On An Irreversible Pre-Big Bang Phase giving Rise to Our Universe: As a Radiation Vapor

[Mordred]

Remember we have no confirmed value for the graviton spin. We suspect spin 2 due to the dynamics of the quadrupole wave under GR. However that is only a suspicion based on correlations to the EFE and quadropole wave dynamics.

[Dubbelosix]

I have a question Mordred so did we measure any spin to the waves?

[Mordred]

Its difficult enough just to measure a GW wave, but the detector design was developed based on spin 2 being the correct choice.

Here is how spin 2 "Fields " work.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51945770_Spin-2_Fields_and_Helicity

 

if you don't have access let me know and I will get another paper

[Dubbelosix]

If I don't get in, I'll use sci-hub. cheers, will give it a read 

[Mordred]

For any future convos I always treat particles as strictly a field excitation which exhibits wave-like and point-like characteristics.

 Hence I focus on fields and the wave equations primarily in terms of creation/annihilation operators.

Try applying constructive and destructive interference wave equations with regards to those excitations...

If you understand Dirac then your already doing so lol

Edited September 27, 2017 by Mordred

[Dubbelosix]

I understand Diracs theory quite well, I haven't been into it in a while, so no doubt you will refresh things I have almost certainly forgotten. 

[Mordred]

Hopefully you do the same for me, no matter how well one thinks he understands something..

One often finds things forgotten as well

[Dubbelosix]

I wanted a pre-big bang model -  a condensate, non-interacting (possibly degenerate) gas of particles in a super cool state - which later I came to think about it in terms of  Bose Condensate (even before the paper you had linked). The only way this pre-state could phase transition into the post state, would be through some collapse, leading to the big bang. Then  in the last day, I thought, if that is the case, I better look for cases and investigate whether Bose Condensates can collapse. It seems they can, drastically altering the system .

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6844/full/412295a0.html?foxtrotcallback=true

[Dubbelosix]

The pre-big bang phase (has to be static) for the most part, that is, there is no fluid expansion in this cosmic egg. That is not to say though, that the particles inside of it has no movement - it's just that it has very little thermodynamic degrees of freedom. In my early studies of the non-conservation of a Friedmann equation (which was revolutionary to me that it was possible) because some physicists have taken the Friedmann equation as a statement about the conservation of energy in a universe. I won't get into the why this happened again, only that I will mention, there was no basis in the end that this had to be so. Certainly, this seemed to be the opinion of Motz as early as the late 1960's. 

When I worked on how to model the non-conservation, I came to realize a fluid coefficient could be written as [math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R} = \Theta[/math] could be used as a coefficient in the Friedmann equation to mark the non-conservation. The dynamics of [math]\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}[/math] also includes the definition of the scale factor [math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R} = \frac{\dot{a}}{a}[/math] and the derivative of the scale factor tells us how it changes,  [math]\dot{H} + H^2 = \frac{\ddot{R}}{R}[/math], which you can plug in to get the Raychauduri equation, which we will use this time around for a refreshing change. I also rewrite the Friedmann equation to account for the particle number series [math](1 + 2 + 3 ... n)[/math].

[math](\dot{H} + H^2 + \frac{kc^2}{a})\frac{1}{N(N -1)} = \sum^{i}_{N = 1} \frac{8 \pi G}{3}(\rho + 3P)\frac{V}{N_i \lambda^3} [/math]

Because [math]\dot{H} + H^2[/math] is constructed from the scale factor which changes in time, we can exclude this component from the pre-big bang model, since, this cannot be taken into account until the system collapses. In the video I linked to, the professor explains how this ''cold stuff'' can explain the really ''hot explosion'' of a big bang, and in a way, this approach may do this same thing. When the particles are subjected to the cold temperatures, their wave functions smear out and becomes indistinguishable.from situations where hot particles are subjected to extreme pressures.It is possible the pre-big bang phase and the post are connected to the phase transition which may depend on this indistinguishability between particle states? I certainly expect there to be near isodensity between the two phase states, so why not? I thought about it, and considered that it would allow the particles to transition without any chaotic and sudden manipulation in the particles structure. The super-heated cosmic egg, (which is the process of a cold universe heating up), is simultaneously the result of the cold particles heating up, giving rise to a photon radiation phase. 

I don't want to say nucleosynthesis is wrong, but I don't believe our current model is the only way. I have good reason to suspect that maybe a universe can be born initially with photon radiation and all subsequent matter from it. There is good experimental evidence to suggest, that at the heart of it, photons can create any type of matter in the right circumstances - and there is also the fact that antiparticles and their cousins will reduce back to photon energy (as if), it's a fundamental construct of the energy or conservation of the particles. Certainly portions of radiation will transition from our early universe (while still very hot), giving rise to quark-gluon matter, and everything else that follows as a universe cools down. 

 

Very speculative I know, but it's fun. The real question is how do you falsify this? We can never directly go beyond any point before a big bang... just physically impossible and if it's true the dynamics are irreversible, then any information about the pre-big bang phase has totally converted into something new, which can be interpreted as a ''loss of information.'' This 'loss of information' has been the focal point of many documentaries that surrounded the Hawking vs Susskind black hole debates, which they held a bet over whether information was lost in a universe. Susskind later won the bet, information was most likely stored in a black hole and not lost and gradual release of its mass restored the information back into the universe. I think for this reason, it will be hard to swallow that a pre-big bang universe could do such a thing...

