DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

[Mordred]

If you changed to a constant rate of expansion then this would not match observational data. It is the observational data that takes priority. The math must match that data. It would be foolish to ignore the observation simply to make a model work. That model would be incorrect if it didn't match the data.

If you try to vary time, then the redshift data itself will no longer match observation. This data is also compared with other methods such as galactic parallax to test its accuracy. Physics never relies on just one set of equations, or data pertaining to it. They always compare every measurement whenever possible to other methodologies.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Mordred

[swansont]

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

The flow from highly concentrated mass to less concentrated mass. The flow from hot to cold. The flow from extremely warped space to less warped space. The flow of time from slow to fast.

What is “flowing” from highly concentrated mass to less concentrated? From extremely warped space to less warped? 

Time flows from slow to fast? 

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

That’s the best way I could describe the “gradient” at the moment.

Gradient has a definition. It’s the one part you don’t need to explain, assuming you are using the definition correctly.

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

If we took our existing models of the universe, and changed them so that the expansion of space is constant and that the rate of time is increasing, would the outcome be different?

Probably. But redefining expansion and time would impact a bunch of other physics, and it would be difficult (if not impossible) to make physics self-consistent. IOW, you would end up with the wrong answer.

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

I’m no mathmitican, I would have to find a partner to help me prove my theory. Can’t one of you guys use our current mathematical models to prove me wrong? I’ll try to take a crack at the math when I find a partner but I obviously don’t have any models ready.

Meaning the hard part is yet to be attempted.

[CJWilli1]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

If you changed to a constant rate of expansion then this would not match observational data. It is the observational data that takes priority. The math must match that data. It would be foolish to ignore the observation simply to make a model work. That model would be incorrect if it didn't match the data.

If you try to vary time, then the redshift data itself will no longer match observation. This data is also compared with other methods such as galactic parallax to test its accuracy. Physics never relies on just one set of equations, or data pertaining to it. They always compare every measurement whenever possible to other methodologies.

From our perspective it appears that time remains constant and distant galaxies expand at an accelerating rate. There is no need to ignore the observational data or disregard our working mathematical models. 

As I stated in my speculation, the space that surrounds our universe is cold and has lower gravity. In order to be consistent with my theory that space would experience time faster due to its low gravity in comparison to our expanding energy field. Imagine an observer watching our expanding field of energy from those surroundings. Perhaps from the perspective of that observer, the expanding energy would not accelerate, but radiate at fixed rate while it accelerated in time. 

What im trying to say is from our perspective time moves at a constant rate and the expansion of space accelerates, but from an outsiders perspective the expansion is constant and the rate of time accelerates. 

Could this blizarre relationship be possible?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What is “flowing” from highly concentrated mass to less concentrated? From extremely warped space to less warped? 

Time flows from slow to fast? 

Gradient has a definition. It’s the one part you don’t need to explain, assuming you are using the definition correctly.

Probably. But redefining expansion and time would impact a bunch of other physics, and it would be difficult (if not impossible) to make physics self-consistent. IOW, you would end up with the wrong answer.

Meaning the hard part is yet to be attempted.

I’m saying that particles move in the direction from hot to cold. Particles also move from a point of of high concentration to that of a low concentration. For example, the particles condensed into a “singularity” at that the start of the BB exapnded outwards into an area of lower concentration. The initial “singularity” must have warped space time a lot due to its high concentration of matter. As the matter spreaded out from the singularity into the universe that we see today, the curviture diminished. If gravity increases as the curvature of space increases, then gravity decreases as the universe expands. As gravity or the curvature of space time increases, the rate of time that passes by decreases relative to an outside observer. For example, If you watched a person fall towards an event horizon they would appear to decelerate in time and never cross it. But from the perspective of the person falling in, they would experience time as they normally would and continue to fall towards the singularity. Now if the curvature of space decreases in our universe, then a person within our universe would appear to accelerate in time from the perspective of an outside observer. But from the perspective of the person within that expanding universe, they would experience time at a fixed rate. The person within that universe could write laws of physics that use time as a constant and they would work perfectly for him/her. This person could be unaware that the rate of time of his universe is accelerating from the perspective of an observer that existed in the space that surrounded the expanding universe.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

If we took our existing models of the universe, and changed them so that the expansion of space is constant and that the rate of time is increasing, would the outcome be different?

I believe it is possible to choose a different set of coordinates where distances are not changing (ie. there is no expansion) but the speed of light (and therefore the rate at which clocks tick) is. This isn't a different model, just the a different view.

This doesn't address accelerating expansion. You would have an accelerating change in the speed of light, which would require an explanation (ie dark energy).

3 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Can’t one of you guys use our current mathematical models to prove me wrong?

Your claims are too vague to be amenable to mathematical analysis.

One the other hand, they are based on flawed physics and stuff you have just made up, so there is no need to prove them wrong. They just are.

 

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

For example, the particles condensed into a “singularity” at that the start of the BB exapnded outwards into an area of lower concentration.

