Ovidiu Cristinel

Thank you for your interesting text.

I admit, that my question was inspired by a recent reading of M. Bojowald article from 2001 year: "Absence of a Singularity in Loop Quantum Cosmology".

I attach some slides that contain an introduction and a personal view on the problem of big bang singularity. I think that they are helpful wrt the question, because they explain that the initial singularity was not a point, that it existed just for an instant, and not for a positive time interval, and that geometry and physics don't necessarily break down at the singularity.

Ovidiu Cristinel

Thank you for your interesting text.

I admit, that my question was inspired by a recent reading of M. Bojowald article from 2001 year: "Absence of a Singularity in Loop Quantum Cosmology".

Origin of universe is really an unresolved puzzling problem. It is the single largest stick with the creationists to threaten the scientists.

This issue of singularity is quite interesting. From a mathematics viewpoint any conserved value that is a function of that continuum will cause a singularity if that continuum is contracted to a point. The history of mathematics in physics seems to argue for a singularity but in practice it seem to be a bad idea.

Does that article on LQG have anything to say about having to break the law of conservation of energy at small scales? It seems to me it has to in order to avoid the singularity. Quite frankly, I have a deep distrust to applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to space itself (thereby breaking the established notion of conservation of energy) to create the quantum vacuum - the original principle simply was never derived for use in this fashion.

I do note one way around all these problems: an infinite collection of zero dimensional objects do not take up space and can therefore co-exist at a point co-ordinate (i.e. they are congruent) - not technically a singularity by the dictionary definition, but nonetheless a pretty impressive approximation of it, and conservation laws can still be strictly enforced.

Dear Irais

Thank you for attached text.

I want to emphasize that my interest in this issues (and the fact that I asked this question in ResearchGATE) is associated primarily with conducting lectures for students.

I know, that the question of the origin of the chemical elements in conjunction with the Initial Singularity, the Big Bang theory and the primary nucleosynthesis, it is not still a common form of narration the initial lectures of the course of inorganic chemistry.

I want to see different views on this issue, to with a greater objectivity submit this issue for students.

Without limit of time, the ask of how long is not possible, "there" can be from 0 to infinite, together in our limit, but because it is anything I feel only infinite.

I think it's a change of limits or dimensions. (For that it can be a begin from "a" zero, a determined 0) and this is contradictory.

Dear Andrzej,

I'm not an expert at all in initial singularity, but I find it a fascinating question and I read a few popular books to try to understand this phenomenon. There are several theories -sometimes quite discordant- about what's beyond the Planck's wall and what is the mechanism that led to the Big Bang. I must say that I have a hard time to imagine that physical laws didn't exist as we know them now, and that, before Big Bang time didn't even exist. I'm probably too narrow-minded to fully absorb this notion, just like, at the other hand, to conceive that the universe in not finite but rather in permanent expansion.

Like you, I understood that matter appeared after Big Bang from the burst of colossal energy which followed and by the conjunction of several events. I must admit that the books from which I learnt the most about all these notions such as initial singularity, big bang and so on were not a scientific books so to speak but rather controversial books by the Bogdanov brothers ("Before big bang" and "the face of god"). I liked it because it's well popularized for people who are not very strong at quantum physics and complex equations, but I read also that many scientists criticized with much strength. Thus, I can't advise its reading, because of likely inaccuracies, but the story told in this book was quite attractive.

Dear Professor Andrzej Szymanski, In response to your intelligent question "What do we know about Initial Singularity", I read here and there and below is my understanding ....

According to Big Bang Cosmology (if it is true), then the Universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago with a 'Big Bang'. That 'Big Bang' an explosion of matter, energy and space from a 'Singular Point' (Singularity). This "Singularity" is spatially and temporally point like. Hence, it has zero spatial dimensions and exists for an instant (at t = 0, an initial state) before exploding with a 'Big Bang'.

Dear Professor Afaq Ahmad

The problem is in the fact, that (in my opinion) the "zero" time of existence, or the "point character" (without volume) of the Initial Singularity, are not unequivocally proven.

In a previous comment Andrzej said that motivation for asking “where” the Original Singularity was before the Big Bang event, is for educational purposes, to introduce to college students into the notion of Origin of the Universe, from different perspectives. So, here is mine.

TIME, as a concept, is the thing we have to elucidate first. From previous comments, everyone assumed that TIME pre-exist the Bing Bang event, it is continuous and, implicitly, boundless (a mechanistic way of thinking). Under this assumption, the physical laws and concepts such as “before” and “after” are perfectly understood; we interpret TIME as a succession of causal events, which is timing actually. In saying that, Time seems to me an artifact that we all humans invented “to explain in our own words” our reality. Why not to consider that matter, as we conceive it now, is result of an instability in the emptiness (what the heck is that?!!!). We are way far from having a full comprehension of our origin, mainly because we have not constructed the “right words” (models) that satisfy our curiosity without contradicting the current physical laws or recurring to a God existence. Poets always have the “right words” to describe complexity in our reality, why not we get borrow our missing models from them?

Dear Doctor G. Sosa Iglesias

Indeed, I asking the question "What do we know about the Initial Singularity?", I mean first of all to gather material for teaching purposes . But I think, that if I had a wider explain my intentions, which led to the tasks of this question, I 'd have to mention one more important fact, namely this, that none of the existing descriptions of the origins of the Universe, does not convince me. I have too many doubts, to stand before the front of any of the existing theories and admit its indisputable correctness. Therefore, it is to my liking your point of view on this matter. I think, that to problems difficult to explain and ambiguously interpreted, we should approached with limited trust, just like you written about this.

Dear Christina and Mohammad,

Thank you for your comments. While I do not share yours views, that everything in this issue is resolved. In this way, I read yours opinions on this topic, which cites the chronology and the course of events from the Initial Singularity to the present day, in accordance with generally accepted theories.

Dear Christina

After reading your last post, I feel obliged to respond, and I think, that my respond also will be interested for Mohammad.

It seems to me, that after my last post you have the impression, that I criticized your and Mohammad points of view, for the lack of reflection on the issue about which we are discussing, manifesting itself in the full approval of the theory describing this phenomenon.

I'm sorry if you have such an impression. No, it was my intention, and perhaps the fact of writing in English (not native) caused a problem in the transfer of my thoughts.

So I remind, that the genesis of my question lies in the search for the best way to transfer information about the beginning of the Universe and the origin of the chemical elements, to my students, with whom I lead a lecture on the basics of general and inorganic chemistry.

Therefore, I asking all concerned about the reviews on this. I admit, that I hope not so much on statements summarizing the current state of scientific knowledge on the Initial Singularity, but at your own impressions on the subject - such as that presented by Dr. Sosa Iglesias.

I hope, that when I will analyze all your answers, then I will can transfer for my students the information about genesis of chemistry, using an interesting narrative (about the inspiration to which, I'm asking in this question).

A cosmic evolution model should be self-genereting from a extremely simple dynamic kernel. Any model assuming a complex mathematical framework at the origin fails in being a form of platonist. This is cheating and leaving the question of this initial framework unanswered.

"Before" time, before our dance of time, space and mass, what is possible?

In an infinite context, anything. The birth needs a Mother or a Father. A Matrix capable of making a World.

The universe is either eternal, with the singularity being one possible state of this eternity, or it is not, in which case the singularity requires a genesis. My completely unscientific unproven vote goes to the the former - it just seems to make a bit more sense in the context of physics and cosmology as we know it.

The problem with assuming an initial state is that is has to remain unexplained.

Louis,

I did not say singularity was the initial state. I just said the singularity had to be "a state"

In fact it is the ONLY state with symmetry forwards and backwards in time - the direction from this state does not matter because both solutions are identical (increasing entropy), and once away from that state the direction continues overwhelmingly in that direction because of the following fact of thermodynamics (proved by Boltzmann):

When you consider classical thermodynamics of entropy, the process is reversible. In Quantum Mechanics the process must be reversible and also continuous - this is axiomatic to QM theory as Lucien Hardy among others has shown.

So any state is possible, but the number of states going in one direction outnumber the reverse, so the probability of going in one direction is large and inexorable - but not quite certain p=1. So you can start at any state, and the probability of reaching the singularity is very very very (VERY!!) small - but not quite zero. Now apply eternity, and it WILL happen. Which leaves just one question left - why do we not see and remember all this to and fro?

Two points: First, we do see this to and fro in action, it is called the uncertainty principle. But this begs the question of why our observational history goes direct back to the singularity,

Second, from the perspective of an observer, looking back up the entropy slope, we cannot record all this to and fro retracing of steps, All our observations can only be of the downhill process (increasing entropy) simply because if it goes backwards by chance for a short time, it will eventually go forward by a greater amount, and it is this last track forward in our journey that defines the only observations we can actually make. it is as though Nature is "feeling its way forward in time" using the uncertainty principle.

So we observe all the way back to the singularity as though it is a continuous forward process of history. This is just normal thermodynamic theory and it applies to QM as well. The singularity is the reference state for our observations, not because it need be the initial state, but because it is the only symmetrical state that can be and that is why it looks like the start to us. Simple yes?

You may well argue about this stochastic progression of state forward and back in time being physical, but it is a thermodynamic fact. Boltzmann proved it, and it is not going away.

Andrew,

I have nothing to say against this logic. This logic is based on a fixed theoretical framework and you come naturally while reasoning in this framework to this singular reference state. My previous post was saying that this framework of thought and the reference state it imples are unexplained. How it came to be? The quantum theory is complex. Nothing complex appear suddently. The formal mathematical separation of state and theory cannot be maintain up to the origin of he universe. The theory of the origin has to be constructing the theory.

Louis,

I agree with you completely - this logic I gave derives from the assumption of an eternal structure, Now I happen to agree with you that complex behavior arises from simple rules, and not the other way around!

So I would disagree that Quantum theory is complex. It and GR are actually the simplest structures that have ever been imagined (that have relevance to physics)

I now revise down my five year estimate, and say within the next two years, an even simpler structure will be found that unites the two, and I also predict even you will concede it is simple when you see it. Time will tell!

Dear Colleagues,

I admit that I do not see myself as a theorist of the "Beginning of the Universe". The problem for me is very interesting, but I look at it more from a practical side. I want to somehow weave that, what theoretically know about The Initial Singularity, in the base lectures of general and inorganic chemistry .

I admit, that reading carefully the posts in this topic, lead me to the surprising conclusion, that in this discussion about The Initial Singularity to this moment did not show up even a small mention of the temperature variation in the initial period of the Universe. I think, that this is one of the key issues of the problem of The Initial Singularity. Of particular interest to me are the following questions:

1. What temperature was in the state of The Initial Singularity?

2. Does the Big Bang (if occurred) caused a discontinuity in the profile of changes the temperature of the Universe?

I will be happy, if I get to know your opinions on these issues.

I agree with Andrzej, please help me!

Yes Hanno,

My last post, it was my genuine cry for help.

Please help me!!!

Dear Professor Andrzej Szymanski,

What about the singularity which frequently we use in the network theory where we analyze the relations between singularities of transfer functions and spectral properties of the corresponding operators in the space mode?

Dear Andrjev, my personal opinion is that the entity 'initial singularity' simply does not exist. The only existent is our lack of explaining phenomena below the Planck threshold, since our apparatus is merely a linear science and all those tensors, derivatives and other differential geometrical objects probably cannot even be defined at that scale. So, whenever we, humans, cannot explain something, strange questions arise. As for an analogue case, try to use Coulomb law for r-->0, is there any singularity problem at all, no. This is a similar situation, I don't know if in our lifetime Maths will evolve so much in order to explain nature at very-very small distances.

Don't we have any Nobel laureates out there to answer this question convincingly? Is Research Gate so poor without Nobel laureates?

Dear Demetris,

I totally agree with your opinion contained in a recent post:

" 'Initial singularity' simply does not exist. The only existent is our lack of explaining the phenomena below the Planck threshold, since our apparatus is Merely a linear science and All Those Tensors, derivatives and other differential geometrical objects probably can not even be defined at that scale. "

Exactly... YES

If we are unable to accept the correctness of this statement, then we should accept his other implications, too, such as this:

1. If we can not clearly define the boundary conditions of the existing theory/theories, unfortunately, none of them can be considered a theory adequately describes the origin of the Universe

2. If we can not cope with defining the quantified objects with the sizes smaller than the limit of our perception, maybe it is the time to take up the "macro" effects - despite the fact that in micro-scale can be quantized (for example, energy) - which should be much easier to grasp (I think). I mean about this, what has already touched upon - that is, to take up the attempt to explain addressing issues related to energy (temperature) in the moment of Big Bang, and in its surroundings.

Andrzej

A couple of possibilities.

The best answer I can based on current physics is

1) Temperature at singularity is undefined - in exactly the mathematical sense that T*b=0 is undefined when b=0 (this result is due to the uncertainty principle)

2) There is no discontinuity in the temperature at the singularity because it is axiomatic to QM that the process of change is continuous and reversible.

On the other hand, if QM is an emergent law of something deeper, then in a sense it is possible to say that the law emerged as a phase change occurred - just as liquids behave differently to gases - the liquid laws in a sense come into existence only after the process of condensation occurs - before that the gas laws apply.

So in this sense temperature might be said to come into existence at the moment the singularity expands - not sure it would count as a discontinuity though in the strict mathematical sense.

Thank you Andrew (nota bene... we have the same first name)

Indeed, I waiting on a such stimulant to reflect reply to this topic, and the emergence of such responses was my hoping when I asked a question.

I have only one ambiguity in understanding your point of view.

You wrote:

"There is no discontinuity in the temperature at the singularity because it is axiomatic that QM That the process of change is continuous and reversible"

I have some reservations about the undisputed adoption of this thesis, if in loosely translated it means so much, that: "In the Universe will never happen NOTHING, which is inconsistent with the assumptions of the MQ".

If I misunderstood your words, write a little wider comment, please.

Dear Professor Andrzej Szymanski,

With respect to civilization: The term initial singularity describes the moment when a civilization came into existence. The similar initial singularity are discussed with respect to technology, network, fabrication, chemistry, ... in any other fields or subjects.

We can talk about initial singularity with respect to any thing where space-time involves.

As far as with respect to civilization, my view is the term singularity describes the moment when a civilization changes. The initial singularity is eternal; it is existence and the Creator is God.

If this is not true then talk about t = - infinity (10^3 years).

Else we can debate initial singularity in respect to a field, subject, ...

Andrzej,

Lucien Hardy and others proved QM rests on the axiom that change is continuous AND reversible - in fact it is this axiom alone that distinguishes QM from classical probability. Boltzmann proved that such an axiom requires a system to increase in Entropy. These two facts are not going to go away in any synthesis or unified theory.

Now to your comment, "In the Universe will never happen NOTHING" Are you talking about the possibility of nothing happening - i.e. a static universe, or the possibility of something 'arising" from nothing. I consider both cases in turn

a) The notion of change must be axiomatic - an eternal attribute of existence but this is not inconsistent with QM. Also there is nothing stopping a static result - that is a state of the universe changing into itself- like an identity relationship in maths, just like there is nothing stopping the universe going into reverse. this is after all the very definition of reversibility on a continuum which is axiomatic to QM!

But as Boltzmann proved, the probability of it going backward (or even staying the same) for even extremely short periods is much much less than the probability of it moving forward, and this is Entropy - because more states exist in the forward direction than the backward. - so all you need is the potential for change, and the axiom of change, and change MUST happen, and entropy must increase, and the system in total goes in one direction on average inexorably.

b) Did the singularity arise out of Nothing? In my opinion No. it arose out of a prior structure of the thing and nothing. the thing being the simplest thing that is not nothing. That is, as in the dictionary definition, they mutually define each other. the thing is the singularity. The singularity then invents space (it has to because of the axiom of change) and all else follows by emergent law - and once something is invented, you cannot un-invent it, all you can do is build upon it by further emergent laws such as chemistry, biology and consciousness, and so on.....

in this regard i am firmly in Lee Smolin's camp (see "Time Reborn" and tentatively reject Platonist interpretations of the singularity as ill conceived. (Lee's view is yet to be "proven")

Another option is to think about next result: In our local universe the mean value of almost everything is zero. So, we can say that all our local universe is a vibration around zero and thus no need for a beginning exists at all.

Dear Andrew,

First I want to clarify some misunderstanding, because you probably wrongly understood my words. I have not said in his speech that I am a supporter of the thesis "In the Universe will never happen NOTHING...",

I only asked, if you agree with my thesis (based on your previous posts) that "In the Universe will never happen NOTHING, which is inconsistent with the assumptions of the QM"?.

More specifically, I meant, or in fact QM - which you and the other participants in the discussion, suggesting - is a panacea for all the problems which this question refers to.

I think that QM does not give any answers to any of the questions relating to the Initial Singularity, because QM does not apply to the assumptions in the initial phase of the Universe - before the phase so-called Planck Era.

I would like to enter this interesting conversation to propose a new approach to the initial singularity which I call the cosmic quantum. You can find my article about it at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2/contributions/?ev=prf_act .

In brief, the cosmic quantum (or initial singularity) is proposed to be a closed photon carrying the energy of the universe. Emerging from a cosmic quantum field, it could then transform to evolve into the present universe, including dark matter which may be closely related in structure to the cosmic quantum.

Dear Richard,

Thank you for joining the discussion very interesting thread about the "cosmic quantum" theory.

So, exactly how much it can do "amateur", I have read the assumptions of your theory.

I must admit that the main problem for which I proposed this topic, that is: if and as long the Initial Singularity ("cosmic quantum" from your theory) exist before the expansion of the Universe, and if the beginning of the expansion (Big Bang or transformation of "cosmic quantum" to the form of the present Universe) could result in discontinuity of parameters such as time, energy (temperature); remains unresolved for me.

Dear Professor Andrzej Szymanski,

In this question an atheistic and theistic interpretations of the Big Bang is involved. There are reasons to doubt and might conflict with the faith but anyway I enjoyed participating in this positive debate.

Dear Professor Afaq Ahmad,

Thank you for presenting your opinion in this topic.

Indeed, the subject of discussion is very complex, difficult, and at this moment escapes from under the full control of a purely scientific approach.

