David Levy

Seven years ago, I have started to invest my time in cosmology world. It's completely different from my daily engineering world. It was clear to me that something wrong with the current concept. However, just seven days ago I have discovered this paradox. Are you aware about the paradox? How could it be that it is undercovered? Do you understand its real meaning?

Thanks Sorry, that is the source for our difficulties. The two options of the Energy/Mass of the Universe must be verified as follow: 1. What is the outcome if it hold true? Does it mean that the paradox is real? 2. What is the outcome if it doesn't hold true. Does it mean that there is new mass creation? It is quite frustrating issue. If I will assume that it holds true, then I might get the following reply: "Citation needed." If I will assume that it doesn't holds true, then I might get the same reply: "Citation needed." We have created the current mainstream theory. Therefore, we have to deal with the outcome! The science can't hide behind the paradox. A decision should be taken. Left or right! Why can't we ask a "Citation needed" from the science? Based on each direction, we will verify all of the above questions. Let's start with what we know. Let's take a decision and verify the outcome of each direction. In any case, if we agree that there is a new mass creation, than we should continue the discussion at the New mass creation tread.

Please see the following: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93614-new-mass-creation/page-2

In this tread I would like to focus of the following paradox of the current mainstream. 1. The cosmologic constant must be constant 2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant Normally, Paradox is clear indication for an error. Let me use the following example: In Sudoku, sometimes we are obliged to select a random number out of the available options. Just later on we can verify if our assumption was correct or incorrect. So, if we get two same numbers at two spots on the same row, we know that this paradox is an indication that we have made a mistake in our selection/assumption. Normally, it is expected that based on this paradox, we should understand that there is problem. There is no meaning to continue the game as we will never achieve the requested solution. In the same way, it is expected that we should recognize that this paradox is an indication for an error. It is also expected that we should highlight this paradox. How can we discuss about the science while that paradox is here? If someone will offer a new theory with this kind of paradox, would we accept it? What is our goal? Do we want to protect the main stream theory under any circumstances? Or do we want to find real solution for our Universe? The first step for any real solution is to accept the idea that there is a problem. Somehow I fill as a small kid in the king parade, while the naked king is passing by. Everyone is cheering for his new closes, while I see him naked. Is it just a problem in my eyesight? Don't you see that the king is naked?I can't promise that we will find an instant answer. But please – let's start by accepting the reality. It's time to say clearly – "Houston, we have a problem".

I have just found an interesting article. It seems that they try to set a new calculation by "..studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381# "It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe." Is it a real article or some sort of speculation?

Sorry, it seems that I didn't introduce it correctly. If there is a new extra dark energy, than in order to keep the Energy Conservation, it should come out of the total available energy in the Universe. Therefore, I have assumed that over time there might be a change in the ratio between Dark energy, Dark mass and Ordinary mass. However, with regards to the paradox which is: 1. The cosmologic constant must be constant 2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant Normally, paradox is a clear indication for an error. So, why do we insist to find an explanation for this paradox, instead of reverify the basic elements which leads us to that error? Could it be that we have missed something critical? Is there any chance that we have made an error in our equations, calculations, assumptions, constants, initial conditions..?

Thanks With this speculation, you try to explain how we can overcome the paradox which is: 1. The cosmologic constant must be constant 2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant However, I assume that it isn't expected to discuss about speculations in this tread In any case, I would like to focus on the paradox itself. Normally, paradox is a clear indication for an error. So, is there any chance that we have made an error in our equations, calculations, assumptions, constants, initial conditions..? Do we consider to renavigate our path?

In any case, as it is stated: If that is correct; What could be the source for this extra Dark Energy? Is it due to a new energy creation? If yes, than it could violet the Energy Conservation. In order to keep the Energy Conservation, this extra dark energy should comes out of the total available energy in the Universe. So, does it mean that some of the dark mass or ordinary mass have been transformed to Dark Energy?

