FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Universe before Big Bang

   Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science
 


anarhistu
I heard something about some brothers, Bogdanov, that "proved" mathematically the history of pre-Big Bang Universe.
There was something that you can prove appearance of the universe by nothing using the mathematical prove:
At the beginning there was nothing. We know that nothing is zero, so we put zero to express the "nothing". But if we count the nothing, we have 1 (because there exists a 0). And if you consider there is 1, that means there are 2 (0 and 1). And so on... By this, they were trying to prove the "birth" of information that drives the univers and which was gathered all in the 0. The power of 0 would then be the entire universal energy.
can someone of you discuse more about this topic? I know that mathematically we can consider this proof as real, but by all the other points I consider there is impossible that everything started from nothing just as "mathematical values - numbers", and then transformed in reality.
SonLight
I wouldn't take the idea too seriously. I can prove that 1=2 if you let me do a little sleight-of-hand and throw in a division by zero while you're not looking.

There is a discussion of their papers at:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html

It appears that the physics community is unsure whether the papers are a deliberate hoax or just questionable material that probably should not have been accepted. Some are wondering if theoretical physics is becoming so abstract that not even experts can tell legitimate work from gibberish. Here is an example from the web page:

Quote:
Also on November 9th, Dennis Overbye came out with a story in the New York Times, entitled Are they a) geniuses or b) jokers? Like the story in Nature, this plays up the idea that physicists can't tell good work from bad. It contains quotes from various physicists criticizing the Bogdanoff's work, but also quotes defending it - especially from Daniel Sternheimer and Roman Jackiw. Sternheimer, you will recall, was the thesis advisor for both the Bogdanoff brothers. Jackiw, a professor of physics at MIT, was one of two `rapporteurs' who approved Igor Bogdanoff's thesis. Overbye writes:
Igor's thesis had many things Dr. Jackiw didn't understand, but he found it intriguing. "All these were ideas that could possibly make sense," he said. "It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That's all I ask."
ocalhoun
anarhistu wrote:
we have 1 (because there exists a 0).

Rolling Eyes
You take that seriously?
anarhistu
ocalhoun wrote:
anarhistu wrote:
we have 1 (because there exists a 0).

Rolling Eyes
You take that seriously?


I don't take it seriously... I was asking if somebody knows more details about their work... because this idea of them is kind of same as considering Fibonacci numbers series as correctly describing the universe expansion from beginning to now.. and further. Or the same as applying Golden Section to everything. It is easy also to describe the Phi value in everything if you pay good attention to the parts and values you select. But, somehow, even if it is a real nonsense, they are, as I know, the first guys that presented a real "theory" of universe information's "birth"..
anarhistu
SonLight wrote:
I wouldn't take the idea too seriously. I can prove that 1=2 if you let me do a little sleight-of-hand and throw in a division by zero while you're not looking.
[/quote]

I know that we can prove that 1=2 easy... but the problem, for me, is that their idea was just counting something that does not exist and always increase the number of non-existence "values" taken in consideration.
anarhistu
Plus, in their "theories", they used the quantum fluctuation to express that first there were 2 space dimensions and 2 time dimensions... One time dimension as the one that we know and the other time dimension was like rotating over original time axes.. They also "proved" that, after the universe expanded, because the two space dimensions became bigger and bigger, the second time dimension "freezes" and transformed in the 3rd space dimension as we know them now...
The nonsense here, in my point of view, is the meaning of "time" they use. They consider time, by their example, as something totally independent of the space, matter and energy in universe...
ocalhoun
anarhistu wrote:

their idea was just counting something that does not exist and always increase the number of non-existence "values" taken in consideration.

Complete and utter nonsense.
0=1
1+0=2
2+0=3
Look, I can do it too!
anarhistu wrote:
They consider time, by their example, as something totally independent of the space,

Then they've already been disproved by Einstein, who showed how time and space are related.
Related topics

WILL universe ever end?
Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God
what happened before the big bang?
The Universe Big Bang is wrong
Big bang and black holes.
Atheist Big Bang. Quick question for Atheists.
Why did God create humans?
Big bang machine
not the first BIG BANG
Did the Big Bang just happen or did God make it happen?
Can you be psychic?
Big Bang Physics - Penrose Lecture
My Theory's on The Big bang (and gravity)
The Big Bang Theory: Flauds..it didn't happen!
religion issues
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.