The simple cause of cosmic inflation (Big Bang, Expansion of Space)

[Mordred]

Then you will never be able to develop a model with mathematics to apply any formula that uses these dots to show expansion.

 You must define a dot in some way to build a model from them

Edited January 21, 2019 by Mordred

[810]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Then you will never be able to develop a model with mathematics to apply any formula that uses these dots to show expansion.

 You must define a dot in some way to build a model from them

Alas, this is why I reach out to you fine gentlemen.  My own mind has limitations and I recognize this fact.  The nature of a dot being the smallest denominator, in which all human machines are many factors larger and exist upon the dots, the dots could never be detected or interacted with, but a dot can be mathematically described without a specific size assigned to it.  The dots do not have their own energy, they only relay energy.  All energy waves move from dot to dot, and so does matter.  Matter is not located between the dots, matter moves from dot to dot like waves.  However, matter moves within space/energy waves.  Matter is trapped energy points.  Due to the nature of matter, it moves from dot to dot much slower than energy waves, unless it is a high speed particle or similar in which it's properties as matter begin to resemble energy.  E=MxC2 is still correct in my model.

[Mordred]

Well unfortunately this is your model. So we cannot define this dot for you. This is your visualization and we have nothing to work from in terms of your descriptive. For example the first question is What distinquishes this dot from a particle ? A quasi particle such as the Inflaton used in Chaotic eternal inflation or a curvaton, soliton or quantum spin foam in QFT ? Each of the above has mathematically defined characteristics that correlates what they interact with, how they behave when they interact with other fields etc etc. They have been defined in some relative mathematical way in order for the model to apply them.

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, 810 said:

My own mind has limitations and I recognize this fact.

This is the big problem not starting out with the most widely accepted explanations as your guide. You've filled in gaps in your knowledge with things you've made up to fit the problem PERFECTLY. It makes so much sense to you because you used exactly what you knew at the time, and it appears to cover the parts you don't understand so well that there's no way it could seem wrong.

It's like you made the pieces of the jigsaw fit without looking at the picture it's supposed to depict. What you have doesn't match with what we observe in nature.

[810]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Well unfortunately this is your model. So we cannot define this dot for you. This is your visualization and we have nothing to work from in terms of your descriptive. For example the first question is What distinquishes this dot from a particle ? A quasi particle such as the Inflaton used in Chaotic eternal inflation or a curvaton, soliton or quantum spin foam in QFT ? Each of the above has mathematically defined characteristics that correlates what they interact with, how they behave when they interact with other fields etc etc. They have been defined in some relative mathematical way in order for the model to apply them.

There is a great difference between what the science community has already done the math for and the dots that I propose.  Remember, unlike anything you mentioned, the dots are the smallest common denominator, the individual pieces of the universe.  It could never be detected or measured.  The usual approach will not work for dots.  The only way to explain the dots is to start from the top, then go down.  The first step needed is a formula that shows the relation of matter to energy conversion /WITH/ the volume of space.  This will show a direct connection between the two.  As the amount of matter decreased, the amount of space increased.  Please I beg you all to help me create this math.

[Mordred]

The smallest common denominator is meaningless. What makes the dot itself the smallest possible denominator ? other than mere say so ? What makes it smaller than any other point-like particle with indiscernible volume ? How do you define the limits of this supposed dot in terms of a region ? How fast can it change location ? What causes more dots to form ? Why do the dots cause expansion ? 

 I can go on forever as you haven't described a dot as anything other than the lowest common denominator

[810]

Just now, Phi for All said:

It's like you made the pieces of the jigsaw fit without looking at the picture it's supposed to depict. What you have doesn't match with what we observe in nature.

I started from the top then went down.  So I began with the big picture and thought about what resulted in the different strokes.  The only ongoing process that is widespread and powerful enough to account for inflation is the stars and other objects that output energy into the universe.  The more people/energy waves in a city/universe, the more volume is needed to accommodate them.

[Mordred]

2 minutes ago, 810 said:

I started from the top then went down.  So I began with the big picture and thought about what resulted in the different strokes.  The only ongoing process that is widespread and powerful enough to account for inflation is the stars and other objects that output energy into the universe.  The more people/energy waves in a city/universe, the more volume is needed to accommodate them.

That makes no sense when you start with a universe prior to any stars, cities, people etc etc existing yet expansion occurs prior to any of the above list.

[810]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That makes no sense when you start with a universe prior to any stars, cities, people etc etc existing yet expansion occurs prior to any of the above list.

My apologies, I don't quite understand what you are saying.  I started from the current state of the universe, then worked down to the super singularity.

[Mordred]

That part is fine in the sense of gathering information as to the behavior of expansion. However none of those listed items can be the cause of the initial expansion prior to their existence

44 minutes ago, 810 said:

  The only ongoing process that is widespread and powerful enough to account for inflation is the stars and other objects that output energy into the universe.  

Obviously another process must have existed if expansion occurs before stars existed.

Lets recap and start with the term smallest possible denominator of some volume. Lets start with a cm and set 1 cm at value one.

