Does Einstein's T.R make any type of B.B. theory impossible?

[EarthScienceguy]

Question to debate

Does Einstein's theory of relativity make anytype of big bang scenario impossible?

Einstein's theory of relativity speaks of an universe in which past present and future all exist.

https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-the-fabr ... n-of-time/

starting at 19.00

If past, present and future can all exist then the Big Bang had to create not just the beginning of our present timeline but every moment every in our entire timeline. Everything that we perceive as happening in a logical chronological order would had to have been created by chance at the "big bang".

Talk about ludicrous speed.

If your answer is you have faith that science will one day come up with a solution, how would free will not be violated?

[harvey1]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I wasn't clear on the meaning of your response in terms of how the GB universe is not compatible with time dilation.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I wasn't clear on the meaning of your response in terms of how the GB universe is not compatible with time dilation.

Well, for one thing the "slices" that Brian Greene is making are perfectly straight. Even those that are at angles. They are still imagined to be perfectly straight slices of an imaginary classical idea of an "absolute now".

By why should that be? This assumes that every point in time along that slice is progressing from past to future at precisely the same rate.

Is that what Einstein's Relativity tells us? That every point in space progresses through time at precisely the same rate? Of course not. So this instantly tells us that Brian Greene's graphical presentation here cannot be reflecting Einstein's universe.

Moreover, points in space have no time values associated with them at all. They can't because time flows differently based on the motion of an object. Therefore time can only be a property of objects, and not of space.

I wasn't kidding when I said that Brian Greene should be ashamed of himself for having created that particular video graphic. He probably did it because the idea is quite impressive and makes a great video production. Unfortunately it actually misrepresents physics and Relativity in major ways.

It's basically a visual trick that's based on some ideas of Relativity that are then being graphically applied to an "absolute" loaf of classical space. This is treating time as though we can apply only some results of Relativity to the older notion of absolute space and time.

The moment you take time dilation into consideration the whole graphic breaks down.

It's the dilation of time that makes the alien think that he needs to draw a diagonal line across an imaginary Newtonian classical loaf of absolute space and time in order to try to figure out where other things are relative to him "now".

In fact think of how silly this entire picture is.

When the alien is riding his bicycle away from the earth, what's happening on earth "now"? Beethoven is writing a symphony.

But wait, all the alien needs to do is turn his bicycle around and ride toward the earth. "Now" what's happening on earth at this moment? People are boarding commercial flights to Mars.

So what sense does this really make?

Depending on where the alien rides his bicycle will determine what's happening on earth right "now"?

Clearly this is a bad idea.

Einstein's Relativity actually does away with the very idea of an "absolute now", but here we see Brian Greene trying to resurrect the idea of an "absolute now".

It's just a very bad idea. An idea that humans can't let go of because they simply cannot accept that there can't be an "absolute now".

They can't let go of the idea that something is happening out there "right now".

But we see how ridiculous this is because "right now" changes dramatically for the alien depending on which way he's riding his bicycle.

I have great respect for Brian Greene, but to be honest I wish he had never created this video. It's simply wrong. Period. It's quite entertaining and interesting, but utterly wrong in terms of representing what's actually going on, or even what Einstein's Relativity actually has to say about this situation.

[Goat]

Greene didn't even mention the effect of time dilation in his presentation. And for good reason. Had he brought time dilation into the picture it would have destroyed the classical view of absolute time and space that "Block Theory" requires.

The Growing Block theory is completely compatible with time dilation. Defenders of it includes the brilliant Michael Tooley among others.

Unfortunately, Michael Tooley is a philosopher, not a scientist. That sort of makes his support of it suspect. It looks like the supporters of block time are philosophers. Until they can come up with a way to test their idea, then it remains in the realm of pure speculation. Since their field of expertise is not science, but philosophy, I would be very surprised if they did anything more than play with words and concepts.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Time dilation describes a universe all points in the universe have their own independent time. Consequently the only thing that you can do is to examine two points at a time. The times of the points in between the two points are independent and have nothing to do with the two points that are being examine, so a straight line is the correct representation. The time dilation of the all the points between is independent of the endpoint.

