Ordinary Joe needs help from mathematician to prove/ disprove theory

[IRW030370]

There's no such thing as original thought, right? There is always a danger that you think you've invented the wheel, but then you realise that high-performance vehicles have existed for decades.

But please bear with me - I acknowledge that I could be talking complete and utter claptrap.

I am not a physicist but I have a theory that considers:

• why the universe is a cone (integrating inflation and, more importantly, the increasing rate of expansion)
• why rate of expansion continues to accelerate
• what dark matter/ energy is/ isn't (the theory being that they don't exist because there is something else that explains universal gravity and expansion)
• why space time is not flat but (gently) curved
• the origins of space-time existing long before our universe's big bang
• three-dimensional space as a natural construct of space-time and matter, i.e. our three perceived dimensions are a natural extension of space time when matter is thrown into the mix 

These things (or all/ many of them) may already have been theorised/ defined/ proven, however if there is any potential validity behind my model, then it may also be possible to time-stamp the origin of our multi-verse. 

The problem is, I need a theoretical physicist and mathematician to help me model the concept, or tell me why I have completely the wrong end of the stick. Anyone out there fancy humouring me?

Edited December 4, 2020 by IRW030370

[Phi for All]

Spacetime curves due to mass and energy, but it doesn't have to do so gently. Consider tossing a baseball on the Earth's surface, or what happens to spacetime too near a black hole. That curvature of spacetime is what we perceive as gravity.

Three spatial dimensions and a temporal one is the continuum we call spacetime. It's a coordinate system we can use to plot when and where in the universe an event happens. Matter has mass, mass curves spacetime. But the dimensions would still be there without the matter, so it's not a natural extension of them.

There isn't a way anybody could possibly know anything about a time before the Big Bang. Our best maths fizzle out before we can get all the way back to t=0, where the heat and densities destroy any information we might be able to get.

A model is the maths a theory is based on. Do you have a model, or want help with a model? 

You may have some gaps in your science you've filled in with popular misconceptions. It happens a lot when smart people get hold of parts of the puzzle, become hooked, and then make up the rest. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, now you have to explain it so peers can understand it.

[IRW030370]

On 12/4/2020 at 5:51 AM, Phi for All said:

"Spacetime curves due to mass and energy, but it doesn't have to do so gently. Consider tossing a baseball on the Earth's surface, or what happens to spacetime too near a black hole. That curvature of spacetime is what we perceive as gravity."

We need to differentiate between the universe and spacetime. 

I appreciate that spacetime is curved by matter, hence gravity, yet despite this, there is still the discussion as to whether the universe is flat or curved, as per this article: Cosmological crisis: We don't know if the universe is round or flat | New Scientist

However, it makes sense to present the Universe as both flat and curved, depending on whether we are looking at it three or four dimensionally.

The following diagram presents the universe in the fourth dimension (temporal) only, with the (three) spatial dimensions presented as a flat surface, i.e. the leading edge of this cone (blue grid) is the universe as we experience it right now, with all matter sitting on this plane (the diagram I've stolen from the internet is is misleading, as it shows matter sitting behind the leading edge, presented as some form of historical progression): 
 

However when we apply matter and hence gravity to the leading edge of this cone, we experience spacetime as "closed" or spherical:

 

This makes perfect sense, as when we show a map of the Earth in a book, we flatten its three dimensions into two. 

However, I'm talking about the curvature of spacetime in the fourth dimension only. When we 'flatten out' the blue grid of the sphere, would it be completely flat, or would it be slightly curved? The mathematics of trigonometry carried out on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that the universe is 'flat', as discussed within this article: How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe (phys.org)

According to the mathematics - it appears to be flat (Quote: astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10⁵⁷ parts.). 

I don't dispute the accuracy of the mathematics above, yet I remain unconvinced that the universe is completely 'flat'. 