Nope. The universe is, and always has been, uniformly full of matter (on large enough scales).

 

[Mordred]

As Strange mentioned the average mass distribution is homogeneous and isotropic. With these two terms combined this is a fairly uniform distribution. Yes we have galaxies, planets, stars etc, however on a size scale of over 100 Mpc these anisotropies become negligible enough to satisfy the Cosmological principle defined by the first two terms.

 The observer of the FLRW metric is a particular type one that matches the uniform mass distribution. Other observer effects such as being on a planet are taken into account separately. An observer on Earth for the purposes of cosmological distances doesn't need to worry too much as the spacetime conditions at the surface doesn't significantly affect our measurements. This was looked into as a possibility however physicists found no significant effect.

 Now lets take the proper time now, at [latex]\tau_0[/latex] the zero denotes time now for the fundamental observer. The mass distribution he can measure is roughly uniform. So no time dilation for the average uniform mass distribution at [latex]\tau_0[/latex].

 Any proper time the observer uses this condition still applies, so no time dilation is needed in the FRW metric. This is the trick the homogeneous (no preferred location) and isotropic (no preferred direction) when combined means a uniform mass distribution. A CoM centre of mass has both a preferred location and a preferred direction. 

 There is no C0M in the universe, there is no centre of the universe, there is not inside or outside the universe. The BB happened everywhere our location itself is part of the BB just as the farthest galaxy we can locate was part of the BB. 

 Time isn't a force it cannot cause particle movement so it doesn't make sense to state it accelerates the universe. It cannot influence how any particle behaves, it is a property describing a rate of change but does absolutely nothing to cause change.

Now lets look directly at spacetime curvature. You probably know that the mean average spacetime curvature is flat according to the Planck, WMAP and COBE findings. This has a particular influence on light paths.

In a flat spacetime geometry two parallel light beam will remain parallel, we won't see any distortions due to curvature when we measure distant objects such as the CMB. (its how they tested the curvature). If we had a curvature term the paths will converge for positive curvature or diverge for negative curvature. We don't see this when measuring out to a distance correspondence of Z=1090 at 380,000 years of universe age. So no time dilation is used as the curvature term is k=0 flat.

 To have time dilation you require spacetime curvature, so no time dilation is involved by observational evidence confirmed by no distortional effects measured.

 Now another observational evidence is that the temperature falls off at [latex] \frac{1}{a}[/latex] where a is the scale factor on cosmological distance between time now and time then. If you have a scale factor of 0.5 then the volume of the observable universe is half what it is today. The temperature will inversely scale with this scale factor via the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics. The measured temperature changes are also used to confirm the expansion rates. Handy to use as a cross check but most layman miss this detail.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Mordred

[CJWilli1]

36 minutes ago, Strange said:

I believe it is possible to choose a different set of coordinates where distances are not changing (ie. there is no expansion) but the speed of light (and therefore the rate at which clocks tick) is. This isn't a different model, just the a different view.

This doesn't address accelerating expansion. You would have an accelerating change in the speed of light, which would require an explanation (ie dark energy).

 

Well maybe the model of our universe doesn’t necessarily have to change, but we could create a model of what surrounds our universe that helps to explain dark energy.

If our surroundings had a decreasing concentration of particles, and our universe that expands from a BB has a higher concentration than its surroundings, then is it impossible ,in this hypothetical scenario, that the matter that expands from the BB expands due to the movement of particles from high a concentration to low concentration? I don’t have hard evidence to prove this possibility, but is there hard evidence saying that this possibilitity cannot exist?

 

[Mordred]

Science doesn't willy nilly try to get the mathematics to force the universe into the conditions we desire. The measurements of the universe is what is used to determine the mathematics to describe it. You keep trying to apply the mathematics in the wrong direction.

we cross posted see my last post. In particular to last post on there is no outside of our universe....

Lets demonstrate the predictive power of the FLRW metric. May help put things into perspective.

This is what the FLRW metric is able to calculate for us.