 

...But I ask, isn't there some room for outside the box thinking, especially when it comes to dubious (possibly) physics breaking phases that may exist before the universe as we have come to understand it? I think its a really appealing model, that we can think of the universe undergoing the phase transitions like we have investigated instead of a rigid, all the one-way to the singularity universes we tend to think about.Of course, we have made some progress since then, we know of several ways to avoid singularities in a universe - in our model, it is avoided by noticing the negative sign arising in the phase change, which prevents a universe from collapsing to a point. Gravitational corrections have also been suggested (but this may depend on the quantization of a gravitational field) and I am dubious about such theories. 

 

There is also possibilities my studies may stick to investigating condensate collapse -  a phenomenon I did not know until recently, so while we cannot test the theory directly, we might find analogues in nature to support the theory, at least, support it in principle.

 

 

But I wonder if it really is a loss of information between the two phases?

Information is converted all the time and never lost, but it seems to be consensus in the mathematics I have studied that any kind of conservation breakdown would or must result in a loss of information in the system.

If this bit is true, what I said above is true. I'll have to investigate this further as well, to rectify any doubts I have. 

Perhaps the terminology is wrong... the system in my universe isn't a true loss of information at all, but a gaining of information. The non-conservation can easily allow a universe to express itself by an early non-conservation in a number of ways, - I investigated irreversible particle production between the phases as an example, which would imply that information is increasing in the [very] early chaotic stage of the universe as it transitions from the pre-to-post conditions.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Mordred]

I understood your direction of approach if not the reasons behind it, that is most helpful. Thank you for the additional clarification.

Yes I have no issue with an attempt with approaching the initial hot dense state from a supercondensate state. I also have considered such on numerous occassions. It is a viable possibility though tricky to correctly model for numerous reasons. 

 

[Dubbelosix]

The problems about trying to find a description of a pre-big bang phase is going to be difficult, even with a Friedmann equation, because you can argue the kind of Friedmann equation we deal with, isn't actually an accurate representation of our universe as it really is... too simple. There are also other hints of breakdown with a consistency with reality: The density parameter from the Friedmann equations measures the ratio of the observed vacuum density to the critical density. Only when these two quantities are [exactly] the same does the Friedmann equation allow a geometry which would fit Euclidean flat spacetime. This exact parameter when both terms are equal, would serve what we see in the vast cosmos, since the universe appears to be spatially flat and homogeneous. Or does it? There is an inconsistency which may hint that the large scale homogeneity could be an illusion.

 

It turns out afterall, that the observed being equal to the critical density doesn't match observation at all. The critical energy (a tool used to explain possible collapse models) is worked out to be five atoms of hydrogen per cubic metre of space. The actual observed density of the matter in the universe, is somewhere between 0.2-0.25 atoms per cubic metre.Something isn't consistent here. For flat space truly to exist, requires the observed and the critical densities to be exactly equal, but calculation of the actual density of the vacuum is no where near the estimate required to satisfy a flat spacetime model. You can argue dark matter could correct the discrepancy, but I don't hold faith in dark matter theory.

 

Let me give you something we might expect: A modified Friedmann equation to take in all reasonable density parameters a universe like ours may or would require. We write it in the form of the Raychauduri equation and we feature six density parameters:

 

[math]\dot{H}\Theta + H^2\Theta + \frac{kc^2}{a^2}\Theta = \frac{8 \pi G}{3c^2}(\rho_{on} + \rho_{off} + \rho_{pressure} + \rho_{vel} + \rho_G + \rho_{EM} - \rho_{\sigma})\Theta  + \omega^2\Theta[/math]

 

[math]\rho_{on}[/math] - density due to on-shell particles (ordinary matter or observable matter)

[math]\rho_{off}[/math] - density due to off shell dynamics (the world of the fluctuation which may have to be set to zero over cosmological flat space, but maybe not curved space as the fourth power over their momenta may be non-zero)

[math]\rho_{pressure}[/math] - the density due to pressure, however, keep in mind there are different kinds of pressures. There is a radiation pressure and then there is a pressure that can be associated to particle velocity, also called the velocity pressure. Density and pressure have the same dimensions.

[math]\rho_G[/math] - the density due to gravitational force

[math]\rho_{EM}[/math] - the density due to electromagnetic force

[math]\rho_{\sigma}[/math] - the density due to a torsion field

 

I could write the whole terms out in their full form, but its a long equation and pretty late here.

 

Seeing the universe in light of these reasonable energy density parameters, just shows us how complicated the universe may actually be, the effective density part now consists of density due to on-shell particles, density due to off-shell particles, density due to pressure, density due to gravitational binding, density due to primordial electromagnetic fields and the density due to torsion. I haven't spoke about primordial magnetic fields or electric fields in the universe - but its a very important question for the unification theories, in which some investigations have shown that gravity and electric fields may have a complimentary existence, ie. charge vanishes from the early universe as the strength of gravity increases!

Here is a link that highlights the unification problem better, in the Wilczek picture

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827853.600-why-the-early-universe-was-free-of-charge/

Edited October 1, 2017 by Dubbelosix