relationship between the orbifold and the Calabi yau Manifold - well it turns out mathematically that the CYM looks exactly like the Orbiford if the  singularities have zero diameter. Ive seen the maths for this, its beyond me lol but it involves patching the singularities with a patch of complex space. Too deep for me, now ......... im now going  to have a lie down and a small sherry.......     :Thinking: 


Sorry about the low grade graphics, I couldnt find anything on the net. This is obscure stuff lol.

----------

nonsqtr (11-20-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Ah this is complicated. I dont think i can explain this in even a long post.
> 
> 
> The compactified dimensions are compactified manifolds, and types of manifolds called Oribifolds. Orbifolds have two interesting properties, they can contain defects called holes, and handles. The important point is that Oribifolds have a property called an Euler Number.   A sphere, which is topologically equivalent to a cube or a beaker, has no holes or handles, and thus has a Euler number of 2. A torus, like a doughnut has one hole, or handle, and has a Euler Number of 0/  Two doughnuts joiuned together to make a number 8 have Euler number of -2.  (i have no idea why it goes down in twos from 2) 
> 
> 
> This is significant  because the process of compactification is symmetry breaking, and the number of particles, ie the number of generations of quarks and leptons is always half the Euler Number.  Mathematically, the Euler number of the 6 compactified dimensions must be 72.  This is absurd because we would thus have 32 generations of quarks and leptons, which we clearly dont!!    Now, on a orbifold  you get sharp points, called singularities, imagine a 3D triangle. Its possible for a string on the surface of the orbifold to slip over the point and then it is trapped, because it becomes topologically impossible to deform to get back over the singularities. Thus the string constrains the oribifold from decompactifying because of the enormous tension in the string and the energy needed to break it. And in fact the singularities may have millions of closed strings trapped round them - which may be why only 4D decompactified,  there wasnt enough energy in the initial fluctuation to break any more strings round the higher dimension singularities. And the beauty of the singularities is it lowers the Euler Number of the oribifold, so we can arrive at an orbifold with enough singularities  that spawns the correct number of particles, but was unable to decompactify the remaining six dimensions because of the strings trapped round the singularities.  Look at it like this.  A closed loop string on the surface of a sphere can be positioned anywhere on the sphere, and so all closed strings look the same.  But on a torus, a loop of string can move on the surface but cant loop round the body of the torus, like forming two interlocked links in a chain.   In other words, some strings cant be transformed into other strings which affects what particles can exist and also affects how a orbifold decompactifies, and how much energy is needed to do that. 
> 
> 
> ...


I 'get" the topology.

I'm gonna nail your fundamental assumption though.

The question was less about what happens "after" compactification, and more about how things get compactified in the first place.

Compactification is a complex process (no pun intended). Even for Alexandroff.

The more important point is it's an ACTIVE process, it requires energy.

You can't just wave your hands over a dimension and compactify it, the act of compactification requires a lot of knowledge about the set structure and the embedding. The first part is a mapping (which interval do we use), then the calculation of missing pints, then the creation of those points and their addition to the set (how does that happen?), etc etc

Here's another question: the strings in question have lengths that are multiples of h, is that right?

What is their cross section? What is the radius of a string, and how is it determined?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I 'get" the topology.
> 
> I'm gonna nail your fundamental assumption though.
> 
> The question was less about what happens "after" compactification, and more about how things get compactified in the first place.
> 
> Compactification is a complex process (no pun intended). Even for Alexandroff.
> 
> The more important point is it's an ACTIVE process, it requires energy.
> ...



IDK, some of this stuff is unknown as of the moment,

AFAIK, they must be smaller than one Planck length, and ive read somewhere the tension in the string is 10^39 tonnes 
there are a different "brand" of string that makes up elementary nuclear particles  called QCD strings and those are huge maybe 10^20 times longer. Strings can also be thought of as 1 branes...one dimensional (length only) branes, so particles would be zero branes (no dimensions). So strings are a special class of branes. (I think this depends on the particular string theory.)

The former are supposedly near the Planck scale, so one dimension and larger than Planck scale, yet there IS a type of unity between the two types of strings. Leonard Susskind says "you could suspend 10^40 trucks from a fundamental string"....(gotta love THAT measurement unit!!) they don't expand (extend) very easily.

Susskind points out that black holes, even the supersized giants at the center of galaxies, DO have the energy needed to extend strings to immense size..such that a black hole might consist of a single string!!!! As an example, one theory posits the horizon of a black hole as a single tangled string with quantum fluctuations...when a bump in the string appears on the horizon, it appears to an outside observer as an open string...ends connected to the horizon...and when one breaks off due to quantum zero point energy.....carrying gravitational energy, voila, Hawking radiation!!!