Besides there are many physicist who believe that traveling through the past is possible by using a wormhole. If the past were destroyed after it happen then there would be nothing to go back to.

[harvey1]

[Replying to Goat]

George Ellis and Richard Muller have also put forward a growing block theory of time.

[Diagoras]

From EarthScienceguy:

Time dilation describes a universe all points in the universe have their own independent time. Consequently the only thing that you can do is to examine two points at a time. The times of the points in between the two points are independent and have nothing to do with the two points that are being examine, so a straight line is the correct representation. The time dilation of the all the points between is independent of the endpoint.

Besides there are many physicist who believe that traveling through the past is possible by using a wormhole. If the past were destroyed after it happen then there would be nothing to go back to.

If you are trying to explain time dilation, then your first paragraph is rather confusing. From Wikipedia:

Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two clocks, either due to them having a velocity relative to each other, or by there being a gravitational potential difference between their locations.

I’m not sure what point you are making in this regard, as time dilation is well understood and not being debated here.

Regarding wormholes, I respectfully submit that none of this forum’s regular posters have sufficient grasp of physics to fully understand what is still a speculative condition of the General ToR. Three particular points about them, though:

1) For someone passing through the wormhole, time passes differently than for observers outside it, so synchronized clocks at each end of the wormhole will always remain synchronized as seen by the person passing through the wormhole, no matter how the two ends are situated.

2) It is only possible to go as far back in time as the initial creation of the wormhole.

3) While equations of the General ToR do ‘allow’ wormholes, they are either too unstable to allow any matter to cross it, or else require some form of exotic matter with ‘negative energy density’ to keep them stable.

If this debate is going to allow wormholes as supporting points for any theories about the Big Bang, then you would have to allow for the possibility of inter-universal travel as well, which opens up a whole new can of worm- (heh!) holes.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras]

A wormhole simply is a conduit of two points in space at any time, at least that is what the theory predicts. There is a problem with the

[Divine Insight]

Time dilation describes a universe all points in the universe have their own independent time.

This is absolutely wrong. Points in space do not have any time associated with them at all. Only macro objects have time associated with them, and the passage of their time changes differently depending on how they move or whether or not they are being influenced by a gravitational field.

You are viewing Relativity through the eyes of classical physics thinking in terms of absolute space. There is no absolute space in Relativity. In fact, this is another problem with Greene's graphics. He's treating space as though it's an absolute solid like a loaf of bread. That's already a violation of Relativity.

I can't say I blame you when people like Brian Greene support these absurd views with his misleading video graphics. But that's not what General Relativity has to say. The picture that Brian Greene created was a hybrid of Classical and Relativistic views. It's simply a wrong picture. It doesn't describe Relativity correctly. There are no absolute points of time in space. In fact, space has no time at all. Only objects have time. If you have no objects that are changing in some way, then you have no time at all.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

This is absolutely wrong. Points in space do not have any time associated with them at all."

Yes they do. In Fact all other points in space time can be determined in that specific points frame of reference. This is what astronomers do when they look out into the cosmos. They associate whatever object they are looking at into the Earth's frame of reference because the flow of time on Earth is dependent on the Mass and motion of the Earth.

The difference between absolute space and Einstein's space is this. In absolute space time is an absolute, the way that time flows does not change. Space is also an absolute and cannot change.

Einstein's space does not make these assumptions the flow of time and the dimensions of space can change depending on the movement and mass of the object.

This is the difference between Newton's absolute space and Einstein's Relative space. The idea is that there is not any universal tick tock of an interversal clock.

It seems as if you are confusing quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity. Because quantum theory predicts that each point in space does not have a specific time but time can fluctuate between past, present and future.

Only macro objects have time associated with them, and the passage of their time changes differently depending on how they move or whether or not they are being influenced by a gravitational field.

This is exactly what I meant and the movie meant. Because everything is moving at a different speed and under different gravitational influences, each point in space has a different time.

