Mordred

I would have to agree any previous anistropies would probably be wiped. After all we have 60+ e-folds resulting in a super cooling . Then this is followed by the reheating phase.

We also don't rely on just observation of expansion in terms of distance measurements alone. Part of the evidence for expansion Is the thermodynamic properties we see today and at the time of the CMB. The universe is 2.7 Kelvin today at the time of the CMB it was 3000 Kelvin. This drop in average temperature is only possible with an increase in volume. See ideal gas laws (cosmology) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

Ah but was it uniform? What caused inflation? False vacuum for example (the original inflation model) is a process of quantum tunnelling from a high energy region (true vacuum) tunneling to a lower vacuum energy density region(false vacuum). So non uniformity must exist for this process to occur. When precisely did inflation start? When did it end? How many e- folds occurred during inflation? We don't have any certainty on any of the above questions. Nor do we know when the matter anti matter assymmetry occured. Nor do we know what caused baryogenesis or leptogenesis However this isn't really what the horizon problem about. Let's use wikis description. "The horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the late 1960s, primarily by Charles Misner. It points out that different regions of the universe have not "contacted" each other because of the great distances between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given that the transfer of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can occur, at most, at the speed of light. One solution to the horizon problem is the theory of cosmic inflation." So the horizon problem is basically how the universe we see today and at the time of the CMB has the same thermodynamics. Part of the solution is inflation which tells us those regions started in causal connection. The other part is that original volume had uniformity. Keep in mind we cannot see past the CMB due to the reduced mean free path of photons during the dark ages. So the region Misner was concerned about is our observable universe from the CMB forward. Or rather the observable portion at the time of the problems development. We didn't have much data on the CMB itself in the 60's

I removed the neg rep for ya

Here is the thing tar. We consider the entire observable universe in a singular system. Beyond that there us no data. Google the FLRW metric for a model of the observable universe So The only scale limit is confined according to data and measurements. Any scale can be modelled with sufficient data.

The problem stemmed from having to deal with how such a vast region of space had such a fine tuned uniformity. Without inflation that same volume could not have maintained the same uniformity once you consider the mean free path between the particles. Thermal equilibrium requires not only a high temperature. It also requires a sufficient density to allow the reverse reactions to occur. Prior to inflation the temperature and density is sufficient. Then inflation occurs. That sudden volume change would normally cause a sudden cooling. If inflation has multiple waves or perturbations there would have been anistropies crop up. However the slow roll process at the end of inflation caused a significant reheating effectively wiping slate clean of any previous anistropies and previous particles that were not in equilibrium. This makes determing which inflation out of the 70+ inflation models more difficult. The latest Planck dataset favors an inflation model with a single scalar and low kinetic term. However this does not rule out multiscalar models. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis These articles will help the finer details see chapter 3 of the second one. http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 Here is encyclopedia inflationaris. Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013 Allen Guth is one of the authors. He is accredited with the original inflation theory false vacuum. However he was also involved in the slow roll approximation as well as chaotic eternal inflation in his efforts to solve the "run away inflation problem. http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7619 The reheating phase applies to your latter question in regards to pre inflationary thermodynamics Which is also evidence towards the slow roll approximation. You will notice that particular model is used as a measuring standard of the other 70+ model database on the Encyclopedia inflationaris article which is updated every 6 months or so. PS judging from your previous posts you are an avid physicists in study. Check out my signature and the numerous tools and articles under it. You will definetely find the material and the links handy. Incuding the expansion redshift calculator. I'm currently working on page two for the cosmology101 site. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/articles PS please please please inform me of any non textbook or non concordance material. I don't want any article not supportive of the educational studies. Forgive me for sounding scattered. Just got home from a north pole tour. So a little pleasant thanks to a little inducement

Yeah no prob I agree with that I should have been more accurate lol Found which one it was SN1987a http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

Well we have detected neutrinos from supernovas. If I recall there was even a miss measurement causing scientists to believe neutrinos to be travelling faster than c. However they found that neutrino s were released prior to the light of the explosion. This meant that the faster than c neutrinos was in error and gave us a better understanding of the super nova process