Putting this issue for discuss I was hoping that mentioned by Professor two points of view, will be discussed - because the issue is extensive, and meticulous differences in points of view, literally a dime a dozen.

Andrzej,

Thank you for your question about time and temperature and their possible continuity or discontinuity in the cosmic quantum model of the singularity.

The cosmic quantum model is a single particle (a closed photon) that is extremely small but not infinitesimally small. It has a very large energy and a correspondingly high internal frequency related by Planck’s constant to its energy. Its internally circulating transluminal energy quantum (TEQ) has a speed varying from c to sqrt(5) c. Because the cosmic quantum is a single particle, it doesn’t have a temperature, which is an average property of matter or energy.

When the cosmic quantum evolves into multiple particles and/or energy states during the big bang, these would later have a high temperature. A very crude analogy is that a firecracker before it explodes has a low temperature based on its organized internal energy configurations, but when it explodes the gas produced has a high temperature, which gradually reduces as the gas expands. But total energy is conserved in the transformation process.

As for the question of continuity of time in the cosmic quantum model of the big bang, time exists within the cosmic quantum, otherwise the speed of light within the cosmic quantum would not be meaningful. Time would continue to exist as the cosmic quantum evolves to become the big bang, but whether the associated quantum transformations would be discrete or continuous in time is an open question.

Richard,

Thank you for giving your very pictorial concept of "cosmic quantum".

I admit that I usually have a lot of confidence in the concept, which the gist can be explained by simple examples taken from everyday life.

Of course, the doubt remain, and even I can say, that they born further, with the deeper penetration of the evidence for the validity of the various theoretical models.

I think, after the new year, we had to come back to this topic.

Meanwhile, everyone involved in the discussion of this topic, I wish you all the best in 2014.

Happy New Year

Andrzej

Andrzej,

Yes your comments are very thought provoking. You are correct that the current standard formulation of QM where rest mass is explicit, the use of this Hamiltonian within QM CANNOT be taken back to the singularity without causing irreconcilable difficulties This is simply because the current QM formulation was never intended to describe space and time: Rather, it was explicitly formulated to describe the particles within it! No wonder when space itself contracts to a singularity, difficulties arise describing particles within it by this approach!

But before we throw Hamiltonian Mechanics out with the bath water as it were, consider the following compromise. It is my view that the Hamiltonian Mechanics part of QM IS going to be valid right back to the singularity as follows:

There can still exist a Hamiltonian of space alone which WILL work back to the singularity and to which Hamiltonian mechanics does apply, and from which rest mass then emerges (as a configuration of space, rather than a property of space) Once that happens, the standard Schrodinger QM formulation treating particles as a property of space correctly applies as an emergent law of this deeper underlying mechanics.

After many years studying the unification problem from many different parts (GR, QM, standard model, cosmology, thermodynamics) I am very close to completely convinced that this is how it will work out in the next few years of research, and understanding what rest mass is, and more importantly, what it is not, will be the key.

Andrew,

Thank you for these solid foundations modify the classic concept of the Hamiltonian Mechanics, which you presented in your post above.

Especially electrifies me this passage in your post:

"There can still exist a Hamiltonian of space alone Which WILL work back to the singularity and Hamiltonian mechanics Which it does apply , and from Which rest mass then emerges ( as a configuration of space , rather than a property of space ) Once That happens , the standard formulation of QM Schrodinger treating particles as a property of space CORRECTLY Applies as an emergent law of this deeper underlying mechanics."

If I understand the meaning of this assumption , this " emerging rest mass " had to bring in the energy of the entire Universe?

If so, I would see two extreme options:

1. It is a very large mass of relatively low temperature

2. It is a small ( "point" ) mass of a very high temperature (can be accurate to call it a "quarks plasma"???).

Solution 1 seems unlikely , because in my opinion finding in this situation causative factors of the Big Bang would be pretty complex.

Solution 2 somehow more "intuitive" falls to my liking.

Andrew , what do you think about this?

Please also other interested in the subject to present opinions.

Andrzej,

Unfortunately where you are dealing with unified theories where rest mass is itself an emergent property of the relativistic expansion of space, our current definitions of temperature, entropy, kinetic energy and so on need to re-worked to suit the new paradigm. It makes no sense to talk about the temperature or mass or kinetic energy or entropy of the singularity in terms of our current mathematical definitions of these terms in physics, for the following reason:

I am not trying to wiggle around your point. It is simply that these definitions are currently and unavoidably functions of rest mass. At the singularity, rest mass has yet to be invented from the expansion! - rest mass comes after a bit of the expansion has taken place, and once this happens our standard methods of GR and QM apply just perfectly - just don;t expect to extrapolate the notion of rest mass back to the singularity and hope to make sense of your "intuition!"

So I would not necessarily say either of your two points is accurate or inaccurate. There can be a duality of course - an atomic bomb at the moment of detonation is in one sense a small rest mass at low temperature AND in the next instant a slightly smaller mass at very high temperature. Not that you can treat the singularity as a conventional type of explosion (it being an explosion of space itself, not an explosion of something within space, but you get the point I think)

The best I could say in non-mathematically imprecise terms about the singularity is an infinite amount of potential in an infinitesimally small space, which is a pretty meaningless statement without further context.

The thing I find most surprising is that there are known Hamiltonian's in pure spatial geometries where this infinity of the infinitesimal does not cause any computational difficulties whatsoever in evaluation of the system at the singularity or any other state of the expansion. What is not known yet is if or how these Hamiltonian's of pure geometry have any relevance to physics. I have many reasons to believe in fact they do have physical relevance, and that is what my current research is about.

Dear Andrzej

In mathematics , the term " singularity " is a point that can not be described by a continuous function . Imagine any surface , such as a globe , at any point can be located by reference to two numbers (or coordinates) .

According to the Big Bang model , the universe emerged from an initial singularity , a "point " in which all the functions that describe their behavior exhibit singularities . For example , the matter density tends to infinity , the distances between two ( and all) of the points tends to zero and the temperature tends to infinity .

The initial singularity our complete brand of what happened at that moment , that religious call at the Creation ignorance. Our mathematical description of physical processes occurring at that instant is inconsistent . Our understanding of the behavior of matter and energy at such temperatures and pressures is incomplete and inconclusive .