The balance between the following elements: Dark energy contributes 68.3% Dark matter contributes 26.8% Ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 4.9% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy "..that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons contribute a very small amount" Therefore, if there is an increase in the dark energy, (without a relative increase in the dark matter or ordinary matter), than in the long run it could change the ratio between those three elements. Hence, I was wondering how important it is for the Universe to keep this ratio.

In order to keep the balance in the Universe, there must be a specific ratio between dark energy, mass and dark mass. Therefore, if there is any increase in the dark energy, it should set a relative increase in the mass and dark mass. Do you agree with this statement?

Well, Mr. Friedmann had developed his equations for a Universe which is bigger than ~100 Mpc. I'm not sure that he had considered that one day his equations will be used for Early Universe. Somehow, I get lost with all the assumptions. For example, at the plank epock, At that time, the expected value of R (Radius) should be almost Zero. So, it's quite clear that the value of: kc2 /R2 should be infinite (if R =0) or at least high enough (so, for sure, we can't assume that it is zero or neglected value). Unfortunately, in the article they have assumed that this value is zero for early universe: "kc2 /R2 is zero or negligibly positive or negative in the early universe". However, if you claim that it is O.K. - than it is O.K. for me. Now, with regards to the new mass creation: It is stated: "We find that though both propositions appeal to the Friedmann equations for validity, an increasing mass with increasing radius is more in harmony with the thermal history of the big bang model." "We conclude that the universe has been increasing in mass and radius in obedience to the energy conservation law." So, if I understand it correctly, they claim that the Universe is increasing its mass as it expands. But, what is the source for this new mass creation? Where it comes from and how?

After a brief overview in the following article: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.1629.pdf it is stated: "We find that though both propositions appeal to the Friedmann equations for validity, an increasing mass with increasing radius is more in harmony with the thermal history of the big bang model" However, with regards to Friedmann equations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations "The Friedmann equations start with the simplifying assumption that the universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic, i.e. thecosmological principle; empirically, this is justified on scales larger than ~100 Mpc." Therefore, it was quite clear to me that we can't use Friedmann equations for a Universe which is smaller than ~100 Mpc. Hence, technically we shouldn't use those equations for early universe.(As the Early Universe was not homogeneous and isotropic due to its limited size). Surprisingly, in the article they are using Friedmann equations for early universe, as it is stated: "Equation (19) is the equation for the thermal history of the universe during the radiationdominated era whether flat, open or closed. If we assume a negligible Λ and that the curvature term, kc2 /R2 is zero or negligibly positive or negative in the early universe, then taking the square root of Eq.(19) gives us" T2 = √(3c2 /8πGa) X 1/t Hence, my question is as follow: How could it be that they science is using Friedmann equations for the calculation of early Universe, while it is clearly stated that those questions had been developed for a Universe which is bigger than ~100 Mpc (due to homogeneous and isotropic requirements)?

Thanks for the prompt reply. I will read it carefully. However, please advice if I have understood correctly the paradox.

Any feedback? I assume that it's a difficult issue to deal with. Somehow we must keep two constants at the same time and at the same Universe as follow: 1. The cosmologic constant must be constant 2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant This is the base for that paradox. Would you kindly advice if (at least) I understand it correctly?

Thanks for the advice. However, as currently I don't have this text book, let me ask the following: Why do we need to deal with the 'paradox' of the NET radiation density DECREASING as the universe expands? If we assume that the Total Energy of the Universe is the same at any size, than it is quite clear that the net density radiation should decrease as the universe expands. However, if we assume that the net radiation density is fix at any size of the universe, than it is clear that the Total Energy should increase as the universe expands So simple. The paradox is in our mind! Only one of the above statements might be correct. We can't win them both – that is the source for the paradox. We must take a decision. Left or right - and deal with the outcome of any decision.