Quantum theory does not give points a specific time, but relativity breaks down when small

You are viewing Relativity through the eyes of classical physics thinking in terms of absolute space. There is no absolute space in Relativity. In fact, this is another problem with Greene's graphics. He's treating space as though it's an absolute solid like a loaf of bread. That's already a violation of Relativity.

I can't say I blame you when people like Brian Greene support these absurd views with his misleading video graphics. But that's not what General Relativity has to say. The picture that Brian Greene created was a hybrid of Classical and Relativistic views. It's simply a wrong picture. It doesn't describe Relativity correctly. There are no absolute points of time in space. In fact, space has no time at all. Only objects have time. If you have no objects that are changing in some way, then you have no time at all.

[Diagoras]

The question for debate is:

Does Einstein's theory of relativity make any type of big bang scenario impossible?

EarthScienceguy states - in support of this position – that:

Einstein's theory of relativity speaks of an universe in which past present and future all exist. 



<linked video>


If past, present and future can all exist then the Big Bang had to create not just the beginning of our present timeline but every moment every in our entire timeline. Everything that we perceive as happening in a logical chronological order would had to have been created by chance at the "big bang".

<bolding mine>

There’s quite a bit to unpack in that statement, but, given the bolded premise above, I read it as essentially constructing a reductio ad absurdum argument for the opposing viewpoint. I’ll come back to it, but thought it would be useful to set out some general background to the debate subject, as some posts have introduced further (related) topics and possibly led to a loss of focus on the OP’s question.

Firstly, Einstein famously formulated two theories of relativity: the first one being his ‘Special’ theory, which introduced the famous equation ‘E=mc^2’ to the world. Special Relativity shows that mass and energy are interchangeable (therefore as a consequence, nothing can move faster than light), and that time moves relative to the observer. The theory has been experimentally validated numerous times – for example in particle accelerators, where atoms reach close to lightspeed and behave exactly as predicted by the theory.

As this theory only applied in the ‘special’ case of an inertial reference frame (i.e. not accelerating), Einstein went on to consider how gravity could be incorporated into his theory. He formulated his General Theory of Relativity (GToR): space and time are two aspects of spacetime, which is ‘curved’ under the influence of gravity. Again, this theory has been experimentally validated numerous times, most famously by predicting the perihelion of Mercury, but also by things like gravitational lensing and the recent confirmation of gravitational waves.

Einstein famously had to introduce a ‘cosmological constant’ of zero (the so-called ‘vacuum energy’ of space) into his equations in order to achieve a ‘static’ universe, which was the accepted view of the universe at the time. When Hubble demonstrated that we lived in an expanding universe, Einstein abandoned this cosmological constant, calling it his “biggest blunder�. Knowing that the distance between galaxies increases now, it implied that in the past galaxies were closer together, denser and hotter – calculations of which led to what’s known as the Big Bang.

The GToR therefore could satisfactorily accomodate the fact of the ‘Big Bang’, and in fact derive the value of the cosmological constant from observation of the expanding universe. The GToR supports the ‘scenario’ of the Big Bang, and therefore refutes the claim that it would make it ‘impossible’.

Back to the supporting argument, however:

Can ‘past, present and future all exist’? We have to remember that, as a premise, this rests on an oft-repeated quote from Einstein about all time being an illusion. Whether he said it as a memorable ‘quip’, or as a profound statement, it remains a quote only. Compared to the very specific formulae in his (Einstein’s) theories, it offers nothing specific, measurable or practical to support a claim about the properties of the universe. C.f. Einstein’s field equations, for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstei ... _equations

Expressed as a formula, this (to a physicist who understands it) is specific, measurable and practical.

Most physicists agree that time is a difficult property of the universe to understand, although is considered to be a basic concept that’s not made up of, or is dependent on, anything else. The philosophy of time that takes the view that all points in time are equally “real� is referred to as eternalism, as opposed to presentism, where only the present is ‘real’. I would argue that the reductio ad absurdum argument of the OP in fact simply supports presentism over eternalism as a philosophy of time, rather than being able to make any empirical claim about the existence of the Big Bang.