----------

nonsqtr (11-20-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> The biggest myth about God is that he does not exist.


Sure.

What of Chronos? Or Zeus? Or Dionysus?

----------


## Captain Kirk!

What was there before the big bang? Easy:

----------

Physics Hunter (11-20-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> decompactify


You keep saying that.

I don't think you can do that, though.

You said why yourself, the symmetries.

For example, in Alexandroff once you compactify you lose the definition of the origin.

So if you "decompactify" as you say, in the simplest case you would cut the circle, and the location of that cut would be arbitrary.

So you don't (necessarily) recover the same thing you started with.

Whether we care about that, is a different question.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> What was there before the big bang? Easy:


That's funny.

But nice with an equally ancient Bibsgy wammy bar...

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Sure.
> 
> What of Chronos? Or Zeus? Or Dionysus?


Ah, no, I don't read comic books or needs gods of debauchery.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Ah, no, I don't read comic books or needs gods of debauchery.


You have cut yourself off from thousands of very popular gods.

----------


## Dan40

> His book, The Road to Reality, is an awesome read.  Technically complex, but still written with the reasonably well-educated layperson in mind.


Oh, guess I'll have to pass then.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> You have cut yourself off from thousands of very popular gods.


Jesus is my Savior, He is the God that sacrificed of himself for me.
He may seem unpopular to one that trolls Christians.  I think he gets that a lot, but being Lord of All, He's kind of above that, and so am I.

I only engage your petty banter because it's my job.  

Side benefit, you get to display how great of a person that your willful Agnosticism has made you.
Please continue, you're doing GREAT!

----------


## nonsqtr

This string theory business sounds way, way too complicated.

The universe is made of tiny little worms, and tiny little rocks with holes they can slither around in?

Doesn't sit right. Way too complicated.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> This string theory business sounds way, way too complicated.
> 
> The universe is made of tiny little worms, and tiny little rocks with holes they can slither around in?
> 
> Doesn't sit right. Way too complicated.



it works, mathematically. Have you seen the second thread I started with a long article from New Scientist?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Jesus is my Savior, He is the God that sacrificed of himself for me.
> He may seem unpopular to one that trolls Christians.  I think he gets that a lot, but being Lord of All, He's kind of above that, and so am I.
> 
> I only engage your petty banter because it's my job.  
> 
> Side benefit, you get to display how great of a person that your willful Agnosticism has made you.
> Please continue, you're doing GREAT!



yea, can you take the god stuff elsewhere out of my thread please, it has no place in a science forum. And its borderline thread wrecking

----------

Big Bird (11-21-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> You keep saying that.
> 
> I don't think you can do that, though.
> 
> You said why yourself, the symmetries.
> 
> For example, in Alexandroff once you compactify you lose the definition of the origin.
> 
> So if you "decompactify" as you say, in the simplest case you would cut the circle, and the location of that cut would be arbitrary.
> ...



well what you recover depends on the Euler number, thats the point. If we are trying to recover E8xE8 symmetry group on decompactification, 6 is the correct Euler number. The maths works cos we end up with SU3 x SU2 x U1 after inflation

----------


## Trinnity

String theory stretches my patience. And when you get into micro vs. macro, the math doesn't even work. I'll find something else to do til the brainiacs sync the math. /pfft

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Jesus is my Savior, He is the God that sacrificed of himself for me.
> He may seem unpopular to one that trolls Christians.  I think he gets that a lot, but being Lord of All, He's kind of above that, and so am I.
> 
> I only engage your petty banter because it's my job.  
> 
> Side benefit, you get to display how great of a person that your willful Agnosticism has made you.
> Please continue, you're doing GREAT!


All the popular gods had similar titles.

----------


## MisterVeritis

_What of Chronos? Or Zeus? Or Dionysus?_



> Ah, no, I don't read comic books or needs gods of debauchery.


I can tell you don't read classic literature, either.

----------


## fmw

These are mysteries, even to that author.  The best we can get is an opinion.  Big bang is the current opinion but it doesn't explain what preceded it.  I don't believe there will ever be a proof of how, why and when the universe came into existence.  Pure mystery.

----------


## nonsqtr

> it works, mathematically.


No, apparently it doesnt. It's beautiful but fails to predict reality.




> Have you seen the second thread I started with a long article from New Scientist?