Thanks

Sorry for the interrupt. However, I have few questions: 1. Why do we need a nebula in order to form a star/Sun? 2. What about star forming in a galaxy core? For example star forming activity in the Milky Way galaxy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Galactic_Center "The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the Milky Way, as well as most of the Milky Way's star-formation activity." 3. Does it mean that the core of the Milky way galaxy has the power to form much more new stars than all nebulas in the galaxy? 4. Is it possible that our sun had been formed at that core? 5. It is stated that the Milky way form only 10 stars per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy "The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.[4]" So, how many are formed at the core and how many at the nebulas? 6. with regards to the baby boom galaxy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy it is stated: "The Baby Boom Galaxy is a starburst galaxy located 12.2 billion light years away.[1][4] Discovered by NASA's Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology, the galaxy is notable for being the new record holder for thebrightest starburst galaxy in the very distant universe, with brightness being a measure of its extreme star-formation rate.[5]The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a surprising rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)." Do we have any idea where that star forming activity takes care? is it also in the core of the galaxy?

Yes, I fully agree – there is an issue with the Energy conservation. In our discussion about the expansion: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92918-universe-expansion/page-5 It was stated that the cosmology constant is constant at any size of the Universe: So, the Cosmological constant is constant and the energy density per metre cubed stays the same. However, the volume of the current universe is significantly higher than the volume of the early universe. Therefore, I have assumed that the total energy of our current universe must be significantly higher than the early universe. Never the less, I was informed that this assumption is incorrect. So, if the volume of the Universe increase (while It's energy density per meter cubed stays the same"), than how could it be that it's total energy does not increase? Hence, with regards to the Energy, we should choose one of the following options: 1. If the energy density per meter cubed stays the same. Than as the volume of the Universe increase - the total energy should also increase. 2. If the energy density per meter cubed isn't the same. Than there is a possibility that as the volume of the Universe increase - the total energy could stays the same. How can we win them both? It's a real enigma for me.

Thanks for the support. At least - now I know that I don't know. However, after reading the articles, I hope to have better understanding. .

So, there is no new mass creation. But - there is new energy creation. Is it correct?

Wow. After each answer its clear to me that if I thought that I understand someting - then it is incorrect. So what is correct? If I understand you correctly, Energy may not be conserved and dark energy appears to increase. Therefore, can we assume that there is a constant new energy creation after the B.B? Can we also assume that there is a possibility for new mass creation?

So, Energy is conserved! Please let me know if I understand it correctly: 1. All the Total Energy of the Universe had been created at the first moment of the B.B. 2. This Total Energy is the source for the whole Mass/dark Mass/Energy/Dark Energy/Radiation/Particles... in the Universe. 3. There is no new Energy creation in the Universe after the B.B. 4. However, that Total Energy may change forms. For example - At some point in the past, some of the Energy could be represented by radiation or particles. Those radiation and particles could be converted later on to Atoms and real Mass. 5. Therefore, the Total Energy (which had been created at the B.B.) can creat new mass, however, there is no new mass creation without that total energy (or out of noting). 6. Higgs field is fully correlated with that conservation of energy Is it correct - so far? However - I'm not sure about the impact of the following statement: Hence: If energy is conserved, but volume decrease (as we go back on time). then energy density must increase. Therefore, in the past the energy density was higher than today. So, how that is correlated with the idea about the cosmological constant?

It seems that I didn't understand it correctly. So please let me know if the following is correct/incorrect: 1. The current cosmological constant is the same at any size of the universe. 2. Therefore, the energy density of the universe should be the same - today, 13 Billion years ago and in the next 100 billion years. 3. Based on this constant we can find that the total mass energy of the early universe is significantly lower than our time universe. 4. In the same token we can claim that in the future the total mass energy of the universe (let's say 10 billion years from now) should be significantly higher than our current total mass/energy. 5. Hence, new mass/energy must be created over time.

Well, I didn't ask about the whole steady state theory. I have asked just about one issue - new mass creation. So, in order to distinguish between the different theories: Is it correct that based on the early concept of the BBT, new mass creation was not feasible? If so, do you agree that Fred Hoyle was completely correct with his idea about new mass creation, while based on the early BBT it was not even an option?

Dear Mordred Now we know that new mass/energy is created constantly in the Universe. However, do you agree that this was the basic idea of Fred Hoyle , as It is stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory "..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing."