Another view of the beginning

[Iseason]

Hi all

 

I am wanting to discuss a different first cause from the original view of Big Bang.

Now I understand that science questions itself as to whether Big Bang was one event or a series of big bangs so this is really about expansion of energy.

 

What if , rather than losing energy via expansion which is rather like turning on a hose and letting all the energy out, The singularity which is said to be the size of a pin head , lost energy and what we could see if we took step one and step two , was simply different states of the singularity.

 

Step one original singularity

Step two original singularity minus one measure of energy.

Step three original singularity minus two measures of energy.

 

The speed at which this happens is irrelevant at this stage. It is the behaviour that is important.

 

The point is that in Big Bang we are expecting to see the residue coming out and expanding. But what if the residue were used space( empty space) and what we actually observe is the singularity itself in various states.

 

Cheers iseeson

[Mordred]

first off we need to clarify a few misconceptions, the singularity of the BB model is of unknown size and origin, the singularity is not like a black hole type, its a point where our knowledge of physics can no longer accurately describe. This singularity can either be of a finite or infinite size. The observable universe on a back ward extrapolation leads up to our region of shared causality or point like. However were not even sure how small that region of shared causality would be, as we cannot see anything prior to inflation. The sngularity condition occurs prior to 10^-43 seconds. The big bang model also does not describe the cause of the universe, it only describes what occurs at 10^-43 seconds.. We do not know how the universe began though there is numerous possibilities, some describe a beginning from a previous universe, some describe a process from nothing and others try to describe it from a BH or inside the EH of a BH etc. The last tends to catch everyone's attention. However its also the least likely when you look at the metrics and observations involved. The universe is extremely homogeneous and isotropic and a BH origin would not be homogeneous and isotropic. Also an exploding origin is also not homogeneous and isotropic.

 

Homogeneous no preferred location

isotropic no preferred direction

 

Now in terms of energy you need to apply the ideal gas laws, when the universe was of a smaller volume, the energy-density, temperature and pressure is higher, as the volume increases the energy-density, temperature and pressure reduce. However the total energy is roughly the same.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Mordred

[Iseason]

Thanks Mordred

 

Yes I understand that. One of my reasons for putting it this way is that the different states replaces the expectation of lots of energy. . I'm not disputing observable universal behaviours.

Cheers iseeson

[Mordred]

fair enough, there have been numerous articles on multiple big bangs before, though they never get very far. Its not a particular model I'm overly familiar with. BB taken as multiple inflation stages. Eternal inflation is one such model.

 

"In other words, there was a beginning for each part of the universe, and there will be an end for in ation at any particular point. But there will be no end for the evolution of the universe as a whole in the eternal in ation scenario, and at present we do not know whether there was a single beginning of the evolution of the whole universe at some moment t= 0, which was traditionally associated with the Big Bang"

page 19

Inflationary Cosmology after Planck 2013

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0526.pdf

As I mentioned I'm not too familiar with the multiple field or multiple stage inflation models, however this resource may hold the model as its a collection of 74 inflationary models

Encyclopaedia Inflationaris

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787

 

if your model idea is referring to something else, then you might want to add some more details, particularly in your steps is step 2 for example one measure of energy less? what unit is one measure of energy less? Is this a descriptive of a phase transition? Is your model referring o multiple inflation stages? if so then what causes those inflation stages? Phase transition, false vacuum etc.

 

Unfortunately your descriptive is far too lacking in detail to make any determination as to what your describing

 

as you can see there is no cut and clear consensus as of yet on inflation, this being a time period we can only indirectly study due to the dark ages and the low mean free path of photons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Dark_Ages

Edited July 6, 2014 by Mordred

[Iseason]

Thanks Mordred

 

That was a really helpful response.

 

I deliberately left out measurement as a means in my post. The main reason for this is our inability to measure the universe via either the smallest or the largest. It doesn't prevent us from creating a working model somewhere down the track since the model would need to mimic what we see today. However I think the middle can tell us about the borders if there be any.

 

Reading your links was very informative and I can see that I need to get into a long line . The energy is not represented as anything more than a portion of the whole . But in itself it is the main constant. This would mean the original pin point containing the energy loses it at this given constant. ( as I said the rate is undetermined). Each new phase ( if you like) or occurrence is one value less and the residue of the lost energy is used space. In other words created space via this process.

 

Or course while space is one thing , we need to account for the amount of energy we see today. It's simply a matter of rate. Since we occupy the very thing we are studying , we cannot perceive fast enough to see the individual parts of the process.

 

Cheers

Iseeson

If I were pushed , I'd have to say that the speed of propagation would be much , much higher than any one would have suggested thus far. Something equal to the mass of the universe as we can measure it times the smallest , which I guess is a photon or electron. And if that doesn't work.... Go faster.

 

Cheers

Iseeson

[Mordred]

well I don't know how much you understand about cosmology or high energy particle physics, as your interested in developing a model that deals with both aspects your going to need to be able to apply the mathematics. First off the standard model vacuum expectation value is 246 GeV, as the time era your dealing with is higher than that in terms of thermodynamics you will need to apply the scalar equation of state in the various stages. Then you will also need to define the process of each stage. For example false vacuum is a high energy region that quantum tunnels to a lower energy region. The false vacuum is the higher region the true vacuum being the lower region.

 

the scalar equation of state is given below

[latex]w = \frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 - V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2 + V(\phi)}[/latex].

 

the next question your going to have to decide is which particle physics model are you going to use. the standard model is SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1), supersymmetry is SU(5)*SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1). However then you also have the SO(10) model S0(10)*SU(5)*SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1). These groups determine the particles that you will need to correlate from today backwards to the inflationary stages in terms of thermodynamic processes. I would recommend starting with the CMB. There is a ton of available data and if your statistical mechanics skill is up to par then you can extrapolate the number density of each particle species, using the following formulas

 

[latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex]

 

for boson particles Bose_Eintein statistics is

[latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex]

 

for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics

[latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex]

 

the De-Broglie wavelength is

[latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex]

 

using the above equatons you should be able to extrapolate how many particles of a given type from the temperature at a given time, although you can also use the equations of state in accordance to the FLRW metrics for an approximation the above formulas have a higher degree of accuracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29

 

you will find how to use those formulas in the following articles, the second one being a textbook by Liddle, who also wrote the first link I posted.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date)

for up to date use the one below. chapter 4 covers how to use the Bose_Einstein/Fermi_Dirac distibutions
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis (chapters 3,4,5)

 

good luck with your model, you will need the math to make it work mere verbatim won't do the trick. As you saw there is plenty of models where the physicists have taken the time to show the maths, as well as explain how their model operates with observational evidence support. In order for your model to work you will need to do the same. The above material will get you started, however it will take time to develop a working model. (I'm still working on my own for the past 2 years, I expect to be at it for another 2 years at least)(deals with the cosmological constant, and I keep proving my own model incomplete or inadequate lol-but then again that's what makes it interesting, wouldn't be fun if it was easy)

 

forgot to mention your going to need to have a minimal of 60 e-folds to satisfy the flatness problem, the horizon problem and the monopole problem.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Mordred

[Iseason]

Ok. So a bit of homework to do yet.lol

 

The difference as I see in my view is the change from energy expansion as a model to energy reduction. In fact it is predicting that the originating source is in the process of collapse with the phases being the detectable instances of energy we observe. Not expansion of energy as such.

 

The losses are constant. but what we can detect, namely the phases , would have differing values .

 

Thanks for your patient replies

 

Iseeson

[Mordred]

Ok. So a bit of homework to do yet.lol

 

The difference as I see in my" view is the change from energy expansion as a model to energy reduction

 

 

if you apply the ideal gas laws you will quickly see that expansion and energy-density reduction are part of the same process. However you may be talking about a reducton of the total energy. So here is my question what process would reduce the energy total? conservation of energy states energy cannot be created or destroyed. However it can alter from one form to another.

 

There is a general consensus that energy is not conserved in GR or Newtonian Cosmology, this article by Ned Wright discusses some of those issues

 

"Total energy (expressed in comoving coordinates) is not conserved in Newtonian cosmology. (This is also the case in GR - indeed, there is generally no unique scalar for the total energy in GR.) However, if almost all of the mass is in virialized systems obeying the classical virial theorem 2T + W approx 0, we recover approximate total energy conservation."

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Bertschinger/Bert1_3.html

What it breaks down to is the model specific treatments, This paper can explain this aspect better than I

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511178.pdf

The energy is not represented as anything more than a portion of the whole . But in itself it is the main constant. This would mean the original pin point containing the energy loses it at this given constant. ( as I said the rate is undetermined). Each new phase ( if you like) or occurrence is one value less and the residue of the lost energy is used space. In other words created space via this process.

 

Or course while space is one thing , we need to account for the amount of energy we see today. It's simply a matter of rate. Since we occupy the very thing we are studying , we cannot perceive fast enough to see the individual parts of the process.