With careful study of these submicroscopic entities , it became clear that the physics of the very small , quantum mechanics , is completely different from physics that describes the behavior of matter at dimensions accessible to human perception .

But we can not ignore quantum mechanics ! The initial singularity is what we call a classic concept, a consequence of applying a theory , in this case, the theory of general relativity by Einstein , in a regime where it is not applicable. Therefore , the existence of the initial singularity should not be interpreted as an absolute barrier of knowledge , but as a point where the description of the universe as a whole must be made through a marriage between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

We do not know how to build a theory able to describe the initial moments of the universe , although there are some candidates . The enigma of the initial singularity persists , perhaps less mysterious than in the past but also the present inscrutable .

Dear Nelson, I was young and I am going to be an old man since I first read about coupling quantum mechanics and general relativity. At my very early attempts I studied the concept of 'quantum chaos' and I found that there exist not such an entity at all. So, since QM cannot even offer a very common classical situation (chaos) then don't wait to be coupled with another classical theory (Gen. Rel.).

I think that 'we must bury the dead' and continue our scientific lives further away from such tasks.

Otherwise we are just doing circles around ourselves...

Let me tell you about what we don't know! Where did the initial singularity comes from? This is a question that stretches physics to its limit simply because before the initial singularity there was no science, no space and no time. The word 'before' becomes meaningless.

In my approach, the initial singularity, which I call the cosmic quantum, emerges possibly in pairs because it has spin 1, from a cosmic quantum field which is beyond ordinary space and time but which would be rich with information. This cosmic information field gives rise to the cosmic quantum, a very high energy closed photon, which then gives rise to the whole universe, or our particular sub-universe, by subdividing its energy to become the big bang.

Richard,

If I understand your last post, it's your theory of the origin of the universe has to show in certain parts of similarity to the theory of the Higgs boson.

Indeed, you feel that the idea and in consequence - the discoveries of the Higgs boson, as a kind of energy converter into the mass, is the most important step towards clarify the early origins of the Universe?

Sorry if I ask bad,

Spin 1 to spin 1/2 can be the origin of duality? (The twain existence of all). (Of spin 1/2).

I ask to other people if it is possible to come from only one graviton spin:2. (Only one).

Andrzej,

The role of the Higg's boson (if any) in the inflationary portion of the early universe is currently unclear. As I understand it, not all masses are caused by the Higgs boson or the Higgs field. The cosmic quantum would require new physics beyond the Higgs boson.

"As I understand it, not all masses are caused by the Higgs boson or the Higgs field."

You are correct. You can get masses for quarks by interactions with the Higgs field, but, for example, nucleons get 1% of their mass from quarks, hence Higgs, but most of the mass by strong force. For neutrinos, we are not sure and we have several models which include (at least ?) two see-saw models, six generic mechanisms, some radiative models and all sorts of exotic stuff in the Standard Model and beyond Standard Model.

PS: for example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0221v1.pdf

Andrei Neacsu,

Reading your reply, you might be able to point me to a clear, accurate and current explanation of the relationship between mass and standard model group theory, and the relationship between mixing angles, energy, rest mass and half life.

I fully understand this is not a small topic, but have you come across what I might term "a comprehensive summary that has a clarity of expression" of the concepts behind the standard model?

Dear Andrew Jonkers,

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide such and accurate explanation, nor to point out the best article on the topic. Giving out the search results of Webofknowledge, INSPIRE or arxxiv would not bring any value to the conversation, since I could not completely and correctly understand them or judge them.

Should we be lucky enough to have an expert in standard model joining this topic, we may get the desired answer.

I just wanted to confirm that there are different mechanisms through which we get the observed mass in particles. Hadrons don't get 100% mass from Higgs, but most of it from the strong force, about some of the leptons we don't know that much (not even their nature), Standard model might not be the definitive answer to elementary particles and the structures they form. I shouldn't even utter the words "dark matter" or "dark energy", or "Lambda-CDM".

Well actually, "Lambda-CDM" I should say because if in this topic we talk about the Big Bang, then it's more a matter of standard model of Big Bang cosmology then standard model of elementary particles.

Right now, I feel that we're trying to explain what one model says ("Big Bang") with the ingredients of another model (SM).

If only a CERN researcher or professor could help us...

The QFT theory was tested for ALL observed forces of nature. QFT work from the Planck length to the edge of the Universe (60 Orders of Magnitude). But achieved fundamental results will set new additional questions. We need to know the answers to these questions not just to satisfy our curiosity, but to understand the origin and early history of the universe. We may understand the history of the Universe on full period of their development equal 13.7 billion years.

The most glaring limitations of QFT is its inability to incorporate gravity – the dynamics of space-time. The quantum fluctuations of space-time seem uncontrollable at the Planck scale – space-time foam.

Hypothesis: Einstein’s theory is only an effective theory, valid when distances >> L(Planck). Quantum gravity at distances ~L(Planck) is not described by QFT. If we go beyond QFT, then we should use String theory.

String theory also suggests that our notions of space and time must be radically modified, because we do not see more of their dimensions due to compactification of the extra dimensions. If we see ALL extra dimensions of space and time maybe we see singularity dynamics before The Big Bang and inflation dynamic after The Big Bang.

Just think about the existence of next probability:

*Quantum gravity simply does not exist.*

The debate has increased due to the many success cases of quantum interpretation in microscopic scale, but quantum theory cannot be generalized further away from micro scales to a big entity like our local universe.

Dear Andrzej

Your question and very interesting!

If we look at the cosmological models of the past we see that there are many theories.

And many antagonistic and conflicting!

And we have the own father of relativity with a cosmological constant inserted artificially to ensure that the universe was static.

Then we have a retraction of Einstein believed that this constant the biggest mistake of his life.

And finally we have the 21 century a great importance for this constant!

And recently translated work was not published Einstein where he was an expanding universe.

Once you are sure of the model of the big bang and not so right so the new generation of scientists and forgot that the previous models, not by proof but I'd say more fame by the model of the big bang!

In my view the universe and closes, and has an endless number of plans, or as they say in string theory branes.

This brane has on one side the universe of matter and the other antimatter.

And at its end a reversal given by calculation of circular MOBIUS occurs.

