Mordred

If I'm not mistaken and I could be QM isn't my strong suit The reason Is covered on this page where it discusses zero point energy and the Heisenburg uncertainty. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator "Third, the lowest achievable energy (the energy of the n = 0 state, called the ground state) is not equal to the minimum of the potential well, but ħω/2 above it; this is called zero-point energy. Because of the zero-point energy, the position and momentum of the oscillator in the ground state are not fixed (as they would be in a classical oscillator), but have a small range of variance, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This zero-point energy further has important implications in quantum field theory and quantum gravity."

My only advise is to truly study the models and the research of the past century or two that went into developing the Big bang theory. As stated my signature has several articles and textbooks to that end. Discounting over a century of research based on lack of knowledge of the subject is foolish. Particularly with all the observational evidence supporting the model. Its akin to stating evolution is a hoax.

Gravity waves is certainly part of it. Using the river analogy isn't unique . There has been articles to this effect before. Here is a few examples http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0419 http://galileospendulum.org/2013/10/21/the-river-of-spacetime/ I've been looking at extending the example of the first article and applying it to the early universe thermodynamics My previous thermodynamic article attempts for my webpage invariably turn out to complex. So I'm tinkering with the river analogy I would like to keep the subject no more complex than these two articles http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

Speculative ideas can be merely reinterpretations. I've been considering working on this interpretation to see if can provide an aid to teaching early universe thermodynamics. Will it make it easier to understand etc. Or would it lead to more misconceptions. As of yet I am still undecided. For that reason I didn't want to post it in the main stay forums. It may lead to confusion

Can you provide a reference. This sounds like a questionable source. The speed of light in a vacuum has a strong well tested following. Though there have been articles etc that question c nothing has been conclusive enough to reset the speed limit.

This is my first time starting a topic on the speculations forum. Those that know me know I have a good understanding of cosmology as well as particle physics. One idea I have been kicking around every once in a while is a different sequence in the mathematics involved in particle physics and as a result cosmology. Normally we like to look at thermodynamics at absolute zero to an upper range. Same applies to velocity. However what if we instead look at setting the speed of light c and the Planck temperature at the maximum. Then look at how particles decay out of equilibrium from those two values? At the Planck temperature all particles present (fundamental) are in thermal equilibrium and are relativistic. So in essence this state can be described by its thermodynamics alone. In the FLRW metric temperatures above 246 GeV can be described by the vaccuum equation of state (the temp is the vacuum expectation value) If the Higgs metastability above roughly 10^19 GeV applies then the 126 Higgs would have a Mexican hat potential of influence with the quarks etc in terms of mass . So far everything I stated is standard nothing new. Now let's get to the speculative portion. Start with Planck temperature, unknown volume and length. Set c as the base velocity. (Thermal equilibrium with photons) We will ignore gravitons. As the volume expands the temperature drops as well as the average energy density. According to the ideal gas laws. Now here is the conjecture. I will use an analogy to help describe what I am looking at. Let's describe all interactions at velocity c as say a field or river flowing in all directions in a homogeneous and isotropic manner. Now as the first particle drops out of thermal equilibrium and gains a slight amount of mass (mass being resistance to inertia). This would cause an anistropy to our previous uniform flow. In some ways similar to dropping a rock into a river. In a sense it is akin to a source of turbulence. Or a resistance to the fields of velocity c particles. One would think that this turbulence source could result in further anistropies developing. This view isn't necessarily a new model proposal. It's more in the area of a different visualization tool. Feel free to punch holes into it. The mathematics themself I do not see as needing changing. For example the ideal gas law formulas, including the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distribution functions still apply. The lie algebra of the SO(10) standard model would also be unchanged. So this viewpoint does not count as a new model. It's merely a visualization conjecture Oh forgot to add at thermal equilibrium there would be essentially the frequency of the energy level of the photons. As one particle species drops out of equilibrium you now have two frequencies. This can also cause further anistropies to develop

It's amazing how often posters figure they have all the answers but don't even understand the basics of a model already tested. Lol as Strange pointed out correctly you are under numerous misunderstandings in regards to Cosmology. My signature has numerous articles and textbooks that if you take the time to study them will address this lack. Here is a few recommended for starters. 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 These articles require very little preknowledge or math

Your fundamental particles quarks gluons I electrons and photons are considered present at the beginning however the temp was so high they are all in thermal equilibrium. As such they are essentially indistinguishable from one another. These two links has a good solid coverage. One is a free textbook though the other is also textbook length and style 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