[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 0.001&739.062&738.062&0.000713&0.001172&45.031283&0.060930&0.083238&0.001668&16.621&3.127&51.977&12283.974\\ \hline 0.002&501.112&500.112&0.001342&0.002163&44.653685&0.089109&0.122010&0.003214&13.287&3.101&41.203&6658.325\\ \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 0.004&230.379&229.379&0.004601&0.007192&43.602350&0.189264&0.260828&0.011554&8.691&3.028&26.316&2002.235\\ \hline 0.006&156.206&155.206&0.008416&0.013015&42.887747&0.274559&0.380106&0.021616&7.083&2.978&21.095&1106.404\\ \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 0.014&71.813&70.813&0.027726&0.042257&40.943206&0.570134&0.799715&0.074095&4.745&2.843&13.492&340.773\\ \hline 0.021&48.692&47.692&0.050056&0.075939&39.639382&0.814081&1.152677&0.136056&3.894&2.753&10.720&189.626\\ \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 0.045&22.386&21.386&0.162117&0.244527&36.119894&1.613538&2.350040&0.453165&2.631&2.508&6.599&58.889\\ \hline 0.066&15.178&14.178&0.291145&0.438335&33.771262&2.224979&3.311204&0.823085&2.164&2.345&5.076&32.852\\ \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 0.143&6.978&5.978&0.936102&1.403692&27.454972&3.934517&6.297233&2.695518&1.470&1.907&2.803&10.259\\ \hline 0.211&4.731&3.731&1.674119&2.496871&23.266389&4.917511&8.402147&4.860753&1.219&1.616&1.969&5.767\\ \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 0.460&2.175&1.175&5.215425&7.334123&12.397762&5.699693&13.279345&15.569626&0.903&0.861&0.777&1.963\\ \hline 0.678&1.475&0.475&8.789420&11.115281&6.042158&4.096813&15.275613&27.272101&0.878&0.420&0.369&1.296\\ \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 1.468&0.681&-0.319&19.704190&16.201608&4.910267&7.207286&16.992292&75.113899&1.305&0.341&0.445&0.889\\ \hline 2.154&0.464&-0.536&26.084608&16.928765&8.515267&18.345587&17.174536&118.018864&1.833&0.591&1.084&0.851\\ \hline 3.162&0.316&-0.684&32.638034&17.180008&11.040250&34.912335&17.224075&181.212698&2.651&0.767&2.032&0.838\\ \hline 4.642&0.215&-0.785&39.249711&17.261713&12.776339&59.302512&17.261713&274.042078&3.872&0.887&3.435&0.834\\ \hline 6.813&0.147&-0.853&45.880114&17.287747&13.962589&95.126009&17.287747&410.320588&5.675&0.970&5.503&0.833\\ \hline 10.000&0.100&-0.900&52.516301&17.296130&14.771503&147.715032&17.296130&610.357404&8.326&1.026&8.540&0.833\\ \hline 14.678&0.068&-0.932&59.154549&17.298683&15.322788&224.907769&17.298683&903.973904&12.218&1.064&13.001&0.832\\ \hline 21.544&0.046&-0.954&65.793394&17.299445&15.698407&338.211934&17.299445&1334.944709&17.933&1.090&19.550&0.832\\ \hline 31.623&0.032&-0.968&72.432255&17.299812&15.954315&504.519738&17.299812&1967.523376&26.322&1.108&29.163&0.832\\ \hline 46.416&0.022&-0.978&79.071348&17.299828&16.128669&748.626510&17.299828&2896.022178&38.636&1.120&43.274&0.832\\ \hline 68.129&0.015&-0.985&85.710288&17.299959&16.247453&1106.926069&17.299959&4258.871858&56.709&1.128&63.984&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]

Unfortunately it won't all fit on the right hand side so I will remove some of the columns displayed above. (Stretch, D_now and D_then columns) so you can see the expansion rate today compared to the expansion rate then column [latex] H/H_0 [/latex]

[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&z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1089.000&0.000373&0.000628&0.056714&0.000856&21.023&3.148&66.182&22915.263\\ \hline 0.001&738.062&0.000713&0.001172&0.083238&0.001668&16.621&3.127&51.977&12283.974\\ \hline 0.002&500.112&0.001342&0.002163&0.122010&0.003214&13.287&3.101&41.203&6658.325\\ \hline 0.003&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&0.178562&0.006124&10.712&3.068&32.869&3639.803\\ \hline 0.004&229.379&0.004601&0.007192&0.260828&0.011554&8.691&3.028&26.316&2002.235\\ \hline 0.006&155.206&0.008416&0.013015&0.380106&0.021616&7.083&2.978&21.095&1106.404\\ \hline 0.009&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&0.552333&0.040144&5.791&2.918&16.895&613.344\\ \hline 0.014&70.813&0.027726&0.042257&0.799715&0.074095&4.745&2.843&13.492&340.773\\ \hline 0.021&47.692&0.050056&0.075939&1.152677&0.136056&3.894&2.753&10.720&189.626\\ \hline 0.030&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&1.651928&0.248752&3.200&2.642&8.455&105.633\\ \hline 0.045&21.386&0.162117&0.244527&2.350040&0.453165&2.631&2.508&6.599&58.889\\ \hline 0.066&14.178&0.291145&0.438335&3.311204&0.823085&2.164&2.345&5.076&32.852\\ \hline 0.097&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&4.606237&1.491191&1.782&2.147&3.827&18.342\\ \hline 0.143&5.978&0.936102&1.403692&6.297233&2.695518&1.470&1.907&2.803&10.259\\ \hline 0.211&3.731&1.674119&2.496871&8.402147&4.860753&1.219&1.616&1.969&5.767\\ \hline 0.312&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&10.827382&8.733318&1.026&1.267&1.301&3.292\\ \hline 0.460&1.175&5.215425&7.334123&13.279345&15.569626&0.903&0.861&0.777&1.963\\ \hline 0.678&0.475&8.789420&11.115281&15.275613&27.272101&0.878&0.420&0.369&1.296\\ \hline 1.000&0.000&13.787206&14.399932&16.472274&46.278944&1.000&0.000&0.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.468&-0.319&19.704190&16.201608&16.992292&75.113899&1.305&0.341&0.445&0.889\\ \hline 2.154&-0.536&26.084608&16.928765&17.174536&118.018864&1.833&0.591&1.084&0.851\\ \hline 3.162&-0.684&32.638034&17.180008&17.224075&181.212698&2.651&0.767&2.032&0.838\\ \hline 4.642&-0.785&39.249711&17.261713&17.261713&274.042078&3.872&0.887&3.435&0.834\\ \hline 6.813&-0.853&45.880114&17.287747&17.287747&410.320588&5.675&0.970&5.503&0.833\\ \hline 10.000&-0.900&52.516301&17.296130&17.296130&610.357404&8.326&1.026&8.540&0.833\\ \hline 14.678&-0.932&59.154549&17.298683&17.298683&903.973904&12.218&1.064&13.001&0.832\\ \hline 21.544&-0.954&65.793394&17.299445&17.299445&1334.944709&17.933&1.090&19.550&0.832\\ \hline 31.623&-0.968&72.432255&17.299812&17.299812&1967.523376&26.322&1.108&29.163&0.832\\ \hline 46.416&-0.978&79.071348&17.299828&17.299828&2896.022178&38.636&1.120&43.274&0.832\\ \hline 68.129&-0.985&85.710288&17.299959&17.299959&4258.871858&56.709&1.128&63.984&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&17.299900&6259.261851&83.237&1.134&94.384&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex]