Ie the brane has no end and no beginning!

But it has one inside and one outside!

However more than one brane this plan should be seen as a plan memory of a computer where the information moving.

In this contest the universe and a giant sphere, we are inside, so has an out.

And if it is a machine composed of exact proportions of strings with different energy levels to them what the different geometries, the computer that fasem be done by self-assembly, so all this leads us to understand that there is a creator or creators!

And in this contest the question of how long has our universe is meaningless.

Because we have to communicate with the creator and see if he did not create the universe to find answers on your own universe!

But just looking out for full time and taking the invariance of the speed of light as a reference, though from the outside she was varying, the universe in each face takes 5 x10 +17 years to go from one face to another ..

The apparent age of 13.8 billion years has to do with the apparent universe and also with a wrong use of metric measuring the time spent!

If they want to justify mathematically why this statement.

And so to conclude and say to colleagues which I use because of quantum gravity and the constant value of Newton, also derived from 4 numbers to use in another work I have posted here, not least because the constant is always changing in value, leaving to be a constant, but an equation!

I intend to soon release a comprehensive work on the subject.

But because it's so broad and encompass the entire universe theory'm prepared to divulge in parts!

Just an observation, what one sees as a singularity is the point of reversal for anitimateria matter on the brane and the illusion of being the beginning and also to be in Expansion!

As time didn't exist before the Big Bang yet, the question 'how long' is hard to answer.

So the Initial Singularity is not measurable and is neither a point, but for the Logos Ego it must be something of pure quality and pure potention,

The region where physics becomes psychophysics.

Probably it was not a 'singularity' but a 'twinset' of dream because life is based on complementarity.

The Big Bang can be understood every time we observe a manifestation as a creative event.

The particles don't give any vast fundament as they always disappear, so the unobservable becomes the most interesting field where nothing can be measured.

As the Initial Singularity points to the beginning, the Technological Singularity points to the end.

The Rebirth will be on another planet.

why not God is not part or cause of the initial singularity? nothing before God, something beyond our knowledge and brain capabilities, this is what at least 3 religions believe in, Jewish, Christianity and Islam.

I know scientist never buy such words, but take it as a philosophy point of view. if the big bang theory was true, who created the laws of physics that govern the universe? everything is created randomly, by chance, a chance may happens once in millions of years, we are talking about millions of chances happening every year!.

God remains the cause of the initial singularity unless proved otherwise.

@Ahmad, you say:  "God remains the cause of the initial singulairty unless proved otherwise".  This is an argument from ignorance; even in philosophy that would be an poorly played argument.  If we don't know anything before that, we don't immediately infer your favourite conclusion if we don't know the answer yet.  We may never know.  Logically it is not different than me saying that since we don't know yet what happened before, that the universe spawned from magic ice cream cones that immediately vanished.  Religious people may find it acceptable, but this is Science; we don't presuppose things like this.  If there is some kind of mathematics or evidence to build upon, then maybe we could consider that; but we don't have that. 

I will remark that the premise of a God is problematic depending on the beliefs and properties of the supposed God.  Keep in mind that this is a question about the singularity; something we have quite a bit to build upon in Science, not a God.  Note that saying a "who" already is insisting your own conclusion.  We don't know that, but it definitely violates quite a number of fallacies (since this was suppose to be a philosophical discussion based on your remark).

I hope this helps!

Personally, I am finding some of these answers to be very interesting.  Thank you to some of the contributors that have been giving some of their insights :)!

This is a good question.

The following remarks are in terms of

W. Westra, Topology change and the emergence of geometry in two dimensional causal quantum gravity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Iceland, 2008:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.0771v1.pdf

One approach to tackling this question is to allow for spatial topology change (p. 41) and the creation of a baby universe with a one step propagator.   One can then derive the  relation (3.18), p. 45.    The interpretation of this relation asserts that near any mark in the continuum of the Hartle Hawking wave function, there is a baby universe at the scale of the cutoff.    Further, since the location of the mark is arbitrary, this means that near EVERY mark there is a baby universe (see Fig. 3.4, p. 46).    There is quite a bit more about this to consider (for another post).

After working towards a simple definition of time:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263104630_A_simple_definition_of_Time

I argue that the concept of 'initial' is no longer justified. By taking into acount the definition of a 'local universe', from the same work, I think that there exist a plethora of local universes, while their creation is not explicit, for the moment, to me.

Additionally to this there exists not any kind of singularity, except from our mapping theoretical approaches. All kind of singularities are an index of the limited success of our theories, so every theory that posses such a 'singularity' (here: GR) has to be re examined in deep.

As for alternative topological theories, there exist many till now, but nobody has reached the falsifiable level under experimental test.

Are those new theories mathematical beautiful? Yes, indeed, but for such a discussion look here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_relation_between_mathematical_beauty_and_physical_reality?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Article A simple definition of Time

@Daniel Page

Dear Daniel

You are right, my argument is poor if it is said alone and out of context, but there are many evidences that prove the existence of God.

The problem is that some people do not accept such evidences, they accept only what they can since, have you checked http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.4526v4.pdf

This is not my area of research, but from my little expert in image processing, I tried to let the computer create an image of a rose randomly, the size of the image is 100x100 pixels with only black and white colors, I ran the program million of times to get nonsense, just random noise, I realized then the probability to get my rose is = 0.5^10000, this number on Ms Excel is zero!

Imagine if we want a colored rose, in 3 dimensions, with different texture, shape, kind and smell, the probability is much much smaller and approaches to zero, there is a say in your contrary " a light never strike the same place twice" well it may strike, but what is the probability?

all knowledge and tech we have the only thing we came up with is the chance, everything is created by chance???!!

All this universe which works in precise order can not be created by chance. Actually the universe cannot accept chances otherwise it would be destroyed. I mean any problem in the rotation of the earth, or the sun for instance will be catastrophic.

This life is a test of humans made by God, and we can choose to do good or evil, this test will be meaningless if God shows himself to us. All we see are the traces of God

If some people cannot accept the evidences of the existence of God, we cannot say he is not there, this is true scientifically, because if we have no evidence to prove the existence of something, we should not stop and announce that thing is not exist.