I have created a model that looks at a four dimensional 'multiverse' theory, placing our universe's Big Bang on a much longer "arrow of time" timeline, preceded by an earlier Big Bang that may account for the forces of Dark Matter and Dark Energy on our universe. Please find the model below: 

My model makes the following assertions: 

1. Our Big Bang was secondary to a previous Big Bang (perhaps the original, perhaps just preceding). 
2. The preceding Big Bang created spherical spacetime (perhaps within a vacuum), originating from a singularity. 
3. Our (secondary) Big Bang happened / is happening across the fabric of spacetime created by the preceding Big Bang.
4. Our Big Bang either creates a secondary / 'child' spacetime continuum, or simply generates matter that interacts with the spacetime generated from the preceding Big Bang
5. The interaction of the primary and secondary fabrics of spacetime (from the two Big Bangs) account for the "gravity" that is current theorised by the concept of Dark Matter, i.e. our universe is 'held together' via the fabric of spacetime generated by the previous Big Bang / multiverse
6. The ongoing 'expansion' of spacetime from the preceding Big Bang accounts for the force of Dark Energy on our Universe. The growth of our universe continues to accelerate due to two factors, namely the secondary Big Bang (i.e. the birth of our Universe) plus the ongoing expansion of the spacetime continuum/ multiverse from the preceding Big Bang. 
7. These ‘paired’ Big Bangs may be cyclical – any future ‘imbalance’ between the forces in play could create the ‘splintering’ of our universe into ‘pockets’ of matter & spacetime, which would eventually succumb to the power of supermassive blackholes, creating gravitational singularities that would power the birth of new Universes within each ‘pocket’

To your other points: 

"There isn't a way anybody could possibly know anything about a time before the Big Bang. Our best maths fizzle out before we can get all the way back to t=0, where the heat and densities destroy any information we might be able to get." - If we look at the problem a different way.... Using the model above, if we understand the (albeit very slight) curvature of our 4th dimensional universe - 1 part within 1×10⁵⁷ parts across an observable universe of 84 billion light years, then would would be able to estimate the birth of the (theoretical) big bang that proceeded ours. 

"But the dimensions would still be there without the matter, so it's not a natural extension of them" - Time would exist without matter, but space wouldn't. With matter there would be no gravity. Without gravity, space (the spatial dimensions) would not exist. 

A model is the maths a theory is based on. Do you have a model, or want help with a model? I need a mathematician to help my prove/ disprove my theory above - can you help?

You may have some gaps in your science you've filled in with popular misconceptions. It happens a lot when smart people get hold of parts of the puzzle, become hooked, and then make up the rest. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, now you have to explain it so peers can understand it. - I have enormous gaps in my knowledge. I am a strategic thinker with a dangerously small amount of information. I know that my ideas are based upon 'cobbled-together' pieces of theory, some which are proven and some which are not. There is no tie-together between special relativity and quantum physics within this model - it is purely mechanical, yet could still work. 

Can you help me? 

Edited December 21, 2020 by IRW030370

[iridescentorangutan]

Sorry

Edited February 14, 2021 by iridescentorangutan

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, iridescentorangutan said:

Mathematics... numbers are the bedrock foundation upon which we stand to make logical projections.  The universe is supercooled Helium, fluid, always moving, impermanent. Mathematic theory is a nucleation site, out of which technology and humanity grows. Trying to mathematically define with perfection, the nature of the universe, is at this stage in our evolution improbable. A thunderous cracking arc is initiated by a stick welder, Droplets of slag that venture into the heart of the arc vanish, but eventually they exit and what grows in the cool air surrounding the plasma channel, is colloidal fractal particles...our relatively stable universe. trying to qualify the nature of the arc while satisfying is not necessarily useful or pragmatic but to lead your life devoid of passion for the sake of pragmatism... well? what were ferris buellers thoughts on ism's..

!

Moderator Note

This is a hijack - you aren’t furthering the discussion of the OP, you are steering this to your idea.

If there was substance to this, you could post it in speculations.  That’s the only place for discussion of non-mainstream ideas

 

[MigL]

Einstein's field equations ae satisfied by symmetric Lorentzian manifolds of constant scalar curvature, even for an empty universe, with a positive, zero, or negative Cosmological Constant.
They are respectively termed DeSitter, for positive curvature ( spherical ), Minkowsky, for zero curvature ( flat or Euclidian ), and Anti-DeSitter, for negative curvature ( hyperbolic ).
Anti-DeSitter has become popular as of late, because of its role in AdS/CFT correspondence, where gauge forces ( of QM ) are described by the extra ( plus one non-compact ) dimensons of string theory, and is the basis for the Holographic Principle.
 

[Col Not Colin]

On 12/4/2020 at 1:42 AM, IRW030370 said:

The problem is, I need a theoretical physicist and mathematician to help me model the concept, or tell me why I have completely the wrong end of the stick. Anyone out there fancy humouring me?

Hi IRW03..70,   hope you are well.