 

If I were pushed , I'd have to say that the speed of propagation would be much , much higher than any one would have suggested thus far. Something equal to the mass of the universe as we can measure it times the smallest , which I guess is a photon or electron. And if that doesn't work.... Go faster.

 

 

 

not sure what your stating here but you need to be careful in how you define space is created... Space by itself is simply geometric volume filled with the energy-mass density of the universe, in and of itself it has no property of its own other than volume, space is not a substance or fabric. By itself it has no energy or matter. It is simply a change in geometry. In other words your going to have to find a way to explain the reduction in energy that conforms to this caveat.

 

also can you clarify your speed of propagation statement, propagation of what?

Edited July 6, 2014 by Mordred

[Iseason]

Hi Mordred

 

Understand your confusion here. When we first talked , I used your term " phases" and thought we understood each other. If the universe started with all the energy in one tight packet , then used one measure or lost is the term I used , then this becomes a change in phase. The original then loses another measure of energy which is phase three.

 

Original

Original minus one

Original minus two

 

The lost energy is below our ability to detect . It would be the pinhead sized original losing something " universally" smaller than the pin head. (Since it contained enough to create this sized universe.) that's why I think it is space itself. Used or lost energy in this way prevents space from having always to have been there or created via expansion.

 

The hard part is that each phase is able to convert the energy loss into one unit of space (conservation) and only the original singularity ever existed. The reason we expect to see lots of energy is that we are just too damn slow. By a long , long shot.

 

So when I refer to a 'reduction model' I am saying that the original pinhead can create the Big Bang scenario without simply releasing a lot of energy to inflate the universe. It can be that we see the same singular position over and over at a huge rate of propagation. Each loss shifts the pinhead in space.

I talked about the rate necessary for this to happen and I hadn't given it one as such before , but I was surprised with my answer.

 

If we can see multiples of the pinhead , as we can because we detect anything at all. In fact , because we can measure energy and mass we have the ability to measure the speed of propagation. It would be the universal mass that would determine the answer. I don't really know how to make this clear as the only thing you would see if you could stop the process is that one pinhead in space. So the rate of propagation is akin to recreating the illusion that there is lots of energy. That's why I said if it doesn't work go faster.

 

Now your objection will be multiple I'm sure . And rightly so.

 

Cheers iseeson

[Mordred]

Hi Mordred

 

Understand your confusion here. When we first talked , I used your term " phases" and thought we understood each other. If the universe started with all the energy in one tight packet , then used one measure or lost is the term I used , then this becomes a change in phase. The original then loses another measure of energy which is phase three.

 

 

The lost energy is below our ability to detect . It would be the pinhead sized original losing something " universally" smaller than the pin head. (Since it contained enough to create this sized universe.) that's why I think it is space itself. Used or lost energy in this way prevents space from having always to have been there or created via expansion.

 

The hard part is that each phase is able to convert the energy loss into one unit of space (conservation) and only the original singularity ever existed. The reason we expect to see lots of energy is that we are just too damn slow. By a long , long shot.

 

 

 

Ok now here is the problem with your line of thinking,

 

space does not need to be created, it is simply a change in volume, a change in volume does not require energy to increase the volume of space. As the volume of space expands the energy-density will lower PV=nRT This is a very common misconception of space.

 

Another problem is that energy does not exist on its own, you require particles, energy is exchanged via particle interactions.

 

I pointed out the ideal gas laws a few times in my previous posts, the reason I did so was so you would look at how they are applied in terms of describing the Universe as a perfect fluid.

 

As I mentioned space is simply geometric volume or distance (2d). Space itself has no substance so there is no need for energy to be used up to create that substance. The terminologies you have seen on space being warped, created etc are merely analogies used to describe energy-density geometric relations of how gravity interacts with the matter that reside in the volume of space. These terms are often confusing as they tend to imply that space itself has a substance. This isn't what GR is saying.

 

this recent thread "What is Space" will cover those details, as you will see its a common confusion an its also sometimes difficult to convince others that space is simply geometric volume, that is later filled with the contents of the universe. As the volume increases, the average distribution of the ideal gas fills that volume, just like a gas would do so if you inflate a balloon.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83690-what-is-space/

 

I would also recommend you read this balloon analogy in terms of what space is expanding into etc

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

 

post 8 shows some of the methods used to describe the universe in terms of the ideal gas laws, and I was hoping you would have understood the first line

 

"if you apply the ideal gas laws you will quickly see that expansion and energy-density reduction are part of the same process."