[latex]\frac{1}{10^{\infty -1}}[/latex] does this qualify ? What fraction of 1 cm is the smallest possible portion ?

The other question that can be asked is How many dots does it take to cause a measurable displacement ?

A Planck length is the theoretical smallest measurable quantity how many dots to cause a 1 Planck length of displacement ? (be easier if I use the correct term Action) Which is the reason behind the Planck unit 1 unit of action 

see here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

Also read here and how it can relate to the spacetime geometry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)

Edited January 21, 2019 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, 810 said:

It could never be detected or measured.  The usual approach will not work for dots.

Then it isn't part of the natural world science is interested in. If it can't be observed in some fashion, it's considered super-natural. 

37 minutes ago, 810 said:

I started from the top then went down.  So I began with the big picture and thought about what resulted in the different strokes.  The only ongoing process that is widespread and powerful enough to account for inflation is the stars and other objects that output energy into the universe.  The more people/energy waves in a city/universe, the more volume is needed to accommodate them.

You may have started at the top, but you missed many things along the way, which are now being pointed out to you. Dark energy density remains constant as the universe expands, while matter and radiation become less dense during expansion. Again, this suggests that while space can contain normal matter and energy, dark energy seems to behave as an inherent part of space. It isn't diluted as the volume increases.

[Mordred]

 

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 

You may have started at the top, but you missed many things along the way, which are now being pointed out to you. Dark energy density remains constant as the universe expands, while matter and radiation become less dense during expansion. Again, this suggests that while space can contain normal matter and energy, dark energy seems to behave as an inherent part of space. It isn't diluted as the volume increases.

Perhaps  the mathematics will help understand the quoted portion. This calculator uses a specific formula that correlates how matter, radiation and DE [latex]\Lambda[/latex] evolves in terms of mass/ density as the universe expands and then applies their equations of state to calculate how the universe has expanded in the past and how it will expand far into the future. I only did 20 steps and set it to use the Planck 2013 dataset for the matter/radiation content.

[latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&1089.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&0.000856&21.023&3.148&66.182&22915.263\\ \hline 0.002&608.566&607.566&0.000979&0.001594&44.853035&0.073703&0.100794&0.002319&14.843&3.115&46.232&9032.833\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&0.006124&10.712&3.068&32.869&3639.803\\ \hline 0.005&189.701&188.701&0.006228&0.009680&43.263304&0.228060&0.314971&0.015819&7.842&3.004&23.561&1487.678\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&0.040144&5.791&2.918&16.895&613.344\\ \hline 0.017&59.133&58.133&0.037266&0.056657&40.323472&0.681908&0.960718&0.100464&4.298&2.800&12.036&254.163\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&0.248752&3.200&2.642&8.455&105.633\\ \hline 0.054&18.433&17.433&0.217283&0.327417&35.002842&1.898930&2.793361&0.610939&2.386&2.431&5.800&43.981\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.491191&1.782&2.147&3.827&18.342\\ \hline 0.174&5.746&4.746&1.252327&1.874042&25.458852&4.430801&7.300157&3.620922&1.337&1.768&2.364&7.684\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&8.733318&1.026&1.267&1.301&3.292\\ \hline 0.558&1.791&0.791&6.817286&9.184553&9.242569&5.160286&14.365254&20.669840&0.875&0.642&0.562&1.568\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&0.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&46.278944&1.000&0.000&0.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.791&0.558&-0.442&22.979870&16.668843&6.932899&12.417487&17.112278&95.281180&1.547&0.481&0.745&0.864\\ \hline 2.961&0.338&-0.662&31.510659&17.154169&10.671781&31.602098&17.220415&168.603314&2.486&0.741&1.842&0.839\\ \hline 4.896&0.204&-0.796&40.170941&17.267296&12.969607&63.498868&17.267296&290.007398&4.083&0.901&3.677&0.834\\ \hline 8.095&0.124&-0.876&48.860612&17.292739&14.364429&116.275356&17.292739&490.769217&6.741&0.998&6.724&0.833\\ \hline 13.383&0.075&-0.925&57.557046&17.298283&15.208769&203.541746&17.298283&822.704529&11.141&1.056&11.767&0.832\\ \hline 22.127&0.045&-0.955&66.254768&17.299620&15.719539&347.823873&17.299620&1371.505677&18.418&1.092&20.106&0.832\\ \hline 36.583&0.027&-0.973&74.952986&17.299815&16.028491&586.370846&17.299815&2278.857001&30.451&1.113&33.895&0.832\\ \hline 60.484&0.017&-0.983&83.651102&17.299968&16.215356&980.768127&17.299968&3779.010092&50.345&1.126&56.692&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&6259.261851&83.237&1.134&94.384&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex]

 

From this I can give you the rate of expansion at any redshift value, the time signal was sent from that redshift in proper distance, the temperature at that location and time the distance to the various horizons etc.

 This calculator uses the formulas on this page

http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/advanced-user

 

The [latex] H/H_0[/latex] relation is the rate of expansion then compared to rate at a particular then. The formula is on the previous link and uses the matter, radiation and DE content.

 

The term stretch is simply the inverse of the scale factor a, coincidently the average temperature is also estimated via the inverse of the scale factor. 