    I can do some humouring.  Firstly, it's obvious you have spent some time thinking about this, getting some diagrams, some completely original ideas and some existing ideas from science all brought together.   That's good.  There's always a place for new ideas and we should certainly be encouraged to let imagination run wherever it wants sometimes.   Let's not be too general but instead look at the specifics of your work - there are a few things you have mentioned that are really, really very good if not revolutionary.   Congratulations.  Additionally, a forum, like this one, seems a sensible a place to discuss your ideas.

    Now, it's not a case of presenting the bad points as such, I'm not suggesting that there are ANY bad points - this is more about presenting some balance.  There is actually no shortage of ideas.  More-over, by random chance if nothing else, some of these ideas will be extremely insigthful and extremely useful to further our understanding of science.   Which means that sometimes, a really extraordinary idea has already been dismissed or failed to attract the attention it should have done   AND   this is terribly sad and a great loss to everyone.

    The problem is the amount of time it takes to go through everyones ideas and whether that would actually help, our society, to identify the useful and insightful ideas frequently enough.  One Physicist could easily miss something or fail to identify the value if it if it's not in their area.  How many scientists and how many hours should be used to survery each idea?   Is this an efficient use of scientists, compared to what they are already doing?  Missing some brilliant idea is a very high price to pay, I agree with that, but it may be the only practical solution to bring about the greatest production of science over-all.  Would you consider reducing the scope of your work and presentation slightly?  For example, the idea that there may have been two big bangs seems sufficient to start with and you'd get double the number of replies if you made a forum post just to discuss that.  There is time to build and develop a bigger theory later.

 

What have you got here:

    You have stated that you do not have the Mathematics to communicate or model your ideas.  This means that what you have are some words, some diagrams and some ideas.  To many modern Physicists, this means that you don't really have very much here at all, I'm afraid.  Many of the diagrams you said were not yours but have been taken from elsewehere, that's fine - we do need to connect with existing knowledge - but I'll just look at the original stuff here for a moment.

   This seems to be what you are presenting as original:

On 12/21/2020 at 5:17 AM, IRW030370 said:

I have created a model that looks at a four dimensional 'multiverse' theory, placing our universe's Big Bang on a much longer "arrow of time" timeline, preceded by an earlier Big Bang that may account for the forces of Dark Matter and Dark Energy on our universe. Please find the model below: 

My model makes the following assertions: 

1. Our Big Bang was secondary to a previous Big Bang (perhaps the original, perhaps just preceding). 
2. The preceding Big Bang created spherical spacetime (perhaps within a vacuum), originating from a singularity. 
3. Our (secondary) Big Bang happened / is happening across the fabric of spacetime created by the preceding Big Bang.
4. Our Big Bang either creates a secondary / 'child' spacetime continuum, or simply generates matter that interacts with the spacetime generated from the preceding Big Bang
5. The interaction of the primary and secondary fabrics of spacetime (from the two Big Bangs) account for the "gravity" that is current theorised by the concept of Dark Matter, i.e. our universe is 'held together' via the fabric of spacetime generated by the previous Big Bang / multiverse
6. The ongoing 'expansion' of spacetime from the preceding Big Bang accounts for the force of Dark Energy on our Universe. The growth of our universe continues to accelerate due to two factors, namely the secondary Big Bang (i.e. the birth of our Universe) plus the ongoing expansion of the spacetime continuum/ multiverse from the preceding Big Bang. 
7. These ‘paired’ Big Bangs may be cyclical – any future ‘imbalance’ between the forces in play could create the ‘splintering’ of our universe into ‘pockets’ of matter & spacetime, which would eventually succumb to the power of supermassive blackholes, creating gravitational singularities that would power the birth of new Universes within each ‘pocket’

Comments:

1.   There was more than one big bang.  Yes, that's quite possible.   See for example these references:

   I)  Conformal Cyclic Cosmology    -  Roger Penrose.   [Sorry, this is not a specific reference to just one article or paper but instead loads of stuff by Penrose related to this and you'll have no problem finding it yourself]

   II)  Steinhardt, P. J.; Turok, N. (2002-04-25). "A Cyclic Model of the Universe". Science. 296 (5572): 1436–1439. arXiv:hep-th/0111030   -  Paul Steinhardt.

 These two references (above) concern cyclic models of cosmology, in which there can be many big bang / big bounce phenomena.

    III)  Any reference you like about string theory and membranes.  A collision of two branes could be considered a big bang event and as such there is no limit to the number of these that could ocurr.

