The Instantaneous Creation of Infinite Space

Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
The most delightful creation story is that, in an instant, out of
nothing, infinite space suddenly came to be. The infinite and
everywhere appeared instantly, inexplicably; and time was also born.
The second creation story is a plain and simple alternative to the
first. Space (the everywhere) was born finite, with zero volume and
grew from that; and time also came to be.

Within FRW cosmological models you have those two choices (with a
sub-choice for the first: flat or hyperbolic 3-space).

Physicists are stuck on the FRW cosmological models and they won't let
go because 1) legends are sacrosanct and 2) they're insulted by the
infinite variety of equally reasonable geometries that mathematicians
are familiar with. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

But who's to say those models are all there is?

Albert Einstein wished to exclude every other realistic option without
offering reasonable justification.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

In particular, it is expected that a real
theory of quantum gravity will have major things to say about this, and
presumably the evolution of the cosmos at early times will be
significantly different in such a theory....

Please understand that I'm referring to the basics of the creation
story. Space being created either infinite or finite is the only
essential point that I'm alluding to.

The birthing of geometry in time has associated with that space and
time, a flow of idealized, mathematical trajectories. Each trajectory
is easily pictured as the spatial trace of an abstract idealized clock
moving effortlessly through that geometric space, parameterized by its
own clock time. Each clock, therefore, is defined by a timelike
geodesic.

Sure. You can imagine such clocks.

The most glaring fact that I see in the simultaneous emergence of
space and time is the existence of the above mentioned global flow of
abstract coordinate clocks, all initially synchronized by God Himself.

Huh??? Those clocks "exist" only in your imagination, and it is up to
YOU to synchronize them. Go ahead -- it's easy to IMAGINE how to do
that.... But the only "God" here is YOU.

My use of the word _God_ was meant to be flexible enough to include
the initial conditions decided by Creation itself. I was kindly
accommodating both the actual and philosophical pantheism made popular
and acceptable by such notable physicists as Albert Einstein and
Stephen Hawking.

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm
http://www.harrison.dircon.co.uk/wpm/index.htm

It isn't the Creator's choice.

Speak for yourself -- because YOU are the "creator" here. This whole
discussion is about figments of your imagination. That is, of course,
what all mathematical models of physics are....

Thanks for that acknowledgement about mathematical models of physics.

It doesn't harmonize with creation.

Why not?

Going the route of conventional special relativity
would imply that imagining an event at some time in one frame of
reference would necessarily translate to the same event happening
in another frame before time even began.

But you're imagining a manifold that is not consistent with the
requirements of SR, so why should one be concerned that attempting to
apply SR yields nonsense?

I believe that if you think about this carefully, you will see that
Einstein's postulates of Special Relativity work perfectly fine on an
instantaneously created, flat, infinite space but that the Lorentz
transformation is not a natural law for that space. In this universe,
as a consequence of instantaneous creation, there must have existed a
natural initial synchronization for all idealized coordinate clocks in
all frames of reference. t=0 everywhere. I believe that this is a
straightforward counterexample to a false philosophy in relativity
that I was combating recently on another thread.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

On 3 Jul 2004 22:13:54 -0700, (Perfectly
Innocent) wrote:

In this universe,
as a consequence of instantaneous creation, there must have existed a
natural initial synchronization for all idealized coordinate clocks in
all frames of reference. t=0 everywhere.

Simply put, the universal process as we know it , started.

On 3 Jul 2004 22:13:54 -0700, (Perfectly
Innocent) wrote:

In this universe,
as a consequence of instantaneous creation, there must have existed a
natural initial synchronization for all idealized coordinate clocks in
all frames of reference. t=0 everywhere.

Simply put, the universal process as we know it , started.

In sci.astro Perfectly Innocent wrote:
[...]

Physicists are stuck on the FRW cosmological models and they won't let
go because 1) legends are sacrosanct and 2) they're insulted by the
infinite variety of equally reasonable geometries that mathematicians
are familiar with. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

The paper you cite is by a physicist, not a mathematician. Furthermore,
the "exotic" topologies Luminet talks about are all FRW cosmological
models -- specifically, quotient spaces of standard simply connected
FRW models by finite groups. In particular, they have the same general
"history," starting with an initial big bang singularity.

Your claim that physicists ignore these topological possibilities is simply
wrong. See, for example, the September 1998 issue of _Classical and Quantum
Gravity_, which is entirely devoted to this subject, or the review article
by Lachieze-Rey and Luminet, Phys. Rept. 254 (1995) 135, which contains
165 references and has itself been cited over 100 times.

In fact, there is an extensive observational effort to look for topologies
of the type discussed by Luminet. The results so far have been negative:
see Cornish et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 201302; Phillips and Kogut,
preprint astro-ph/0404400; Uzan et al., Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 043003.

Steve Carlip

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Perfectly Innocent wrote:
[...]

Physicists are stuck on the FRW cosmological models and they won't let
go because 1) legends are sacrosanct and 2) they're insulted by the
infinite variety of equally reasonable geometries that mathematicians
are familiar with. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

The paper you cite is by a physicist, not a mathematician.

Correct. Jean-Pierre Luminet, Observatoire de Paris-Meudon,
Departement d'Astrophysique Relativiste et de Cosmologie.
But that doesn't mean that Luminet's survey paper has anything
commendable to say about Einstein or the majority of 20th century
relativists.