 

Now do you notice something ?

 

the expansion rate given in units Mpc/km/sec^2 is actually getting smaller not larger, yet via Hubbles law the expansion rate measured to the two Cosmological event horizons above are accelerating this is a consequence of Hubbles law The greater the separation distance the greater the recessive velocity of the event horizons in this example.

[latex] V_{recessive}=H_0 D[/latex] this is a consequence of using this formula, yes the expansion rate per Megaparsec is decreasing however due to the increase in number of Megaparsecs to the horizons the recessive velocity is accelerating. So one has to be careful how one defines the term expansion rate. 

 

1) Per Mpc defined by H

2) change in distance to a distance event described according to the recessive velocity

Edited February 17, 2019 by Mordred

[CJWilli1]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Science doesn't willy nilly try to get the mathematics to force the universe into the conditions we desire. The measurements of the universe is what is used to determine the mathematics to describe it. You keep trying to apply the mathematics in the wrong direction.

we cross posted see my last post. In particular to last post on there is no outside of our universe....

Here’s a fun thought experiment.

Take a balloon and draw a bunch of dots on it, then blow it up. The dots on the surface balloon will expand away from each other as the surface of the balloon inflates. There is no center of the expansion relative to the dots on the surface, and there is no boundary on the surface of the balloon (that represents spacetime)

Now take another balloon of equal size and draw the same number of dots on its surface. Then put the first balloon inside of it. Then blow them up at the same time. The balloon on the outside will have a greater surface area compared to balloon on the inside, and the dots on its surface would be spread further apart. 

So if two universes with equal mass (represented by the same number of dots on the surfaces of the balloons) both expand with one inside the other, then the universe on the outside will always be more expansive compared to the universe on the inside. If amount of matter in these two universes are the same, then the concentration of matter in the exterior universe will always be lower than that of the interior. Perhaps the universe on the inside expands towards the surrounding universe because of the movement of matter from high to low concentration. If there were an infinite series of universes all with the same amount of matter, then perhaps this flow from high conc to low conc would accelerate the expansion of all the universes in this system. Perhaps nothing exists outside our universe, but outside that nothing there is another universe (possibly in a higher dimension)  that effects ours despite the fact that the two universes will never come into direct contact. Of course this is all nothing but wild speculation, but it’s interesting to think about. 

We will never observe the properties of what existed outside/before the BB, so we have no choice but to speculate without observational data. 

 

[Mordred]

That would lead to an anistropic expansion rate the regions closer to the proposed outer universe would expand faster than the centre of the inner balloon. Lets assume the inner balloon is 1 light year in radius. Any force term applied at the outer edge would take 1 light year to reach the centre.

c is also the maximal rate of all information exchange...

Sorry that proposal shows up a ton of times on these forums and has been considered already by professional physicists. Its easily discounted as a possibility for the reasons just given. We can also confirm this via its temperature effects.

sidenote edit: this is also how we can determine that the universe conditions of the shared causality regions of our current Observable portion at the outer edges will be roughly the same mass density as our own Observable portion.

We don't not see any signs that the mass density at the outer regions are being affected differently by the regions just outside our observable portion. So that mass density just outside our direct observation must also be roughly the same mass density

Edited February 17, 2019 by Mordred

[beecee]

8 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

Thanks for bearing with me. I know I have no evidence but unfortunately I don’t have a black hole or giant telescope handy to try and find it. 

Actually your attitude to your speculative scenarios and the ensuring criticism have been like a breath of fresh air, in that it seems you are recognising some of the short comings in your many hypotheticals, and accept them as speculative, rather then blasting your way onto the forum, demanding with utmost certainty that you have invalidated many decades of cosmology as so  many do.

While apparently still stubbornly holding onto the basis of your idea, you also do appear to be listening and learning particularly from the many good points put in the last few hours.

While many aspects of cosmology appears counter-intuitive on face value, the foundation fact is that the universe is not obliged to align with what we see or don't see as intuitive or otherwise. 

Edited February 17, 2019 by beecee

[Strange]

1 hour ago, CJWilli1 said:

Well maybe the model of our universe doesn’t necessarily have to change, but we could create a model of what surrounds our universe that helps to explain dark energy.

If our surroundings had a decreasing concentration of particles, and our universe that expands from a BB has a higher concentration than its surroundings, then is it impossible ,in this hypothetical scenario, that the matter that expands from the BB expands due to the movement of particles from high a concentration to low concentration? I don’t have hard evidence to prove this possibility, but is there hard evidence saying that this possibilitity cannot exist?

This would be rather analogous to the atmosphere of the Earth. There is a small amount of diffusion of air from the top of the atmosphere but the surrounding vacuum does not cause the air to accelerate into space.

Apart from which, a model like that would imply a centre to the universe which is not consistent with what we see.

12 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Now take another balloon of equal size and draw the same number of dots on its surface. Then put the first balloon inside of it. Then blow them up at the same time. The balloon on the outside will have a greater surface area compared to balloon on the inside, and the dots on its surface would be spread further apart. 

This doesn't make much sense interns of the original analogy where the surface represented the entire universe. The inside of the balloon does not exist in the analogy.

However, someone did once suggest that you can consider the radius of the balloon to represent the time dimension. In your example, the outer balloon is expanding faster because it is later in time.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, CJWilli1 said:

I’m saying that particles move in the direction from hot to cold.

That’s not true. I’m sure you’ve heard of convection 

Quote

Particles also move from a point of of high concentration to that of a low concentration.

That’s diffusion

Quote

For example, the particles condensed into a “singularity” at that the start of the BB exapnded outwards into an area of lower concentration.

There was no area of lower concentration. The BB was not an explosion into existing space.

Quote

The initial “singularity” must have warped space time a lot due to its high concentration of matter. As the matter spreaded out from the singularity into the universe that we see today, the curviture diminished. If gravity increases as the curvature of space increases, then gravity decreases as the universe expands. As gravity or the curvature of space time increases, the rate of time that passes by decreases relative to an outside observer.

An observer outside of the big bang? That makes no sense.

And as I explained before, time dilation is not from the strength of gravity (curvature). It’s how far down you are in the gravity well.

Quote

For example, If you watched a person fall towards an event horizon they would appear to decelerate in time and never cross it. But from the perspective of the person falling in, they would experience time as they normally would and continue to fall towards the singularity. Now if the curvature of space decreases in our universe, then a person within our universe would appear to accelerate in time from the perspective of an outside observer.

An observer outside of our universe?

Quote

But from the perspective of the person within that expanding universe, they would experience time at a fixed rate. The person within that universe could write laws of physics that use time as a constant and they would work perfectly for him/her. This person could be unaware that the rate of time of his universe is accelerating from the perspective of an observer that existed in the space that surrounded the expanding universe.

You don’t get to write laws as you please. Science has to agree with how the universe behaves.

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

There was no area of lower concentration. The BB was not an explosion into existing space.

I have a question... We do not know why the BB banged or how, but something Often occurs to me...The DE mystery property of spacetime that is responsible for the acceleration in the expansion, is there any legit scientific reason to exclude that from having being the same impetus behind  the BB?

 

Let me reword that.....Could the impetus behind the evolution of spacetime we label the BB, be the same mystery impetus behind what is accelerating the expansion and what we have labeled DE?

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

"Alan Guth and Alexei Starobinsky proposed in 1980 that a negative pressure field, similar in concept to dark energy, could drive cosmic inflation in the very early universe. Inflation postulates that some repulsive force, qualitatively similar to dark energy, resulted in an enormous and exponential expansion of the universe slightly after the Big Bang. Such expansion is an essential feature of most current models of the Big Bang. However, inflation must have occurred at a much higher energy density than the dark energy we observe today and is thought to have completely ended when the universe was just a fraction of a second old. It is unclear what relation, if any, exists between dark energy and inflation. Even after inflationary models became accepted, the cosmological constant was thought to be irrelevant to the current universe."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

The above is sort of what I was envisaging....sort of.....

Edited February 17, 2019 by beecee

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, beecee said:

The above is sort of what I was envisaging....sort of.....

And that was pretty much what I was going to say as an answer. The field that drove inflation could be similar to dark energy. But as there is no compelling evidence for inflation ...

[CJWilli1]

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

THo(Gy)14.4TH∞(Gy)17.3Seq3400H067.9ΩΛ0.69a=1/S
0.0010.0010.0020.0030.0040.0060.0090.0140.0210.0300.0450.0660.0970.1430.2110.3120.4600.6781.0001.4682.1543.1624.6426.81310.00014.67821.54431.62346.41668.129100.000S1090.000739.062501.112339.773230.379156.206105.91371.81348.69233.01522.38615.17810.2916.9784.7313.2082.1751.4751.0000.6810.4640.3160.2150.1470.1000.0680.0460.0320.0220.0150.010z1089.000738.062500.112338.773229.379155.206104.91370.81347.69232.01521.38614.1789.2915.9783.7312.2081.1750.4750.0000.3190.5360.684−0.785−0.853−0.900−0.932−0.954−0.968−0.978−0.985−0.990T(Gy)0.0003730.0007130.0013420.0024960.0046010.0084160.0153090.0277260.0500560.0901580.1621170.2911450.5223420.9361021.6741192.9776915.2154258.78942013.78720619.70419026.08460832.63803439.24971145.88011452.51630159.15454965.79339472.43225579.07134885.71028892.349407R(Gly)0.0006280.0011720.0021630.0039560.0071920.0130150.0234780.0422570.0759390.1363210.2445270.4383350.7851041.4036922.4968714.3736157.33412311.11528114.39993216.20160816.92876517.18000817.26171317.28774717.29613017.29868317.29944517.29981217.29982817.29995917.299900Dnow(Gly)45.33159645.03128344.65368544.18352443.60235042.88774742.01246340.94320639.63938238.05166536.11989433.77126230.91775627.45497223.26638918.24753412.3977626.0421580.0000004.9102678.51526711.04025012.77633913.96258914.77150315.32278815.69840715.95431516.12866916.24745316.328381Dthen(Gly)0.0415890.0609300.0891090.1300380.1892640.2745590.3966680.5701340.8140811.1525521.6135382.2249793.0042253.9345174.9175115.6880905.6996934.0968130.0000007.20728618.34558734.91233559.30251295.126009147.715032224.907769338.211934504.519738748.6265101106.9260691632.838131Dhor(Gly)0.0567140.0832380.1220100.1785620.2608280.3801060.5523330.7997151.1526771.6519282.3500403.3112044.6062376.2972338.40214710.82738213.27934515.27561316.47227416.99229217.17453617.22407517.26171317.28774717.29613017.29868317.29944517.29981217.29982817.29995917.299900Dpar(Gly)0.0008560.0016680.0032140.0061240.0115540.0216160.0401440.0740950.1360560.2487520.4531650.8230851.4911912.6955184.8607538.73331815.56962627.27210146.27894475.113899118.018864181.212698274.042078410.320588610.357404903.9739041334.9447091967.5233762896.0221784258.8718586259.261851Vgen/c21.02316.62113.28710.7128.6917.0835.7914.7453.8943.2002.6312.1641.7821.4701.2191.0260.9030.8781.0001.3051.8332.6513.8725.6758.32612.21817.93326.32238.63656.70983.237Vnow/c3.1483.1273.1013.0683.0282.9782.9182.8432.7532.6422.5082.3452.1471.9071.6161.2670.8610.4200.0000.3410.5910.7670.8870.9701.0261.0641.0901.1081.1201.1281.134Vthen/c66.18251.97741.20332.86926.31621.09516.89513.49210.7208.4556.5995.0763.8272using this formula, yes the expansion rate per Megaparsec is decreasing however due to the increase in number of Megaparsecs to the horizons the recessive velocity is accelerating. So one has to be careful how one defines 

I was going to quote you earlier, but now I’m just trying to write a reply without a quote and no matter what I do I can’t get rid of the text box for the quote. 

 

What if if space was not created at the moment of the BB? What if that space already existed, but the properties of that space were somehow gradually altered in a way that allowed matter to disperse uniformly within it? In other words uninhabitable space becomes inhabitable space over time. Space as we know it could be being created from our perspective, but in actuality it is created by an alteration of “nothing” which has properties. Could whatever that had existed before the Big Bang have properties? I know it’s speculative but I’m just throwing ideas out there. 

Could the “nothing” that existed before the BB have curvature? Perhaps the high concentration of matter at the start of the BB caused a great warp of “nothing”. Perhaps as time went on and more “nothing” formed space, the matter dispersed uniformly into the inhabitable space, and the decreasing conc. of matter caused the curvature of “nothing” to be reduced. Could this speculation be plausible?

I don’t like to think as anything as being created or destroyed. I like to think that the space we inhabit is just altered form of something that existed before. I know that what I like to think isn’t relevant in the world of science, but regardless I find my speculations worth sharing. 

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

 Space as we know it could be being created from our perspective, but in actuality it is created by an alteration of “nothing” which has properties. Could whatever that had existed before the Big Bang have properties? I know it’s speculative but I’m just throwing ideas out there. 

Could the “nothing” that existed before the BB have curvature? Perhaps the high concentration of matter at the start of the BB caused a great warp of “nothing”. Perhaps as time went on and more “nothing” formed space, the matter dispersed uniformly into the inhabitable space, and the decreasing conc. of matter caused the curvature of “nothing” to be reduced. Could this speculation be plausible?