Additionally to the work in time definition, a relevant work to this thread is next:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264357957_Why_relativity_theories_cannot_serve_as_a_cosmological_paradigm

where the concept of Universe as a set of Local Universes is defined.

Your comments and reviews are always welcome.

Article Why relativity theories cannot serve as a cosmological paradigm

Does a theory/model of the universe , such Big Bang theory, is a predicting tool or a intrinsic description of the universe?  I am a pragmatic and not a platonist and so I say that Big Bang theory allows to predict the evolution of the cosmos but  has nothing to say about the origin of the cosmos.  Although there is a singularity in the mathematic expression of the model, the singularity is outside the range of applicability of the model.  The Big Bang model is based on quantum mechanic and general relativity, two theories that are incompatible near the singularity but that are approximatively compatible away from the singularity.  So the Big Bang theory is not valid theory near the origin of the cosmos but is approximativaly valid away from the singularity.  

When a quantum gravity theory will be available, it may not even have a singularity and it will allow us to go back further towards the origin.  But a theory of the origin is totally outside of the realm of science.  Not only of the science of today but of the science of tomorrow.  The reason is simple.  For a theory or a model to be expressed, we need a basic theoretical framework and the question of the origin of this framework is intrinsic to the origin of the universe.  If you are a platonist, it is ok to assume that there exist a mathematical realm outside of the universe but for a pragmatist, this assumption is not ok.  A theory is always a theory of something.   One cannot posit a theory of the origin like:  a theory the universe existed into a platonic universe and somehow our universe came into existence according to these law Bang.  Everything, the regularities and all that exist had to evolve together from an origin.  Our quest is to go closer and closer to this origin but it is obvious that although the quest will never end, it is obvious that it can never reach the origin.

Dear Louis, I think that you have mentioned many times the term 'origin', which is a time-defined term. The problem can be overcome by using a simple definition of time, my one:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263104630_A_simple_definition_of_Time

Then such questions, about origin, seem to be proved meaningless.

It took me too time to realize that time is not was I had been taught and, although I feel sad for loosing so many sci-fi possibilities, now I have the freedom to think other questions than the class of 'origins'.

Think about it...

Article A simple definition of Time

Demetris,

I do not think that a dimension of time really exists although very usefull. So by origin , I do not conceive the origin as the origin of coordinate space-time system. But there are changes and direction to those changes;  going towards the origin is going in the direction opposes to the evolution, in the direction where all the structures are removed gradually.  It means that at some point there is something that exists but is structureless, undescribable because there is no physics, and this is the origin.

Louis, I do not also accept the dimensionality of time, on the contrary I have arguments against it, see the section about relativity at the 'simple definition of time'.

As for the undescribable, I cannot convince you, my opinion is that this is a problem that will be fixed in future developments of our knowledge.

(But not inside the relativity frame, look also here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264357957_Why_relativity_theories_cannot_serve_as_a_cosmological_paradigm

and relevant discussion here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_we_move_towards_a_totally_new_cosmological_paradigm?_tpcectx=publication_detail )

Your view is highly welcome!

Article A simple definition of Time

Article Why relativity theories cannot serve as a cosmological paradigm

Dear Ans, can you be a littel more specific when you writes about "roomenergy"?

(Don't worry about your english, after all 

https://translate.google.com/

is the better way to overcome it)

Dear Ans,

As for the energy extraction from space around us (N. Tesla) you can find interesting views and references here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_where_we_are_going?_tpcectx=topic_detail

Helix is a strong symbol, do you remember Hermes, Asclepios, DNA?

But, as I have told you, RG is not the exact forum for such a discussion, I think.

As for the other issues you wrote, I understand your reasearch priorities and I do not concern you as a mad person by any kind of thinking.

You should not self-characterize yourself by this way...

Demetris

Dear Ans, after such a story, I think that the best way of reaction is to publish your book first online, here in RG and get also a DOI for it. Otherwise, courts and similar procedures take time and time is valuable for all of us.

Finally I'd advise you to find a good and specialized advocate for the acuses that you face, sometimes a good lawyer can save us form several damages!

Anyway, keep your mood positive and everything will go right!

Dear Ans, you can check it out at the 'problems uploading' link when you upload something, but for a book I do not think that there will be a problem. If you scan papers, then be sure not to produce large images, because maybe the size will be enormous and people will not download it!

''Edgar Allan Poe presented a similar cyclic system in his 1848 essay titled Eureka: A Prose Poem; it is obviously not a scientific work, but Poe, while starting from metaphysical principles, tried to explain the universe using contemporary physical and astronomical knowledge. Ignored by the scientific community and often misunderstood by literary critics, its scientific implications have been reevaluated in recent times.

According to Poe, the initial state of matter was a single "Primordial Particle". "Divine Volition", manifesting itself as a repulsive force, fragmented the Primordial Particle into atoms. Atoms spread evenly throughout space, until the repulsive force stops, and attraction appears as a reaction: then matter begins to clump together forming stars and star systems, while the material universe is drawn back together by gravity, finally collapsing and ending eventually returning to the Primordial Particle stage in order to begin the process of repulsion and attraction once again. ''

Quote from : Wikipedia: History of the Big Bang theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

There was no initial singularity in the geometrical sense but there was a singularity at the beginning in the sense of "One without a second." Imagine a unified field underlying the entire universe which does not have any boundary and which is motionless and does not interact with anything that moves. Since it does not have any boundary, the numbers zero and infinity does not have any meaning here. Before the beginning of the creation, the geometry did not exist because geometry is a part of creation. Similarly, gravity or any other force did not exit but there was one force which did exist about which later. We will call this unified field the unmanifest. Nothing can destroy this unmanifest because it does not interact with anything. It has existed through eternity and will exist through eternity to come. The minds of all living creatures become conscious because of the presence of the unmanifest. As the one sun illumines the whole world even so does this unmanifest illumine all bodies, sentient and insentient. When for some reason a mind of a creature loses its ability to absorb the life from this unmanifest, it becomes unconscious. So the unmanifest is a concept which is much higher than the consciousness. This unmanifest has another property which is called the WILL which is of the nature of a force. This property is also observed in the living beings on a much smaller scale. It is this force of WILL that is the cause of the motion in the motionless unmanifest which the physicists call vacuum fluctuation. At Planck energy level these vacuum fluctuations generate very cold particle pairs called Savitons each particle having energy of the order 10^19 GeV. There are 10^62 saviton pairs generated simultaneously with in a very small sphere of size 10^(-14) meter and travelling at velocity of light. Each Saviton is like Grandfather photon which is massless kinetic energy. Each Saviton is of size 10^(-35) meter which is like a cold particle of consciousness. These particles make up such a powerful (cold) Laser that our world has not seen anything like this. Immediately after creation, these 10^(62) cold particles collide with each other and create an inferno which is the Big Bang followed by inflation. I have attached a link to the article that describes this scenario.

Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology

"""... then I asked the question: How long the Initial Singularity existed before The Big Bang? """

Well, if someone accepts the Big Bang Theory, it does not make sense to ask how long did the singularity exist before the Big Bang, because TIME started with the moment of Big Bag.

However, this is not the only one paradox generated by the Big Bang Theory.

I believe in the existence of a Big Bang, but only as a local phenomenon. It might be the start of the Universe that could be seen by us so far, but not for the whole. I believe that a natural law that establish an equilibrium between matter and vacuum starts a Big Bang if in some very hudge amount of space there is no matter at all. (other said, if the general density becomes smaller than some trigger, which is an universal constant)  "Nature has Horror Vacui"  in the proper sense. Maybe this was the "singularity".

Mihai,

In the evolution of all human societies, the laws or regulated customs always cames after the emergence of the new practices being regulated and out of necessity.  To take a obvious example: the laws and regulations about the car traffic on roads were enacted  only after the number of vehicles on the road was too large.  Why is it that most physicists think that the laws evolved first?  Some philosophers such as Plato also thought that the laws and the ideal forms in Nature pre-existed outside our natural world. To me it does not make sense to assume the pre-existence of laws before the creation of our universe.  Any naturalist cosmic origin scenario has to assume one single natural world in evolution and nothing in this scenario has to pre-exist to it except the essence of existence itself.  This is necessary in order to avoid the ridiculous emergence of something out of nothing.

Do you remember the discussion about activation of CERN - LHC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

We had heard about:

• creation of mini black holes that could eat our Earth
• creation of big-bang that could destroy us

Does anybody remember those discussions?

Weren't so funny, indeed?

Demetris,

When we enter new territories such the new energy levels here on earth by the LHC, I think that wisdom command to be afraid of the unknown and speculate a bit on the ''what if'' and temporarily comes up with some ''horror scenarios'' which can most of the time be cast aways by a bit of reflection about it.  Although in that particular case there was no danger,  we should not qualified these warnings as ridiculous because we have to remain cautious and do not discourage peoples to express their fears when new territories are being open.

Louis, the main problem is that the 'failure to destruct the world' is not accidental, but the underlying theories are false... and when I write 'theories' I mean many of them.

@ Louis Brassard

You are right. A little bit more about """To me it does not make sense to assume the pre-existence of laws before the creation of our universe.  [...]  This is necessary in order to avoid the ridiculous emergence of something out of nothing."""

The point might be the following: one things that something so complicated and hudge and absolute as the Universe must have been the result of some creation. People are educated in a way which induces this psychological necessity. Than the way is free for all kind of creationist theories, that are more or less matching the level of knowledge of the society. (Those theories must satisfy an objective need, as you said - despite the fact that this need is only psychological and induced). The Big Bang Theory is a very scientific one (maybe most scientific and subtle creationist theory), and is based on an almost consistent mathematical model. (Almost, because no mathematical model of reality can be perfectly consistent, as it must always use some objects from outside mathematics...) The theory is very good so far. Newton's Mechanics was also a consistent and good theory, untill one started to think about big speed values, as that of light. The Big Bang Theory will also survive untill we find a way to see objects which are too far away from us, to originate from our Big Bang [or, equivalently, objects which are too old, to originate from the same Big Bang as us]. But every consistent and sound theory is a good approximation of reality in a given domain of values. So for the instance, the Big Bang Theory is a good approximation of reality for all we were able to see so far. The only problem is that physicists maybe exagerate its phílosophical meaning and importance.

Mihai,

Big Bang theory is a theory that is imperfect but does a good job at predicting the evolution of the cosmos for the last 13.8 billion years but has nothing to say about the origin of the universe.  The theory posits the a priori existence of general relativity and quantum theories and posit some initial conditions and from there make prediction.  Near the initial singularity posited by this theory, the equations are not valid because they are only valid for energy levels where both theories do not interfere which is not the case near the singularity.  It does not matter for the prediction far from the singularity but it has nothing to say near the origin because it is outside the realm of validity of the equations.  This is problem number 1.  Problem number 2 is that a priori positing an initial theory is not acceptable for a theory of origin which by definition cannot do that.  A theory of origin will necessarily needs to assume a pre-existing unformed reality with a single minimum evolutionary law and from there everything else will have to emerge. It demands an historicist physics and not the platonic physics we have today.  The historicist physics will have to explain why the stabilized aspects of the universe comes close to our platonic physics.  This is the minimal I expect from such a new physics.  What I am more excited about is that it could be consistent and unified with all the evolutions in nature: biological evolutions and civilisation evolutions and so be the basis of the integration of all sciences and all religions and all peoples.  Yes I know, I am dreaming.

Louis,

good point in stating Problems 1 and 2. Of course there are some other... I am also dreaming about a discovery of some object which is so far away respectively so old, that our Big Bang reduces from the Explosion which is the whole universe to a little local bang in a bigger world. I don't know if my dream, if realized, help us closer to your dream. Starting whith the easy relation "more knowledge > less knowledge", I think so. From this position, I will say like Wittgenstein: "worüber man nicht reden kann, darüber soll man schweigen" (we must keep silent on the subjects about we cannot speak...)

General relativity possesses nonsingular Big Bang Hyperbolic Universe.

See: The Hyperbolic universe, pp 54-61

Book The Hyperbolic Universe.

I believe there is some research on pre Big Bang conditions. Of course if you assume the big bang is the start of time for observers like us then discussing what happened before time gets a bit confusing. 

this link is useful

https://www.big-bang-theory.com/

regards

"McGinn's position has come to be known as mysterianism"