Ask yourself this question. Do so in all honesty. ,"If you were a scientist reading these calculations and articles. That same scientist tests Newtons first law." Do you honestly believe that one or two basic calculations and a smattering of random articles constitutes sufficient evidence to overthrow a fundamental physics law???? That has Been tested over and over again for 400 years? To accomplish what you are attempting will require a several thousand page dissertation style article rift with the calculations of numerous examples and applications in a huge range of experiments. It never stops amazing me how many people think they have solved the mysteries of the universe. However always fail to supply conclusive mathematics and evidence. They almost always make numerous mistakes misguided concepts in your post. If you want to get this proposal seriously looked at. You are going to need to do much much better than what you have presented For example show the mathematical 3 dimension change in force acting upon a satellite in every single and possible position in your dark flow image. Hint it will be a formula involving trigonometric functions for coordinates x,y and z. Key word and I cannot stress this enough. "Formula" In other words pretend your a highly recognized scientist who is interested in your model. He will want to use that formula to perform his own tests and calculations using your EXACT formula. Are you aware a dark flow would also affect the FLRW metric and more importantly the Einstien field equation? Are you aware dark flow models has been proposed and overthrown by the science community? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow Both WMAP and Planck datasets proved the dark flow theory incorrect http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23340-blow-for-dark-flow-in-plancks-new-view-of-the-cosmos.html#.VIQmQ3NrYTQ When I get back home next week if you like I can post the lengthy highly technical article overturning dark flow. I believe I still have a copy of it. Though I'm not positive if I saved it or not. (37 gigabytes of pdf files to sort through on physics and cosmology Yes I know your dark flow model is different than the recognized and overturned model. Your model will fail for the exact same reason the other one did. Both PLANCK and WMAP observational data supports an isotropic universe. (No preferred direction ). The Planck data set can measure the accoustic and temperature of the observable universe with a precision far surpassing your mathematical examples.

Space is merely volume filled with the energy density of the universe. Despite pop media literature you find on the internet. It is not a substance. The term spacetime is any mathematical model of space that includes the time component in its geometric dimensions. When they describe spacetime warping stretching etc what they really mean is the gravitational influence influence upon other particles can be described as being warped or stretched. GR never stated spacetime is a substance. That is a common misunderstanding presented by pop media articles. To truly understand the difference I would study the special relativity textbook I posted in your other thread. Or read and study General relativity by Mathius Blah in my signature. Again it's a free distributed textbook. As far as the rest of it goes I'm with Swansort prove it by showing the math not by numerous and random articles. Show us your knowledge specifically. After all it's your model you are presenting no one elses Linear accelerators are very impressive on the exact timing controls. I would love to get a look at the control software for the electromagnetic timing. Its a bit off topic but it is extremely impressive when you think about how many individual magnets that must be turned off and on at just the right instance

Newtons laws including the first law is fundamental in far more physics applications that are tested daily to even name them all. Your basing your understanding on how Newton developed his laws. In the last few centuries that law has passed so many rigorous tests in everyday applications that it would require a huge body of evidence and tests to overthrow. Good luck with that. It's a fundamental law in conservation of momentum. Used in particle physics. Used in engineering used in any application involving force. Including everyday machinery. We have numerous machines running whose energy to power calculations and tests of efficiency rely on Newtons first law. If those laws were as you described it would have Been noticed long ago. We measure the amount of energy needed to run machinery everyday. As such Newtons law is one of the MOST tested theories in physics. It's tests are done in everyday applications it is not restricted to just science tests. Forgot to mention its even tested in particle accelerators. You have no comprehension of just how often Newtons first law has been and is being tested. Yes it does affect relativity. The math of relativity is based upon Newtons laws. The formulas of relativity would not work if Newtons laws were incorrect.

I read through most of this post. My only advise pick up some physics books and learn why our current models exist. This post argues against far too many established and well tested theories to even name them all. The major ones being Newtons laws. Keplers laws. Our understanding of relativity. As well as LCDM. Yet I see zero math support.

Roflmao

Thank you for the accolade I do my best to post solid articles and resources usable by anyone without misleading them from the textbook concordance teachings on that site. I rarely use video references as they typically tend to mislead and miss inform due to over symplification. However I can post a free to use entry math level textbook on relavity. The author has given me permission to add a reference link to my site. Currently building a second page of reference links. Anyways the author is also an experienced forum member on another forum so his book is also geared to common misconceptions in relativity. It's also why he sticks to the basic Minkowskii math forms. Download is free http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ I'm surprised I didn't think of this example of photons vs conservation of energy and momentum before but one of the better examples of its applications is to look at Compton scattering. As Compton scattering is a direct application of photon interactions and the two conservation laws. Here is a link to a quick low math level coverage. http://khuntersscience.blogspot.ca/2012/07/using-energy-and-momentum-conservation.html?m=1 it's a good example of how momentum is imparted onto other particles