Here, get this into you...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Quote

I don’t like to think as anything as being created or destroyed. I like to think that the space we inhabit is just altered form of something that existed before. I know that what I like to think isn’t relevant in the world of science, but regardless I find my speculations worth sharing.

Perhaps as I have mentioned before, the quantum foam from whence the BB arose [as  per my  previous link] is as close to nothing as is possible...perhaps that is our best definition of nothing, followed by the "reasonable" speculative scenario of the BB evolving from it.

As I said before, nothing wrong in speculation, as long as one accepts it is only at this time speculative. I mean much of science started as speculation.

[Mordred]

Try also not to think of space as a thing, but as simply the volume where other processes occur such as particle interactions. One thing to make clear is that even without the cosmological constant (DE as one possibility) the universe can still expand. To understand expansion one has to correlate the particles (matter and radiation of the SM particles) self gravity to their kinetic energy terms. During the history of the universe there were three major eras to expansion with inflation being a separate process.

radiation dominant where the main contributor to the expansion rate being from radiation such as photons and neutrinos, (expansion falls into this era ). The matter dominant era, to understand this process one must understand that as matter started to pool into large structure formation, the average distribution density decreases so the gravity term also decreases in ability to keep things from moving apart.

then comes the Lambda dominant era which is the process currently occurring, of which  the cosmological constant is dominant. We still do not know what causes the cosmological constant. One of the theories is the Higg's field may be a contributor but were still researching this possibility. This process may also be a contributor to inflation during the electroweak symmetry breaking phase process. Once again were still researching this possibility.

 However please keep in mind space devoid of all particles is simply a volume nothing more. Though that volume may have quantum fluctuations such as the quantum foam mentioned above. LOL I won't get into the detail that its an elaborate descriptive of the effective degrees of freedom of a field....that tends to get way too technical for most to understand....the term field is simply an abstract mathematical descriptive that assigns a function or value to every coordinate under a given geometry basis.

 The other question we do not know is how the universe began the BB model does not cover this detail. it starts at [latex] 10^{-43}[/latex] seconds after. We do know at that time it was an extremely hot and dense state whose density has decreased over time much like the gas that filled your balloon will decrease in density if you remove the balloon.

The universe from nothing is one possibility but another possibility is we are from a previous universe that have previously collapsed and then re-expands (cyclic/bounce) based models.

 

Here is some references on the Higg's possibility keep in mind this is still undergoing study

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

Edited February 18, 2019 by Mordred

[CJWilli1]

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 However please keep in mind space devoid of all particles is simply a volume nothing more. 

 

Based on that statement, If I were to assume that the “nothing” or the pseudo space that existed before the Big Bang had properties, then it would have to contain real particles. The quantum flux or anihalation of virtual particles alone would not be enough to give that “nothing” or pseudo space properties that influence our expanding universe.

Perhaps the pseudo space that existed before the BB contains expanding particles that are so spread so far apart that they have little gravity or energy. Perhaps as pseudo space is converted into real space (in which that the matter in our universe expands uniformly to occupy) these particles accelerate away, leaving an empty volume for the matter in our universe to occupy. If the “nothing” before the BB contains expanding particles, then the “nothing” that existed before the BB may have properties than can correlate with our universe and our understanding of DE. 

If nothing existed before the BB, then why can’t we assume that nothingness works similarly to our universe. Even though the “nothing” that existed before and the “something” that exists now appear vastly different, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an underlying similarity. 

All spec. 

[Mordred]

A true nothing cannot cause change, but in quantum physics a true nothing wouldn't exist. Quantum fluctuations can still occur within a given volume. As the link reflects its also a possibility under study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

here is a bit more detail on this possibility

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/398/1/cosconstant.pdf

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by Mordred

[CJWilli1]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

A true nothing cannot cause change, but in quantum physics a true nothing wouldn't exist. Quantum fluctuations can still occur within a given volume. As the link reflects its also a possibility under study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

here is a bit more detail on this possibility

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/398/1/cosconstant.pdf

 

If according to quantum physics true nothing cannot exist, then we cannot assume that there was nothing before the BB. We have to assume there is something. That something must have an effect on our universe. If we cannot explain our accelerated expansion based on what we observe within our universe, we must consider the properties of what our universe is expanding into. Dark energy could be explained by our universes matter filling the empty space that is left behind by particles accelerating away from us.

[Mordred]

Our universe may well be infinite in extent or finite. We only know our observable portion we do not know the extent of the universe beyond that. Nor will we likely ever will unless we somehow solve the origins of the universe. We can accurately describe what we an observe. Anything further is anyone's guess 

However here is food for thought. If something interacts with our universe that would mean it is part of our universe. 

lets ask another question How would you define an edge to our universe ? Everything we can interact with and everything that interacts with our universe must be part of our universe. It simply doesn't make much sense to describe any interaction with our universe as being separate from it. That would include the lowest possible vacuum state...

Considering the definition of "universe" all existing matter and space considered as a whole or simply put everything in existence.

it doesn't make any sense to have an interaction with our universe from some space outside of it without considering that part of our universe.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Mordred

[CJWilli1]

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Our universe may well be infinite in extent or finite. We only know our observable portion we do not know the extent of the universe beyond that. Nor will we likely ever will unless we somehow solve the origins of the universe. We can accurately describe what we an observe. Anything further is anyone's guess 

Lets take two guesses.

Guess #1

Space is created during the BB. Nothing existed before the Big Bang. The cause of Dark Energy is currently unknown.

Guess #2 (my guess)

Space is not created in our universe, but has always existed. Before the BB there was matter in space that expands at an accelerating rate. As all this matter expanded away from the matter that formed our universe, there was unoccupied space that the matter that formed our universe expanded to fill. The acceleration of the expansion or DE in our universe is caused by the accelerated expansion of matter in its surroundings.

 

My guess has the potential to help explain DE and what happened before the BB. The other guesses cannot do the same. If my guess were backed by mathematical evidence, and it helped to solve the mystery of DE and what occurred prior to the BB, then my guess would certainly stand out above the rest. My guess could bring us closer to developing a complete theory of the universe. But of course it is still just a guess. 

[Strange]

42 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Lets take two guesses.

Guess #1

Space is created during the BB. Nothing existed before the Big Bang. The cause of Dark Energy is currently unknown.

The first is a guess and there is no evidence for it. It seems physically unrealistic.

The second is just an unrelated statement of fact. 

42 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Guess #2 (my guess)

Space is not created in our universe, but has always existed.

Entirely possible. But, again, no real evidence for it.

43 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Before the BB there was matter in space that expands at an accelerating rate. As all this matter expanded away from the matter that formed our universe, there was unoccupied space that the matter that formed our universe expanded to fill.

This is not consistent with the evidence, so we can rule it out. The evidence shows that the universe has always been full of matter.

43 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

The acceleration of the expansion or DE in our universe is caused by the accelerated expansion of matter in its surroundings.

Apart from the fact this is based on a false assumption (see above) it is not obvious that this would produce the effects we see. So we can dismiss this as well.

45 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

My guess has the potential to help explain DE and what happened before the BB.

As it not consistent with the evidence this is not true.

There is no reason to think that your guess can reproduce the effect of dark energy.

46 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

But of course it is still just a guess. 

And therein lies the problem. That is not how science works. It doesn't proceed by people making guesses about subjects they know nothing about, especially when those guesses are inconsistent with the evidence.

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, CJWilli1 said:

Lets take two guesses.

Guess #1

Space is created during the BB. Nothing existed before the Big Bang. The cause of Dark Energy is currently unknown.

Space and time [as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds.That's what the current expansion and the relic heat at 2.7K tells  us. 

Perhaps nothing is quantum foam, and that is the earliest state of nothing that can exist.

Quote

 

Space is not created in our universe, but has always existed. Before the BB there was matter in space that expands at an accelerating rate. As all this matter expanded away from the matter that formed our universe, there was unoccupied space that the matter that formed our universe expanded to fill. The acceleration of the expansion or DE in our universe is caused by the accelerated expansion of matter in its surroundings.

 

My guess has the potential to help explain DE and what happened before the BB. The other guesses cannot do the same. If my guess were backed by mathematical evidence, and it helped to solve the mystery of DE and what occurred prior to the BB, then my guess would certainly stand out above the rest. My guess could bring us closer to developing a complete theory of the universe. But of course it is still just a guess. 

 

Again, speaking of anything before the BB, is effectively outside of our universe and as such we cannot just willy nilly assign properties to it, including space and time. As Hawking said, it is like asking, what is North of the North Pole.

All we can do is speculate. Perhaps gravitational radiation and the new Physics it presents maybe able to reveal something.

Another rather interesting fact that may help    is the following...

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

Q; Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?

A: No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time  do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation

[CJWilli1]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

 

This is not consistent with the evidence, so we can rule it out. The evidence shows that the universe has always been full of matter.

Perhaps I worded it wrong. I don’t think the universe can be empty. Perhaps as matter accelerates away from our universe, the matter in our universe expands so that there is no empty space. What I’m speculating is that space has some relationship with matter, that is space doesn’t like to be empty and will cause matter to expand to fill it. So as matter accelerates away from our universe, the expansion of the matter in our universe accelerates so that there is no empty space. Can you explain where I’m wrong?

can you also explain why this wouldn’t produce the effects of DE that we see?

 

I know that making speculations or guesses about what existed before the BB is not scientific. But if we want to understand what happened before the BB we are forced to speculate. If we assign/ imagine properties to the space that existed before the BB, then we can make predictions based on those imaginary properties. If those imaginary properties predict what we observe then we can assume that there is a probability that those properties are real, even if that probability is less than 1%. As time goes on and our technology develops in the far future, perhaps we could find evidence that either increases or decreases the probability that these imaginary properties are real.