Comments on: A time before the Big Bang?

By: Bjorn Saw

Bjorn Saw — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:28:22 +0000

Sorry, in the above I meant “the slowness of light”, not time.

By: Bjorn Saw

Bjorn Saw — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:26:30 +0000

Motion of time. Is is correct to understand time as the ongoing expansion of space since it first emerged at the Big Bang. Is it correct to see the expansion of spacetime as co-emerging with the release of light at the time when the universe became transparent? Does light (the speed of which) determines the rate of expansion of spacetime? It seems to me that light and spacetime is closely determined by eachother, or even co-dependent on each other? Or could even be considered to be of one unit; the emergence of light = spacetime?

Another great interest of mine lies in the phenomenon that the expansion of spacetime emerges from each and every point in space continuously at every instance; now, now and now. Is this a correct view to hold?

Based on Buddhist scriptures the Buddha spoke of instantaneous arising of this event, happening in an unbelievable speed. I myself have had a glimpse through a spiritual experience of this enormous velocity. I call it real time; the time spacetime emerges anew in each instance. We never get to experience this real speed of the universe as we are used to regular intervals of the sun and moon. But sometimes, through extraordinary deeper insights we may have glimpses of the real state of affairs. I have had a vision of reaching back till the very origin of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. This made it clear to me what is meant by deep time, just as astronomers are beholding the origin of the universe by looking into space. As layers upon layers, new spacetime is continuously overlaying and replacing “old” spacetime, making the universe we see today completly a new universe compared to yesterdays. So the slowness of time being the only way to be able to see things of the past.
In Buddhist scriptures it’s also spoken about the co-extensive emergence of the void with emptiness. This I can relate to the link between the co-emergence of spacetime with the expansion of light. What do you think?
And once all light is gone in the end of the universe era there can not be said that spacetime still exist; they are co-dependant.

Sincerely,
Bjorn Saw
London, UK

By: Adib Ben Jebara

Adib Ben Jebara — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:50:44 +0000

A mathematical why of the Big Bang
Outline

Let Ui be a set of locations of particles of the universe.
U1xU2x …… xUix ….. a set of infinite paths
(Cartesian product of sets of urelements).
this set is equal to the void set by the
negation of the axiom of choice.

So there is no more space containing the particles.
The particles collapse on themselves: Big Crunch.
Then Big Bang.

The Big Bang has taken place thus the negation of the axiom
of choice is likely to be considered as a good axiom.
Adib Ben Jebara.

By: Chris Lintott’s Universe » In his own words

Chris Lintott’s Universe » In his own words — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:10:29 +0000

[...] You now don’t have to listen to my attempt to parse Sean Carroll’s talk, but can go and read his take on the research at Cosmic Variance. [...]

By: The Lopsided Universe | Cosmic Variance

The Lopsided Universe | Cosmic Variance — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:56:26 +0000

[...] One of the people in the audience was Chris Lintott, who wrote up a description for the BBC. Admittedly, this is difficult stuff to get all straight the very first time, but I think his article gives the impression that there is a much more direct connection between my arrow-of-time work and our recent paper on the lopsided universe. In particular, there is no necessary connection between the existence of a supermode and the idea that our universe “bubbled off” from a pre-existing spacetime. (There might be a connection, but it is not a necessary one.) If you look through the paper, there’s nothing in there about entropy or the multiverse or any of that; we’re really motivated by trying to explain an interesting feature of the CMB data. Nevertheless, our proposed solution does hint at things that happened before the period of inflation that set up the conditions within our observable patch. These two pieces of research are not of a piece, but they both play a part in a larger story — attempting to understand the low entropy of the early universe suggests the need for something that came before, and it’s good to be reminded that we don’t yet know whether stuff that came before might have left some observable imprint on what we see around us today. Larger stories are what we’re all about. [...]

By: Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:05:22 +0000

Chris, thanks for covering my talk. Just to be clear, the connection between our ideas about using the multiverse to address the arrow-of-time problem and our recent paper about the power asymmetry in the CMB is a very tenuous one — so tenuous as to be almost non-existent! I was mostly trying to make the point that, although multiverse ideas are very new and underdeveloped, it is certainly imaginable that someday when we understand them better we will be able to make concrete predictions. The new CMB paper is interesting mostly as an investigation into conventional inflation, but there might be some connection to the pre-inflationary universe, which is certainly intriguing. But it’s all quite speculative at this point.

By: R.L.DEEPTHI

R.L.DEEPTHI — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:01:16 +0000

if possible please give esplanation about “A TIME BEFORE BIGBANG WITH PICTURES”

By: Alice Sheppard

Alice Sheppard — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:03:44 +0000

Congratulations Chris!

(No clever scientific thoughts to add at this time of night . . .)

By: Josephine

Josephine — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:35:46 +0000

Though I have no background within the field of astronomy, the topic of what was before the Big Bang has always intrigued me. One question, which I came across when reading Carroll’s article “Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?” in Scientific American’s May edition, was one which I recalled reading your BBC article.

As mentioned in your article:
“… a natural explanation for this discrepancy would be if it represented a structure inherited from our universe’s parent …”

It is the biologist within me which is speaking now, and also wondering, that if universes are thought to “bubble off” from previous, parent ones, can then universes be thought of as undegoing some sort of “evolution” similar to that biological organisms? Of course, I do realise that the universe is neither biological nor an organism, but as even inorganic collections of matter are undergoing processes similar to that of evolution, I hope that my question is not seen as formulated out of the blue. Is this an idea which has been pursued by cosmologists?

I will be sure to watch this space over the weekend as the question, as aforementioned, intrigues me.