The spacetime metrics has energy density distributions . Depending on what particles are involved at a given region. This energy/mass density has an equation of state.(,formula ) that correlates how much pressure the particles exert. This used by the FLRW metrics in combination with the ideal gas laws pressure exerts a force. See the universe geometry article under my signature for more details

Been awhile since I read any Brans-Dick gravity articles lol almost forgot about that theory

Thanks that was the latex command I forgot [latex]\dagger[/latex]

What part of the time aka 4th dimension not being a spacial dimension do you not understand???. The three spacial dimensions are length width and depth. The 4th dimension is a mathematical dimension describing the time component or rate of change only. I can just as easily and in the same manner describe rotational force or torque as the 5th dimension. The 13 dimensions of string theory uses the same mathematical relations of mathematical dimensions to describe different influences and interactions. Well here is a more classic example. Here we have 6 dimensions. Length width depth time temperature and electric charge. https://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/ Confused yet Google the term dimensional analysis. Now on top of electric charge add up 3 color charges now I can say your a 9d object.

As Endy stated we are no different than any other collection of particles. Ever stop to wonder why you age differently in a higher gravity or relativistic velocity. It's due to the time differential of GR affecting every particle equally in your body. Your just as much 4d as any region of spacetime

You misunderstood. The arguments used are based mostly on philosophy. Entropy and time being interconnected or dependant on one another is an example. However time can and does change without change in entropy. Reverse entropy reversing time arguments being the other. Google the history behind the arrow of time in Cosmology for further details. I for one have listened to arguments on time for 30 years in literature and on numerous forums. It is the rate of change of events or duration of a state. A property of a state or system is another way of looking at it. Yes the rates of change is influenced by GR factors. But that does not mean time depends on GR. However you can believe in whatever fairies you want. I'll stick to concordance science. Of over 30 years of study. I've read your posts and have lost track of how many people have tried explaining your analysis of time and it's mathematical implications being in error. If you won't listen to them I know I would be wasting my time adding to their comments. Check my link and read Lecture notes of General relativity by Mathius Blau . He does an excellent job of covering GR in regards to time and some of the numerous mathematical misinterpretations that result Lol after all these years on numerous forums I've heard just about every argument about time there is.

That's the gist of the problem with time. Everyone wants some form of measurable substance involved or process such as entropy etc. Truth is time is simply a measurable property of duration or rate of change. Those measurements being influenced by observer measurement factors of GR. There is no specific mechanism that determines or controls time. The 4th dimension term is merely a mathematical vector tool. It is not a spacial dimension. In actuality it is simply mathematically convenient to use the term dimension. In this case it is a dimension of a property not a spacial dimension. You can also have dimensions of specific influences. This is what string theory and ADS/CFT uses. They describe relations of influences that have mathematical and geometric properties. Time is no different. No mechanism is needed. Unfortunately most people want to add mysterious and oft magical properties and dependacies to time oft based on philosophy more that actuality. Entropy and the arrow if time is a classic example.

Thanks Elfomat I recall where I've seen this before. I definetely need to review my Dirac notation lol. In particular the Brac and ket portions and the raising and lowering operators. It's been awhile since I last looked at it. Thankfully I still have the textbooks I need to review For that matter I can't recall how to latex the raising operator notation. Could you post an example please. I'll use the + sign in its place. [a,a+]=1. As stated I can't recall the latex symbol for the raising operator a+

First off as MicK stated the first misconception is the explosion. The big bang is simply a rapid expansion of space of unknown size and origin. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. We only know that our observable universe expanded from a denser hot state. This is completely different than an explosion. An explosion has a point of origin and therefore there is a preffered location and direction. Expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred direction Or location. There is also no outside the universe. The universe by definition is everything there is Here is several articles to clear up your misconceptions http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What'sin a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kraghcl you can find more adv material including some textbook style articles on my signature

