Nothingness, energy and the Big Bang

[curiosityandthecat]

This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

Actually, Hawking and some of his British colleagues determined there are probably no less than a dozen.

 

[DennisK]

This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

Actually, Hawking and some of his British colleagues determined there are probably no less than a dozen.

 

I don't even want to contemplate the mathematical equations involved.  The last course in math I took was Vector Calc, maybe 18 years ago.  I'm lucky if I can still do long division.

Never mind, I looked it up.  Once I read the first part (below), it was obvious.

Finally, a spacetime(M n+1 , g)satisfying the Einstein equationsR ab âˆ'12Rg ab = T ab (2.2)is said to obey the dominant energy condition provided the energy-momentum tensor Tsatisfies T (X, Y) = T ab X a Y b ≥ 0 for all future pointing causal vectors X, Y.We are now ready to state the main theorem.Theorem 2.1. Let(M n+1 , g), n ≥ 3, be a spacetime satisfying the dominant energycondition. If nâˆ'1 is an outer apparent horizon in V n then nâˆ'1 is of positive Yamabetype, unless nâˆ'1 is Ricci flat (flat if n = 3, 4) in the induced metric, and both χ andT (U, K) = T ab U a K b vanish on .Thus, except under special circumstances, nâˆ'1 is of positive Yamabe type. Asnoted in the introduction, this implies various restrictions on the topology of . Letus focus on the case dim M = 5, and hence dim= 3, and assume, by taking adouble cover if necessary, thatis orientable. Then by well-known results of Schoen-Yau [18] and Gromov-Lawson [10], topologically,must be a finite connected sumof spherical spaces (homotopy 3-spheres, perhaps with identifications) and S 2 × S 1 ’s.Indeed, by the prime decomposition theorem,can be expressed as a connected sum ofspherical spaces, S 2 × S 1 ’s, and K(Ï€, 1) manifolds (manifolds whose universal coversare contractible). But as admits a metric of positive scalar curvature, it cannot have anyK(Ï€, 1)’s in its prime decomposition. Thus, the basic horizon topologies in dim M = 5are S 3 and S 2 × S 1 , both of which are realized by nontrivial black hole spacetimes.Under stringent geometric assumptions on the horizon, a related conclusion is arrivedat in [14].Proof of the theorem. We consider normal variations ofin V, i.e., variations t â†' t of= 0 , âˆ'ϵ < t < ϵ, with variation vector field V = âˆ,âˆ,t ∣∣ t=0 = φN, φ ∈ C ∞ ().Let θ(t) denote the null expansion of t with respect to K t = U + N t , where N t is theouter unit normal field to t in V. A computation shows [6, 3],âˆ,θâˆ,t∣∣∣∣ t=0 = âˆ'△φ + 2〈X, ∇φ〉 +(Q + div X âˆ' |X| 2 )φ ,(2.3)where,Q =12S âˆ' T (U, K) âˆ'12|χ| 2 ,(2.4)S is the scalar curvature of , X is the vector field ondefined by X = tan (∇ N U),and 〈 , 〉 now denotes the induced metric h on .Introducing as in [3] the operator L = âˆ'â–³+〈X, ∇()〉+(Q + div X âˆ' |X| 2 ),Eq. (2.3)may be expressed as,âˆ,θâˆ,t∣∣∣∣ t=0 = L(φ) .(2.5)L is the stability operator associated with variations in the null expansion θ. In thetime symmetric case the vector field X vanishes, and L reduces to the classical stabilityoperator of minimal surface theory, as expected [6]

[curiosityandthecat]

I don't even want to contemplate the mathematical equations involved.  The last course in math I took was Vector Calc, maybe 18 years ago.  I'm lucky if I can still do long division.

Never mind, I looked it up.  Once I read the first part (below), it was obvious.

Kids stuff.

[Titan]

This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

:brick:  :brick:

[Zarathustra]

This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

:brick:  :brick:

- "Why are you slamming your head against the wall? You're hurting yourself!"
- "God made me do it!"
- "OK. Go on then, nothing in there to damage".