 

Your premise of energy is used up to create space is wrong, as space isn't a substance that needs to be created, this would then invalidate your model idea. As the premise of the model is based on a misconception (don't feel bad though when I first started studying Cosmology I fell into this trap myself, the vast majority of the populace does)

Edited July 7, 2014 by Mordred

[Iseason]

I'm having a good giggle really.

I've learnt more here in a few days than years of arguing in other forums. Thanks heaps.

 

A question though. Is it the current view that space was always there? My understanding was that this was still undecided , in as much as the pre- Big Bang was undecided. I 'm asking this because I've put a lot of thought into behaviours under the premise that space was created along with the inflation in Big Bang.

 

Though I have had trouble getting two people to agree on the same thing except that the current model has it covered . Only I can't seem to find the current model.

 

I found a link on this site which explained the weirdness of time. While I saw a fair bit about stuff I knew and some I didn't , there was something I wanted an answer to . ....the atomic clock proof. Is this THE proof. Or is there further evidence to back this up. My knee jerk reaction was that , ok the clocks were different. Did the other people in the plane continue to live the rest of thier lives a couple of billionths of a second ahead of the rest of us. If not . Then how is that proof.

Why isn't it that atomic clocks fail at high speeds. .....regardless what others experimentation supports the theory?

 

Cheers

Iseeson

Edited July 8, 2014 by Iseason

[Mordred]

glad to hear that, as far as what the universe is expanding into, well this article covers that rather well

http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ surprising for a pop media article, but this one is actually accurate.

 

here is a few articles that cover common misconceptions

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell (personal professor friend of mine wrote this one, covers superluminal expansion)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh

 

this one is particularly handy in a FAQ style to cover the LCDM model

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

 

your atomic clock question is better suited for another thread in the relativity forum.

edit forgot to add a handy tutorial by Ned Wright

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

Edited July 8, 2014 by Mordred

[Iseason]

Hi Mordred

 

I have been very busy following the links you posted. Some I knew , some is news to me. Much of it is better explainations than I have seen before and I really wish these were more publicly shown.

I have heard quite a bit about the balloon inflation concept , but I must admit that my image was a classical balloon and a filled balloon at that. I have never considered the flat balloon concept until now. To give you an idea of who I am. I left school at fifteen years after not really particularly enjoying 'being educated'. Life moved on and as an adult , the mind settled into a rhythm that became very investigative. But of course now I am married and running businesses , so going back to school isn't an option.

 

But I have a big talent which at the same time a big problem. I cannot switch my mind off. I am very successful in business because I can analyse every aspect of it's function through investigation and correct the course of the business. For example , my current position , for the last two years , is fruit and vegetable buyer for a wholesale hospitality supply company in New Zealand . Last years increase was 50% gross profit on previous year . This year will run at another 50% on top of that increase. All of this has been because of a bulldog approach to problem solving and I have been doing this for businesses for 25 years.

I have read several science biographies and attempted to learn the math of science. Unfortunately , the boy who didn't like school does things his way and the math eludes me. But broad concepts are easy for me to understand.

 

Unlike our conversation as it has developed here , most other conversations in forums are like wading through mud. I'm going somewhere but sorting through the crap is hard work. I don't mean the posters aren't smart , but they tend to lack social skills enough to allow you to learn from them. So that's who I am. I am not new at these discussions. I have been doing this for 15 years and glean much about what is right by being told what is wrong.

 

As in business , I have definite starting points and lines of investigation which have taken me to where I dig my flags in. We can reduce my previous posts from models to " points of view" that I hold and have done from the beginning. So here are a few of the reasons I build different models to see how they match up. Please remember I haven't had as clear models of current science to work from.

 

1. I am convinced that the mis use of infinity as" forever and ever " is responsible for a lot of bad science and an unachievable result.

 

2 . That energy conservation law can be applied " right from the beginning" . In other words the expansion theory , giving us a huge universe from a pinhead violates this law in current description. We see and expect to find " a lot of energy" . However , my reduction view point can show the expansion we see without lots of energy " actually being present" . ( I wil have to show you other models which are more in line with my thinking.)

 

3. That the event we see as our universe has already completed it's cycle and we are in a review. I feel this because we are not just " players in the universe" , but also part of the universal pattern which could not be perceived by us until it was completed.

5. That the universe is created via the original pinpoint " dying". This has no religious conatations.

 

6. I see the universe as neither finite or infinite( although I argued for a finite universe for some time) the reason is simple.