Sorry mate I've been studying cosmology since Allen Guthrie first proposed false vacuum . Back when the arguments of Universe geometry was still unknown and the words Higgs dark energy and dark matter was met with scorn. This was also before WMAP which determined the universe geometry question. LCDM is a result of WMAP data. Prior to WMAP they were still debating hot or warm or cold dark matter and quintessence and MOND over LCDM. So your understanding of the importance of the WMAP is in error. As far as photons and conservation of momentum is conserved. We have supplied enough data to show that it is. It's up to the OP to prove that it isn't. In any process conservation of momentum is conserved. If you like I could show you an article where virtual particle production affects the angular momentum of a blackhole. Yes in the form of virtual photons. See my signature look for the black hole accretion disk article. I would post it but you have more important articles to study. That article is highly technical. Also over 900 pages.

Your understanding of relativity is in error. The fact that a photon has no perspective does not mean that the photon has no time or distance. The photon has no valid frame of reference. There has been numerous posts explaining that in the relativity forum. So let's leave that for that forum. The WMAP data strongly supports LCDM model which is the big bang with cold dark matter and the cosmological constant. However the big bang model does not attempt to predict how the universe began. It states nothing prior to 10^-43 seconds. It's only premise is that from that point forward it began with a hot dense state. It does not attempt to state how the universe began as the physics and mathematics reaches a nonsensical state prior to that point in time. As to the photon. A photon does not gain or lose momentum. It's momentum c is invarient. It's speed is always c. It can gain or lose energy but not momentum. If it had any other momentum other than c. Then it isn't a photon. I fail to see why you have such difficulty with photons exerting a force. Everyone posted numerous examples of everyday numerous and practical applications as well as tests that photons exert a force due to its momentum. Any time a force is exerted an equal and opposite force is also in effect. Newtons laws tells you that. Experiments showing that a photon can exert a force has been tested numerous times it's been around in our understanding since Maxwell. We have had plenty of time to disprove it. Instead of discounting the answers you were given. (Particularly since several of the repliers hold various physics degrees). Perhaps you should take the time to study the data provided. You might find your understanding is misguided and learn from it. What is truly amusing is the fact that the photon is the electromagnetic FORCE carrier. It is the boson responsible for transferring the electromagnetic FORCE from one particle to another. Anything that can exert a force can also exert a pressure. PS the electromagnetic FORCE includes heat.

As others have mentioned photons exert a force as photons have momentum. There is a couple other areas where this is considered and applied. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure when we launch probes and satellites at different planets they calculate the radiation pressure due to the sun emitting various spectrums of light. See link above. In cosmology radiation including photons has an equation of state that correlates its energy density to its pressure influence. Google equations of state (cosmology) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Photons can and do exert a force. Just as the others have been telling you. See the equations on that page under ultra relativistic matter note it includes radiation.

Pretty bright light..ouch that's hot Lol

The thanks is enough

Ah I see well the balloon analogy itself is meant to merely model a 2d representation of how galaxies seperate. Nothing more than that. There is a few details left out in that thread. Mainly that per m^3 the energy density of the cosmological constant is extremely weak. Roughly [latex]6.0 *10^{-10}[/latex] joules per cubic meter. This weak energy density per cubic meter is easily overpowered by local gravity as well as the strong force

Have you looked at the balloon analogy? Take a balloon draw some dots on it. Then inflate it. Don't concern yourself with what is inside or outside the balloon. Were only concerned with how the dots move. Notice how they seperate with evenly from each other with no change in angle between any of the dots. How galaxies move from each other works the same way as those dots.

Lol my post got split up by the other relevant comments guess we have some active members on this thread

By the way higher density is a requirement of a smaller universe in the past than it is today. This conforms to the thermodynamic laws. Google the term "ideal gas laws in Cosmology". If you wish further detail outside the material I provided. The links contain everything stated on this thread. Take the time to learn it. "I don't understand it" therefore don't accept it is plain wrong. Read the material and post specific questions on it. Include the article and page we can easily step you through it if you truly want to learn. It would be a pleasure. After all that is the only reason why I visit forums. To help others learn. I never ask questions. Why is simply due to buying and studying over 40 textbooks. As well as spending 15 years of self study. I come here to help others only... so please feel free to show us a willingness to learn. I would be more than happy to help with that proven willingness

If you want to understand it then take the time to read the material provided. The first section of links is no math or little math needed. In all honesty most of the material provided is entry cosmology level.

Well I'm glad to see the cosmic inventory included in your links. It's rather extensive and detailed. Judging by your calcs and what I recall its in the right range. For an approximation Though I am still unclear what you are presenting that is new.