(Sorry had to quote this old joke. It was just too obvious. No pun intended)

[Titan]

Your position has nothing to do with Christianity but with the ignorant Christians who evangelicals disagree with. Look at a debate between G.K. Chesterton and Clarence Darrow for instance. You will soon see that Christians hold up quite well in all aspects of understanding. If you don't want to look into that debate I'll give you this:

It was a Sunday afternoon and the Temple was packed. At the conclusion of the debate everybody was asked to express his opinion as to the victor and slips of paper were passed around for that purpose. The award went directly to Chesterton. Darrow in comparison, seemed heavy, uninspired, slow of mind, while G.K.C. was joyous, sparkling and witty .... quite the Chesterton one had come to expect from his books. The affair was like a race between a lumbering sailing vessel and a modern steamer. Mrs. Frances Taylor Patterson also heard the Chesterton-Darrow debate, but went to the meeting with some misgivings because she was a trifle afraid that Chesterton's "gifts might seem somewhat literary in comparison with the trained scientific mind and rapier tongue of the famous trial lawyer. Instead, the trained scientific mind, the clear thinking, the lightning quickness in getting a point and hurling back an answer, turned out to belong to Chesterton. I have never heard Mr. Darrow alone, but taken relatively, when that relativity is to Chesterton, he appears positively muddle-headed."

[PipeBox]

Your position has nothing to do with Christianity but with the ignorant Christians who evangelicals disagree with. Look at a debate between G.K. Chesterton and Clarence Darrow for instance. You will soon see that Christians hold up quite well in all aspects of understanding. If you don't want to look into that debate I'll give you this:

It was a Sunday afternoon and the Temple was packed. At the conclusion of the debate everybody was asked to express his opinion as to the victor and slips of paper were passed around for that purpose. The award went directly to Chesterton. Darrow in comparison, seemed heavy, uninspired, slow of mind, while G.K.C. was joyous, sparkling and witty .... quite the Chesterton one had come to expect from his books. The affair was like a race between a lumbering sailing vessel and a modern steamer. Mrs. Frances Taylor Patterson also heard the Chesterton-Darrow debate, but went to the meeting with some misgivings because she was a trifle afraid that Chesterton's "gifts might seem somewhat literary in comparison with the trained scientific mind and rapier tongue of the famous trial lawyer. Instead, the trained scientific mind, the clear thinking, the lightning quickness in getting a point and hurling back an answer, turned out to belong to Chesterton. I have never heard Mr. Darrow alone, but taken relatively, when that relativity is to Chesterton, he appears positively muddle-headed."

This is off-topic, of course, but I must express my disappointment in my being unfamiliar with this debate and the parties debating.  But I will say, from personal experience, that not all lawyers are great public speakers.  Indeed, some are horrible.  It turns out, in the courtroom, that things are a lot more structured, and lawyers have a lot more time to contemplate their responses, while being involved in matters they are far more familiar with.  Indeed, the law is the law, and no amount of typical reasoning will trump precedent nor rules put into place and supported by the majority.  In a debate involving theology, a set of science facts isn't going to win you any debates, you have to be able to use them, and be flexible and able to think things out.  Apologists, then, ought to be considerably more adept than one who only accepts and deals in concrete evidence, where knowing facts doesn't require reasoning of any kind.

This may well be why these debates often end in favor of the religious.  You, Titan, have both the qualities of knowing many facts, and being able to reason your way out of many of theology's pitfalls.  Though, you aren't perfect at either, and neither are the rest of us.  But hopefully we can cause you to refine your beliefs by exposing problems you didn't know were there, and you can do the same to us in return.  

Iron sharpens iron, or so I've heard.  

[Zarathustra]

Your position has nothing to do with Christianity but with the ignorant Christians who evangelicals disagree with. Look at a debate between G.K. Chesterton and Clarence Darrow for instance. You will soon see that Christians hold up quite well in all aspects of understanding. If you don't want to look into that debate I'll give you this:

I do! I looked into it. Clarence Darrow was a lawyer. He knows very little about the theory of knowledge. Try any debate between a real scientist or philosopher of science opposing a theist of any kind. You'll see how christianity holds up.
This debate is almost 100 years old, and NOT a philosophical one. A pseudo-philosophical one at best.
But I guess its the same as always. You speak of that which you have no knowledge...