Yes.

One has to be careful dealing with large degrees of freedom. You're talking orbifolds, you could look at that as a group action on every point of a frame bundle. Where are the missing supersymmetric particles? They don't exist.

I suggest, there are an infinite number of higher dimensional regimes which can create the required topology. Or so close to infinite as to be infinite for all practical purposes.

----------


## nonsqtr

> well what you recover depends on the Euler number, thats the point. If we are trying to recover E8xE8 symmetry group on decompactification, 6 is the correct Euler number. The maths works cos we end up with SU3 x SU2 x U1 after inflation


So you need memory of the Euler number?

"And" memory of the origin?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> So you need memory of the Euler number?
> 
> "And" memory of the origin?



no.  it depends on how the orbifold forms. no memory involved.

Also read the other damn thread.


https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...g-Bang-PART-II

----------


## nonsqtr

> no.  it depends on how the orbifold forms. no memory involved.
> 
> Also read the other damn thread.
> 
> 
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...g-Bang-PART-II


No, let's hover here for a minute. 

As with all models, we want to use the part that makes sense and discard the rest.

I'm not interested (much) in complexity, I'm interested in the opposite. The basics, the fundamentals.

F'R INSTANCE - the idea that a "point" in spacetime has a 1-dimensional existence. (Instead of 0).

That's useful, we can use that.

As distinct from trying to explain the "systems of particles", which is more reminiscent of phrenology or Gurdjieff vibration states.

If you were following my earlier series of threads about the brain, you will see, that I arrived at the exact same conclusion independently, and in a whole different area of science.

I used different "vocabulary", but the gist of the discovery was exactly the same - there are no "points", only INTERVALS - what YOU call "strings".  :Smile: 

My discovery was the same as yours - if you start with one dimensional entities you can not only explain a lot, but DO a lot.

So, up until this part, we agree.

Beyond this, we diverge - and I (and maybe we both) need to understand the reason for the divergence.

The divergence in question, has to do with HOW the other dimensions are created, from the one.

In my view, this is all about the dynamics, and so far the physics seems to agree. You speak of orbifolds and Calabi-Yau structures, the purpose of these things is to get the dynamics to work (properly, according to what we observe, and in the right number of dimensions).

For example - in an E8 situation, the holes (singularities) are going to move around, and the shape of your structure is going to change ("evolve") -

And, "my" (biophysical) way of making that happen is completely different from your (cosmological) way.

And yet we both must know, that if we're both on the right track (which it seems we are), then your way and my way must be equivalent.

That's what I'd like to get to - an understanding of how and why your way and my way are the same.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> yea, can you take the god stuff elsewhere out of my thread please, it has no place in a science forum. And its borderline thread wrecking


Well:
A) I did not notice a similar post to MrV, so I respectfully say No.  This is Our thread, You just started it, we participated.  There is an Agnostic only group.  Join it and have at it if you wish.
B) I am both a multi-degreed scientist and a Born Again Christian.  In my view of science there is no inconsistency.  And until someone proves that the first law of Thermo is wrong, I am going to keep asking the question.  Who made who?

I am trying to be civil since you almost tried to be civil.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Well:
> A) I did not notice a similar post to MrV, so I respectfully say No.  This is Our thread, You just started it, we participated.  There is an Agnostic only group.  Join it and have at it if you wish.
> B) I am both a multi-degreed scientist and a Born Again Christian.  In my view of science there is no inconsistency.  And until someone proves that the first law of Thermo is wrong, I am going to keep asking the question.  Who made who?
> 
> I am trying to be civil since you almost tried to be civil.


"God" is not an answer though. It's not scientifically testable. "We're not there yet". Patience, Grasshopper. We need to ask the right questions in the right order. 

For instance - run with me for a minute - let's say there's no such thing as a point, and it's all just intervals.

The question is: could we reformulate all of algebra and all of arithmetic in terms of "intervals"?

The answer is not only yes, but it's already been done - in the guise of fuzzy math and the like. Which plays into game theory and a whole lot of other interesting areas.

One has to understand what one is doing, I mean, the simple act of integration creates a scalar field. At some point I find the physicists to be quite loose with the underlying structure, but hats off cause the engineering results speak for themselves. Nevertheless I think we "miss" things when we don't look closely enough.

----------


## nonsqtr

> no.  it depends on how the orbifold forms. no memory involved.
> 
> Also read the other damn thread.
> 
> 
> https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...g-Bang-PART-II


"How the orbifold forms" is because of the group action.