Found the paper on Wick calculus. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F0212061&rct=j&q=wick's%20theorem%20of%20quantum%20harmonic%20oscillator&ei=MEyTVLX-HMK2oQSg8oGICQ&usg=AFQjCNHvnUvsxkAGdH7-BqnSpM1-szd42A&sig2=QGuj7wjsPqzS1XmiZX2KYg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.cGU

What you need to do is look at Wicks theorem and how it applies to the term normal ordering. This article specific to the harmonic oscillator shows the maths involved with the harmonic oscillator and wicks theorem. Also pay attention to the ordering of the creation and annihilation operators. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.physik.rwth-aachen.de%2F~meden%2Fvielteilchenneu%2Fskriptka2.pdf&rct=j&q=normal%20ordering%20of%20quantum%20harmonic%20oscillator&ei=ul2SVOrhHMOvogTe34DgAg&usg=AFQjCNGbt0Ht-dYx3c0TG_nI5R-tGVyaSg&sig2=uO2WklOZPeDdKz2lY2yHVQ As stated QM isn't my strong suit so I'm going off my limitted understanding. In wicks theorem your annihilation operators are to the right of your creation operators. In normal ordering. Here is wikis coverage of Wicks theorem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick's_theorem As the first article also refers to the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics these two articles may be of use. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese The second article has excellent examples of how to use those two equations in chapter 3 Hope this helps Ajb would be better stepping you thru the math than I.

T Lol now what fun would that be?

Virtual particle production. In one fashion or another has been a leading contender for the cosmological constant. However based on the numbers involved due to the quantum harmonic oscillator (Heienburg uncertainty principle) The energy density is 120 orders of magnitude too great. So there is two schools of thought... either Heisenburgs uncertainty principle is not involved in terms of the resultant virtual particle production. Or there is a suppression mechanism involved. This keeps the possibility open. My feelings however leans towards the Higgs SO(10). However that's just me. The main problem is "why is the cosmological constant of such a low energy density and why is it constant.". To be sure the person that can conclusively solve both problems would be a contender for the Nobel prize. I cannot say your idea is wrong as the inflaton and the curvaton are both forms of virtual particle productions used in inflation. Our current universe could still be using the same mechanism as inflation just at a different rate. Lol Ya changed your post while I was typing. Anyways this is a paper involving the Higgs field and the cosmological constant. It is based on the SO(10) MSM particle physics model. The beauty of this proposal is no exotic particle is introduced. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 You can see from the descriptive that it's mechanism also includes a replacement for the inflaton.

It's not an uncommon lack in our education system unfortunately. My advise is go to your local college. Take their aptitude test to measure your education level. Then talk to their counsellor. In Canada we have a GED home course. Your locale may have similar programs. The GED isn't the greatest but it will allow you to meet the requirements for post secondary physics should you wish to pursue a physics career. As mentioned were glad to help those that desire to learn.

Here is a short coverage of Halon http://www.h3rcleanagents.com/support_faq_2.htm too bad it affects the ozone layer and is illegal in most countries as a result.

Temperature or spark, fuel and oxygen are required. However as accurate as that is . There is one aspect missing. For this I will refer to haylon fire extinquishers . How did they work. They didn't cool the fuel, one version didn't displace oxygen and they didn't remove the fuel. Instead it was realized haylon worked by interfering with the rapid oxydization or preventing the chemical chain reaction of oxygen with the fuel. So I would say there is 4 requirements. Fuel, spark, oxygen and chemical chain reaction.

A couple of things to realize conservation of energy only applies to the same inertial frame. This site has a brief run down. One thing to also realize is that an expanding universe is one that is also cooling down. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ It is an excellent question and I'm glad you asked it. In regards to the universe and cosmological redshift the total number of particles remain roughly constant. Estimates place it at roughly 10^90 particles. As the universe expands the average density and thus temperature drops. Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. So in turn the cosmological redshift is reflecting that loss of kinetic energy. If the universe started contracting the blueshift would reflect the gain in kinetic energy. Higher temperature gain. However we must keep in mind all forms of redshift is an Observer measured quantity. The link better explains the gravitational redshift. One common analogy is that work is performed climbing into and out of a graviational well. This is a more commonly accepted view of gravitational redshift. Hope this helps