Furthermore, the "exotic" topologies Luminet talks about are all FRW
cosmological models -- specifically, quotient spaces of standard simply
connected FRW models by finite groups.

There is nothing "exotic" about the FRW cosmological models according
to Luminet. He writes:

"Such fruitful ideas of cosmic topology remained widely ignored by the
main stream of big bang cosmology. Perhaps the Einstein-de Sitter
model (1932), which assumed Euclidean space and eluded the topological
question, had a negative influence on the development of the field.
Almost all subsequent textbooks and monographies on relativistic
cosmology assumed that the global structure of the universe was either
the finite hypersphere, or the infinite Euclidean space, or the
infinite hyperbolic space, without mentioning at all the topological
indeterminacy."

Your claim that physicists ignore these topological possibilities
is simply wrong.

I only meant to emphasize what Luminet has already written:

"Until 1995, investigations in cosmic topology were rather scarce."

"Cosmologists must face the fact that a negatively curved space with a
finite volume is necessarily multi-connected."

See, for example, the September 1998 issue of _Classical and Quantum
Gravity_,

How many physicists are reading your journal and how many physicists
still trust their outdated GR textbooks?

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

Perfectly Innocent wrote:
wrote in message ...

See, for example, the September 1998 issue of _Classical and Quantum
Gravity_,


How many physicists are reading your journal[...]

Well, considering that C&QG (along with Phys Rev D) is the primary
journal in the field, I'd say a lot.

davidoff404 wrote in message ...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
wrote in message ...

See, for example, the September 1998 issue of _Classical and Quantum
Gravity_,

How many physicists are reading your journal[...]

Well, considering that C&QG (along with Phys Rev D) is the primary
journal in the field, I'd say a lot.

Name one GR textbook that gives a correct picture of cosmic topology
as outlined by Luminet.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

Would you care to estimate the percentage of physics professors who
are still teaching GR from outdated GR textbooks?

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

"Perfectly Innocent" schreef in bericht
om...

Name one GR textbook that gives a correct picture of cosmic topology
as outlined by Luminet.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

Why should "we" accept the cosmic topology as outlined by Luminet?
IMO his article is an overview and he discusses many.
At page 7 of 9 he writes:
"The global topology of the universe can be tested by studying the
3-D distribution of discrete sources and the 2-D fluctuations in the CMB"
My understanding of that sentence is:
" A more detailed picture of the universe arises by observing the
3-D distribution of discrete sources and the 2-D fluctuations in the CMB"
A different interpretation is:
"Which of the predicted global topologies of the universe is true
can be tested by observing the etc "

Next he writes:
"The methodes are all based on the search for "gost images" etc
namely topological images of a same celestial object such as a galaxy,
a cluster or a spot in the CMB"
He also writes:
"However, the poorness of 3-D data presently limits the power of such
methods"

What I do not understand is how by observing individual (for example)
quasars you can say something more about the Universe in total.
You can also restate this as:
How do we know that the total evolution of the Universe leaves a
specific inprint on the behavior of individual quasars.
For galaxies you can say the same: Galaxies influence each other
in their immediate neighbourhood but has this also consequences
for the evolution of the Universe in total in time ?
Or stated differently:
How do we know that we can test different evolution scenarios
of the Universe based on the behavior of individual galaxies ?

Cosmic crystallography:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~taylor/3DCrystal.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-01f.html

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

"Perfectly Innocent" schreef in bericht
om...

Name one GR textbook that gives a correct picture of cosmic topology
as outlined by Luminet.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

Why should "we" accept the cosmic topology as outlined by Luminet?
IMO his article is an overview and he discusses many.
At page 7 of 9 he writes:
"The global topology of the universe can be tested by studying the
3-D distribution of discrete sources and the 2-D fluctuations in the CMB"
My understanding of that sentence is:
" A more detailed picture of the universe arises by observing the
3-D distribution of discrete sources and the 2-D fluctuations in the CMB"
A different interpretation is:
"Which of the predicted global topologies of the universe is true
can be tested by observing the etc "

Next he writes:
"The methodes are all based on the search for "gost images" etc
namely topological images of a same celestial object such as a galaxy,
a cluster or a spot in the CMB"
He also writes:
"However, the poorness of 3-D data presently limits the power of such
methods"

What I do not understand is how by observing individual (for example)
quasars you can say something more about the Universe in total.
You can also restate this as:
How do we know that the total evolution of the Universe leaves a
specific inprint on the behavior of individual quasars.
For galaxies you can say the same: Galaxies influence each other
in their immediate neighbourhood but has this also consequences
for the evolution of the Universe in total in time ?
Or stated differently:
How do we know that we can test different evolution scenarios
of the Universe based on the behavior of individual galaxies ?

Cosmic crystallography:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~taylor/3DCrystal.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-01f.html

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

davidoff404 wrote in message ...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
wrote in message ...

See, for example, the September 1998 issue of _Classical and Quantum
Gravity_,

How many physicists are reading your journal[...]

Well, considering that C&QG (along with Phys Rev D) is the primary
journal in the field, I'd say a lot.

Name one GR textbook that gives a correct picture of cosmic topology
as outlined by Luminet.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9804/9804006.pdf

Would you care to estimate the percentage of physics professors who
are still teaching GR from outdated GR textbooks?

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org