Which may be the link, between your world and mine. In my world we have mostly "permutation groups", I'm sure you're aware they're magically isomorphic to certain other important structures.

There are Lie groups in the stochastic world too, but they're mostly used for geometric purposes. But for instance, the Cayley structures, I mean, there's a whole field of math called "enumeration" that so far has led to the classification of groups, topologies, and as you showed, singularities.

----------


## nonsqtr

> it works, mathematically.


It predicts non-zero vacuum expectation values for particles we simply don't see in nature.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> *"God" is not an answer though. It's not scientifically testable.* "We're not there yet". Patience, Grasshopper. We need to ask the right questions in the right order. 
> 
> For instance - run with me for a minute - let's say there's no such thing as a point, and it's all just intervals.
> 
> The question is: could we reformulate all of algebra and all of arithmetic in terms of "intervals"?
> 
> The answer is not only yes, but it's already been done - in the guise of fuzzy math and the like. Which plays into game theory and a whole lot of other interesting areas.
> 
> One has to understand what one is doing, I mean, the simple act of integration creates a scalar field. At some point I find the physicists to be quite loose with the underlying structure, but hats off cause the engineering results speak for themselves. Nevertheless I think we "miss" things when we don't look closely enough.


When you start with an assumption, everything else you say is conjecture.

Jesus and the Bible are proof of God, sufficient for me.  

God is as plausible as the 14th dimensional manifold energy from nothing theoretical yoga practitioner making pretzels math that the so called Atheists (really Agnostics) are purveying without proof.  

If you had gone to quantum stochastic variance, I might have agreed on the point thing, but fuzzy math is a very different and limited idea.  You are talking about 10? orders of magnitude difference?

----------


## Physics Hunter

Color commentary for the average person.
Hey, for anybody else looking in on this discussion...

This is how it is, here it's the civil and repercussion free version of what it is like to be a Christian in the sciences these days.  Out in the field it is worse.

In the end, they want to violate the 1st law of Thermodynamics and create something from nothing.  They have ZERO proof of all they mathematical gyrations, just a wall of voodoo.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Color commentary for the average person.
> Hey, for anybody else looking in on this discussion...
> 
> This is how it is, here it's the civil and repercussion free version of what it is like to be a Christian in the sciences these days.  Out in the field it is worse.
> 
> In the end, they want to violate the 1st law of Thermodynamics and create something from nothing.  They have ZERO proof of all they mathematical gyrations, just a wall of voodoo.


Now who's assuming?

You said something from "nothing".

That's an assumption on your part. No one else is talking about that, just you.  :Grin:

----------

MisterVeritis (11-22-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> it works, mathematically.


Let me ask you a question, if I may.

Are you aware of any instance where a compactified state requires LESS energy than the equivalent non-compactified condition?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Let me ask you a question, if I may.
> 
> Are you aware of any instance where a compactified state requires LESS energy than the equivalent non-compactified condition?



no, but that the point. Its the excess energy that powers decompactification, and from the breaking strings - or the phase change if you bring in the other thread

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Now who's assuming?
> 
> You said something from "nothing".
> 
> That's an assumption on your part. No one else is talking about that, just you.


Well, feel free to posit that there was Always Something, then explain the assumption.

I am standing on a proven Law of Thermo, everyone else is living in unproven (unprovable?) voodoo math land.
Which of us has more faith?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Well, feel free to posit that there was Always Something, then explain the assumption.
> 
> I am standing on a proven Law of Thermo, everyone else is living in unproven (unprovable?) voodoo math land.
> Which of us has more faith?


The thermo law says, conservation of energy.

So you tell me, which makes more sense.

That something sprang from "nothing", or that it always was.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The thermo law says, conservation of energy.
> 
> So you tell me, which makes more sense.
> 
> That something sprang from "nothing", or that it always was.



you are both getting hung up on there being something, and trying to hold on to the concept of 4d spacetime.  Whatever there was before, was nothing like there is now. The concept of time, distance and reality didnt exist. It was/is entirely something else. Thats why its hard to grasp.

----------


## Physics Hunter

> you are both getting hung up on there being something, and trying to hold on to the concept of 4d spacetime.  Whatever there was before, was nothing like there is now. The concept of time, distance and reality didnt exist. It was/is entirely something else. Thats why its hard to grasp.


You are not old enough to be sure of that.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> You are not old enough to be sure of that.



No but im smart enough, hence why im not called Oldypants  :Big Grin:

----------

nonsqtr (11-24-2021),Oceander (11-24-2021)

----------


## CWF

The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for existence is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious.  And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions.  Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.