The " death "of the pinpoint was an even which " happened all at once" . The difference between 1 and 0 has stages but not necessarily do they follow the timeline we view. They follow a logical pattern that we have the unique position within .

 

Recently ,I began experimenting with models that used the fact that according to current mathematics the difference between whole numbers can have infinite variation. So a pinpoint that was " whole",can produce as much complexity as needed to explain the universe we see in reduction. Hence a " reduction universe " is as viable as an " expansion universe" .

Neither is there any need to have energy present in the universe " all at once" . Since time and space is the result , the method doesn't require them . It's only in review and at the frequency that we inhabit that they become important to us.

 

Cheers

Iseason

[Mordred]

the pinpoint beginning is a misnomer if that helps, if you take our observable universe portion only excluding the rest of the possible universe, and reverse expansion and inflation, the our observable universe started at a pinpoint.

 

However that being said we have no idea how large the entire universe is or isn't. A finite value cannot become infinite, and an infinite value cannot become finite. So if the entire universe was infinite in the past it is infinite now. This also means an infinite amount of mass-energy.

 

keep in mind the hot big bang model does not attempt to describe how the universe started. There is two forms of singularity, one is the classical balck hole singularity that everyone is familiar with. The other is simply a point where our current knowledge of physics no longer makes any sense in describing the model being described. This occurs at 10^-43 seconds from T=0 of the universe beginning, this s when the hot big bang model starts. Not prior.

 

Physics does not like infinities, whenever possible we try to remove infinities. Some models can actually describe both the BH and the universe beginning without infinities and singularities. The strongest contender is loop quantum cosmology. In this model the universe is a result of a bounce from a previous collapsed universe. In the BH singularity the BH also bounces, however due to time dilation we cannot see the bounce. The paper on this one is Planck stars

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562
Planck stars
Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto
(Submitted on 25 Jan 2014)
A star that collapses gravitationally can reach a further stage of its life, where quantum-gravitational pressure counteracts weight. The duration of this stage is very short in the star proper time, yielding a bounce, but extremely long seen from the outside, because of the huge gravitational time dilation. Since the onset of quantum-gravitational effects is governed by energy density --not by size-- the star can be much larger than planckian in this phase. The object emerging at the end of the Hawking evaporation of a black hole can then be larger than planckian by a factor (m/mP)n, where m is the mass fallen into the hole, mP is the Planck mass, and n is positive. The existence of these objects alleviates the black-hole information paradox. More interestingly, these objects could have astrophysical and cosmological interest: they produce a detectable signal, of quantum gravitational origin, around the 10−14cm wavelength.

 

its got some intriquing possibilities, LQC is a strong contender for LCDM

[Iseason]

Hi Mordred

I'm just posting the model I prefer . I know it is simplistic and it isn't supposed to be a correct string. I am simply showing a better way to account for the reduction concept. The main description is that any reduction is accounted for and although energy doesn't remain with the pinpoint , it is crucial to how we view time and space.

 

So we begin with the original point of energy = 1 or whole

 

The expectation would be that the next lower number would be .999999999999 (9 's to infinity) with a very small number with a lot of zeros and eventually a 1 on the end as it's match.

 

If I give the "whole " a value of ten , then it's a bit easier to show. And I' m assuming a much smaller number of values .

10

5 , 10 , -5

 

I've chosen a figure straight to a split as this is more logical. If I follow reduction straight down in a progression , it will get hung up at halfway or equilibrium and is just as likely to reverse direction .

 

10

5 ,-5

4 , -6

3 , -7

2 , -8

1 , -9

0

 

Of course this is incredibly simple and can't represent compexity . The pairs balance each other and the minus numbers are undetectable. The plus numbers are the actual value of the original pinpoint as it reduces . Naturally the string is going to be rather much longer than this and will all reduce from 1.

 

The reason it is good is that it means the universe always adds up to 1 but can have a huge amount of variation and change in behaviour. There are never two positions in space with the same value despite always adding to 1.

 

Cheers iseason

[Mordred]

actually there is models that have the same basis, as you state though your particular numbers are a bit simplistic. In those models however the total energy is zero. The specific model is called the zero energy universe. The universe from nothing model uses this process.

 

http://physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143

 

essentially you have effectively negative energy and positive energy.

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

ON THE ZERO-ENERGY UNIVERSE

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf

 

would it surprise you to know that Allen Guth's false vacuum inflation also uses a similar argument?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

 

also if you look at the thermodynamics of the universe, its essentially the same thing, though instead of 2 variables you have temperature, pressure, energy-density, volume, and entropy.