 

2.   ...Preceeding big bang created spherical time....  OK, maybe.   Got to ask if it matters at all.   Time without space doesn't seem all that useful,  is it important that time exists before space?   Also don't forget that words like "before" don't really mean very much if time didn't exist.

   There isn't an absolute agreement on what "time" is.   Do you really need time in your model or just some thing, some parameter that serves a purpose similar to time?

   Existing theory, like General Relativity, doesn't necessarily imply that something like "time" started at the big bang.  It's just that a co-ordinate time breaks down.  It is quite possible that a thing, a parameter like time, existed but is it important - does it help to model or explain time as it exists now?   Always be very careful about any model and any set of words that accidentally slip into the use of notions like "before" and "after" and "preceeding" when the thing we usually consider as time or co-ordinate time really does seem to have come into existence only at the (usual) big bang.

    Additionally, this seems to be running against current trends.  That's fine, just thought I'd mention that it's not current.  More recent theory considers the possibility that "time" isn't required and there was only space.  So it is only space that needs to exist first.  Time then appears as what is described as an emergent property from the geometrical structures you have.   Example:  Big structures (like a cup of coffee) can have properties that weren't apparent in the smaller constituent parts - a coffee can have a nice swirl of cream on the top but this characteristic wasn't apparent in the molecules.  A swirl is not a molecule or a single type of interaction between molecules and you require a million molecules of different types before a swirl can exist - but once you do have a collection of such molecules a swirl is a perfectly well defined emerget property it (the cup of coffee) can have.

---I've probably bored you already.  I've also got tedious stuff to do like the housework, so I'll end here.   Best Wishes to you, bye for now.  ---  

[joigus]

I hate to be the party pooper here, but,

Cones have infinite curvature at the tip, did you know that? That would be a problem, I surmise. You seem to have heard or read about Coleman-DeLucia vacuum decay, but that's nothing to do with cones. In general you need smooth energy diagrams to be able to make any sensible prediction.

Which brings me to my next questions:

What predictions does you model make?

What retrodictions does your double big-bang achieve that are not already fit within the current standard cosmological model?

Try to be the hardest critic of your theory. Does it work? Does it make sense? Does it add anything significant? Is it natural and simple?

Read @MigL's very nice summary --although I hate his spelling of "Euclidean"-- and ask yourself: Do I understand these concepts? Why are they important? Are there already observations supporting DeSitter universe? Etc.

[Col Not Colin]

On 12/21/2020 at 5:17 AM, IRW030370 said:

Can you help me? 

   Hi again.  I've been watching this thread for a few hours now and I can't help but feel that some earlier responses (including mine) have come over fairly negatively.  For example, I'm really sorry that this thread was moved from Astronomy and Cosmology to Speculations.   That is usually a decision made by  ? whoever runs the forum but usually there is some explanation given for the move.  

  Speculations does not mean "rubbish", there is actually a "trash can" section in this forum if someone felt it had to go in there.  Presumably the post just seemed to meet the criteria for speculations and that's fine, do not let that worry you (it is by definition your speculations about a model for the universe).

   Additionally, getting a good roasting over your ideas is actually quite common practice in Science.  Don't worry about that either, take it as a compliment that someone bothered to read the thing.  Rest assured most of the people here have had similar experiences - we usually say "scrutinised by peers" but it means getting a good roasting from others.

   Finally, in direct response to your question - can you help me?   Some people have taken the time to read what you've written and given it some evaluation, if that counts for anything.  I've also got some more housework to get on with shortly which means that you've actually been the one helping me with a pleasant distraction, if that counts for anything.

    Genuinely, best wishes to you and bye for now.

P.S.  If you wanted a slightly different "smaller bit" to focus on:   Looking at your diagram it seems that you were implying dark matter is like ordinary matter in some parallel time evolution that has some interaction (an inward push) on our universe.   How would you explain that interaction  or  how would such a thing be detectable?  Just focusing on a small idea like this would be a huge development on it's own.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Col Not Colin
Spelling

[MigL]

TheSpeculations section is where non-mainstream ideas are presented, and defended with evidence ( mathematical or observational ).
It s not equvalent to the Trash Can section, and is nothing to be ashamed of, or ridiculed.

Some posters make it needlessly equivalent to the Trash Can, because they refuse to back up their assertions with evidence, or refuse to recognize evidence which is contrary to their assertions ( and we get quite a few of those types of posters ).