The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact.  But science would have you believe it is so.  Many scientists cling together in their assumptions.  This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.

That is the problem.  Denial, and justification attempts to support it.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for existence is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious.  And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions.  Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.
> 
> The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact.  But science would have you believe it is so.  Many scientists cling together in their assumptions.  This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.
> 
> That is the problem.  Denial, and justification attempts to support it.



1. have you got a better science theory?

2. take the god stuff elsewhere, it officially banned from the science forum.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for *existence* is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious.  And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions.  Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.
> 
> The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact.  But science would have you believe it is so.  Many scientists cling together in their assumptions.  This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.
> 
> That is the problem.  Denial, and justification attempts to support it.


No. The problem is quite a bit easier, and vastly more fundamental.

Note the word I've bolded, in your post.

YOU can not define that word.

You may "think" you can, but whatever definition you come up with, will be scientifically inadequate.

The physicists, they're not so hifalutin as to go making assumptions about God - they just want to know what that word means.

----------


## UKSmartypants

I repeat, take the God stuff out of here, its oficially banned from the science forum.  Ask Trinnity

----------


## CWF

I understand that you do have limited reading skills, but if you notice carefully, I did not mention one single word about a Deity.  You did.

One other point.  To omit the truth in order to advance a theory is NOT scientific.

----------


## Oceander

> The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for existence is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious.  And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions.  Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.
> 
> The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact.  But science would have you believe it is so.  Many scientists cling together in their assumptions.  This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.
> 
> That is the problem.  Denial, and justification attempts to support it.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 


Can't accept that certain things have always been in existence, so has to posit some white-bearded old guy to say magic words and -* Hey Presto *- it all into existence.

Because the uncreated existence of some white-bearded old guy is easier to justify than the uncreated existence of the material universe.

----------

nonsqtr (11-24-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I understand that you do have limited reading skills, but if you notice carefully, I did not mention one single word about a Deity.  You did.
> 
> One other point.  To omit the truth in order to advance a theory is NOT scientific.



oh dont be childish. It perfectly clear its an attempt to get god into the conversation. I repeat, GTFO, god is officially banned from the science forum, many moons ago due to the uproar Usfan created trying to do the same thing.  Now for the last time, GTFO with the God stuff, take it to Humanities  or post a credible scientific theory from a reputable science source.

----------


## CWF

My understanding is that the science forum was created (oops, nasty me for using that term) for real science to have an opportunity to be presented and discussed and not discouraged.

I think the intent was for real science, not imaginary fables pretending to be science.  Arguments generally arise from false information and it is easier to just let one side have their way without opposition to avoid argument.

It is oddly interesting that Religion doesn't warrant the same advantage, and notable that the science club is not prohibited from sounding off on the subject. After all, religion is cloaked away in "Humanities" along with several other topics, while science so-called merits its own forum.  Nevertheless, that is a decision made, and I do try to abide by it.

However, I too am interested in science. I am not one who makes a living from science, just one who enjoys reading, and particularly reading about what is taught and what people believe as a result.  

I have noticed that if happenstance ever did create anything, it was a messed up screwed up disorganized tragedy like a head on collusion on the interstate. Just the opposite of intricate, complex, laws of life and the universe we all inhabit and are part of.

But, opinions vary.

----------


## nonsqtr

We "discover" things.

The vernacular says when we do that, we are being "creative".

Our knowledge evolves, as do all things in the universe, including the universe itself.

But the jury is very much out on this "creation" business. We cant define that word, any more than we can define existence.

Right now, the physicists are saying there are things smaller than atoms, and "fields" that don't resemble the ordinary geometry of spacetime, yet cause it in some way.

But this is not "truth". Truth evolves, just like everything else in the universe.

The science of Dynamics is only 200 years old. Our Founding Fathers were the first ones to understand it, in a lay sense.

Modern physics is only 100 years old. Bohr, Dirac and them, they were 1920's. Then it was another 50 years before Rene Thom and Ilya Prigogine and nonlinear non-equilibrium dynamics, leading to an understanding of things like cusps and saddle points. All of which is newly relevant (again) with orbifolds, and will become even more relevant with stochastic orbifolds.

Right now though, we can't see any smaller, and we can't get higher energies. We're at the limits of our technology, and all these hifalutin theories and models are only as good as what we can actually DO with them.

That's the proof of the pudding, what we can DO.

Y'know... some people turn water into wine and others smash atoms.  :Grin:

----------