Forgot to add Stretch 1 column is today. S=1090 is time of the CMB though the calculator can go further back in time, However not as far back as [latex] 10^{-43} [/latex] a limit was placed due to the inflationary period. 

Here is as far back as it will go

[latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 20000.000&0.000001873&0.000004&46.176564&0.002309&0.003133&205.563&4111262.687\\ \hline 4859.562&0.000026708&0.000049&45.978633&0.009461&0.012854&60.203&292559.510\\ \hline 1180.767&0.000326239&0.000552&45.385041&0.038437&0.052400&22.101&26096.200\\ \hline 286.901&0.003260744&0.005135&43.945393&0.153173&0.210639&9.774&2804.152\\ \hline 69.711&0.029010535&0.044197&40.852331&0.586028&0.822534&4.674&325.817\\ \hline 16.938&0.246807722&0.371763&34.481457&2.035729&3.009093&2.287&38.734\\ \hline 4.116&2.060351110&3.061435&21.564722&5.239755&9.245731&1.143&4.704\\ \hline 1.000&13.787205857&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 0.243&37.174601593&17.245130&12.301284&50.627128&17.245130&3.437&0.835\\ \hline 0.084&55.554649839&17.297731&15.050146&179.402832&17.297731&9.923&0.832\\ \hline 0.029&73.951681546&17.299856&16.000313&552.424303&17.299856&28.739&0.832\\ \hline 0.010&92.349406808&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex]

 

see time in Gy column S=20,000

Edited January 21, 2019 by Mordred

[beecee]

8 hours ago, 810 said:

Actually, the BB is the same mechanism as inflation/expansion.  However, naming an era of the inflation with the moniker BB seems reasonable.

I won't argue with that, other then to point out that both Inflation and the BB, refer to the Observable universe only, something to remember when you refer to your singularity and any dimensionless dot.. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Quote

Within our local group, the distance between heavenly bodies causes gravity wells to have a greater effect than inflation.  At such small distances, there is not enough energy waves being sent out by said heavenly bodies to slow the gravitational attraction.

What evidence do you have to support this "energy wave" concept? How does mass cause any "energy wave"? I once had put to me that instead of the universe expanding, perhaps our rulers are  shrinking...a fabricated diametrically opposite scenario in my opinion. I would have a number of arguments against that, including "Occam's Razor"

Quote

Totally agree!  Literally what I just stated.

Except in totally diametrically opposed methodology. 

Quote

It is possible that the initial light was being reabsorbed early on, which would result in little to no light waves being sent out.  When I say "went dark"  I do not mean totally dark, I mean darker than it was.  How can you claim that there was no "went dark" era, when it has been shown to be true?

Again, the data tells us that the universe was totally opaque up to around 385,000 years post BB. When temperatures had cooled enough, [5000 K?] electrons started to couple with atomic nuclei and the universe became transparent...After this blast of light, the universe went dark again, but still transparent, and remained so until the first stars started to form. We see that first light today in the CMBR at 2.73K. Your "went dark again" did not appear to be talking about post recombination.

Quote

The one thing I am certain of is that there is only one ongoing process in the universe that can account for continued inflation, and that is the energy being released by not just the galaxies of stars, but also pulsars and nebula.  I love to admit when I am wrong, it means I learned something.  I believe DE is the energy released by heavenly bodies which is space itself.

That makes no sense. You are saying that stellar objects and remnants came before space and time! Astronomers/Cosmologists have a reasonable picture of how our universe evolved from t+10-43 seconds, up until today, while admittedly less certain of the process, the closer to the BB we go. Space and time evolved first [interchangeable according to GR] along with the Superforce, or the early period when all the four known forces were combined into one. As temperatures and pressures started to drop with the expansion of space and time [N.B. no stars or any matter as yet] the superforce started to decouple, gravity first. This caused phase transitions and false vacuums, and the excesses of energy went into creating our first fundamental particles such as electrons, quarks etc. Three minutes later protons and neutrons...385,000 years later, the first elements of Hydrogen, Helium....the rest is history.

I believe that summation likely scenario, and as supported in particle accelerators etc, puts a hole in your hypothetical "diametrically opposed" hypothetical.

 

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You may have started at the top, but you missed many things along the way, which are now being pointed out to you. Dark energy density remains constant as the universe expands, while matter and radiation become less dense during expansion. Again, this suggests that while space can contain normal matter and energy, dark energy seems to behave as an inherent part of space. It isn't diluted as the volume increases.

Bingo, and well put!

Edited January 21, 2019 by beecee

[MigL]

If there was a 'center' to the universe, as you suggest, we would see a spherical area, devoid of matter, surrounded by another sphere of matter ( galaxies and stars ) that have been moving away from that center for almost 14 Bill yrs.
We see nothing of the sort.

Radiation pressure is greatest where it is emitted. By stars in all the galaxies. Yet galaxies aren't flying apart, some are even coming together.The greatest expansion is in the voids between galactic clusters, where radiation pressure is negligible.

Your suggestions aren't based on evidence, and so, are non-starters.