[Zarathustra]

Oh, and by the way: Clarence Darrow was not an atheist. He was self proclaimed agnostic.

[DennisK]

Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?  I've given you credit for being one of the smarter more civil theists I've come across on the web.  While this may be a double edged compliment, it's the best I can do.  You obviously have ulterior motives for hijacking this forum.  Do you enjoy being the center of attention or is this part of your church's or a personal mission?

No, I don't wish to PM you as you have asked before (although I considered it) or Skype or anything else.  My goal is not to engage you in personal debate. Whether or not I could hold my own and 'win' a debate with you is not the issue.  I have no intention of converting you to atheism and I certainly don't want to be preached to.  I know you may feel you are doing the lord's work in spreading his/her/its word and muddying atheist forums, but why not try to convert those who already have a belief in some other fantasy?  Better yet, why not go to religious fanatic forums and try to temper their extreme views?  At least there, you will be doing some good in the world.

[Sophus]

Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?

Oh come on. What fun would it be without at least one theist on the forum?

[Zarathustra]

Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?

Oh come on. What fun would it be without at least one theist on the forum?

I hope I haven't scared him off.  :nerd:

[DennisK]

Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?

Oh come on. What fun would it be without at least one theist on the forum?

I have no problem with theists who want to post and debate.  I do have a problem with the holy who have a hidden agenda to convert and/or hijack this forum.  I see Titan as doing both, but that's just my opinion.

[ragarth]

Okay, going back to the original topic:

This is going a bit beyond my usual realm of knowledge but cosmology is fun just the same! So I give you a disclaimer: I'm not well versed here and what follows are my personal opinions and best rememberances of previously read information.

The cosmic background radiation, which is our primary method of probing the early moments of the universe, can only enlighten us as far as actual matter once existed. Once the warm soup of prematter formed into hydrogen that hydrogen had the effect of absorbing the radiation given off by the earlier moments of the universe, which is why we are basically blind to the actual origin. The second major piece of info we have that I know of is the actual structure of the universe, plotting the position of galaxies lets us extrapolate large scale structures in space, and this is something of keen interest to all those theories that have since been derived from string theory (m-brane theory being the latest I read about).

An interesting theory I read about once was the idea of an expanding multi-verse. If the original big bang was a massive hyperdimensional thing involving expanding space, then pockets might be produced where some of the higher dimensions collapse in, creating areas like our own universe. Our big bang ensues from the sudden collapse, and we live within a realm of our perceivable dimensions. Our bubble of 3-space expands as the larger hyperdimensional space expands, and life goes on. I know nothing more about this theory, so can't provide much else on it.

As per vacuum energy, casimir effect, and virtual particles as earlier posted, I have a question: I've heard the casimir effect referred to as the momentary creation of two particles, a normal and an anti particle that generate from nothing, orbit each other for a moment, then collapse back into each other to return to a state of 0 energy. Hawking Radiation relies on this effect by creation a slightly more powerful attraction towards the anti-particle at the event horizon of a black hole, thereby letting the normal particle spiral off as radiation while the anti-particle acts to reduce the mass of the black hole. This released particle is a photon, ergo a boson. What I don't remember is whether bosons have further particles they are comprised of? I believe string theory predicted that they did, but I don't remember if standard theory had found constituent particles to make bosons.

[Wechtlein Uns]

I have some view of cosmology that I would like to share in this thread, however, I just recently spent a lot of time detailing it in another forum, so I think I'll wait a while.

nevertheless, I will say that I believe that interaction on a quantum scale to be the driving force behind time. As there was no interaction before the big bang, there could not have been any marching of time, according a theory that I've worked out. However, on a quantum scale, one must be very careful what one means by "marching of time", you'll find that it hardly means what you would think.

It's a simple model I have in mind, but it would take quite some time to dileanate it all. In short, the universe can be described, in my opinion, as a point and a meta-dimension, depending upon through which pov you are looking at it through.

A point and a meta-dimension... a lot of the theories depend upon a correct conception of time on a quantum scale: a conception which has yet to be found in science. All of the ones I have read so far use time on a macro scale, but that is hardly appropriate. A precise definition of time in the quantum must be found... The scientififc world has just begun to get interesting.