 

So there is nothing wrong with your line of thinking, you just need the details to fill in the blanks so to speak

[Iseason]

Thanks Mordred

 

This model is my favourite. I have been working on it for a while now and I know that the basic principles is as far as I can get with my maths background.

 

The reason for a pinpoint beginning is that it can be no larger than the smallest thing that we can detect. It's the cumulative effect of the rate of variation and the sheer number of variations that gives the impression of lots of energy.

 

Cheers iseason

 

I'm off to read your links

Ok

 

I am very pleased to see these links relate to current questioning. I can honestly state that I never knew of them and that my lines of reasoning are my own.

 

As I can see it , the previous link where I stated my core beliefs seems to be the difference.

 

A reduction by one measure over the entire event

The universe actually dies.

This has already happened

We are reviewing the result

 

There are points that go further.

 

Everything can only ever be in motion

A position can only be used once

Nothing ( not one moment) could have been different

The result is an inevitable universe

 

Cheers

Iseason

[Iseason]

The reasons for the first three points.

 

It embeds the process as a full non negotiable . Prevents it from being either finite or infinite. And completely closes the system with not opportunity to affect the result.

 

If what we observe is a complete event , and yet while remaining as part of the result , can observe it's parts , then it is a review . We tend to object to this by saying. "Look . I can choose to do something random". My answer is that you were always going to do that . It is part of the completed cycle.

 

"The universe doesn't know if I will go left or right". You already chose which way you would go and it's part of the result.

 

The reason for the second points is.

 

Part of it is explained in the above. For the fact that you cannot occupy a single position twice. Most of space is empty , and although every one knows this , we still tend to feel that we fill some area completely . If I run into a brick wall , there must be a good amount of space used up by me and the brick wall.

Even an object like a planet like earth could not completely cover every space in it's pathway despite it's size and mass.

The reason you cannot use a position twice is the twin or paired aspect of the string . The two values of the reduction pairs create unique keys that can not be used by other pairs. In simplistic terms. At point .25 , -.75 it cannot be occupied by .45 ,-.55 or any other value. There are no matching possibilities which could re- use a position in space , although an object could pass over an area where an object was. This would be radiation and such space travelling 'brooms' sweeping up the leftovers. The corridors for such are specific and rarefied in the wake of a star or planet.

This is Bourne out by the fact that nothing from the smallest to the largest remains in one point in space. Everything must be in motion both locally and universally. Locally , every atom is a hive of activity and universally we travel through space.

 

Cheers iseason

[Mordred]

Its tricky to understand what your describing with the last two posts, so I would recommend reading the materials provided. When you do so you should be able to formulate your model ideas with more exacting terminology. It would be far too easy to misinterpret the last two posts, as they say its always best to understand why the current theories exist before developing a new one. One of the reasons for that is that you can at least have the tools to present your model in the same language so to speak, and also more often than not you may find your ideas may already exist or find a reason that invalidates them due to a previous misunderstanding or greater understanding.

[Strange]

A question though. Is it the current view that space was always there?

 

As far as I know, this is unknown. It probably requires a theory of quantum gravity (causal dynamical triangulation, loop quantum gravity, or something). We may find that space (and time) are just emergent properties of some deeper theory.

 

This is another good paper: "Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?" http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

It gets pretty mathematical, but the introduction is quite readable.

 

 

there was something I wanted an answer to . ....the atomic clock proof. Is this THE proof. Or is there further evidence to back this up. My knee jerk reaction was that , ok the clocks were different. Did the other people in the plane continue to live the rest of thier lives a couple of billionths of a second ahead of the rest of us. If not . Then how is that proof.

 

 

This is not "THE" proof; it was just one of the earliest experiments to directly measure time dilation. There are thousands of other experiments that have been performed. All of them are consistent with relativity (note that, in science, nothing is ever proved). And yes, the people on the plane would have experienced less time, just as much as the clocks did. It is not about clocks failing at high speed.

1. I am convinced that the mis use of infinity as" forever and ever " is responsible for a lot of bad science and an unachievable result.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by misuse. In terms of physical extent, infinite would mean "without end" or larger than any distance you can measure. (After all, if you can measure it, then you can just get a longer ruler. Infinity is larger than that.)

 

 

2 . That energy conservation law can be applied " right from the beginning" .

 

This assumption may not be realistic. There is no clear definition of energy in general relativity. Energy is frame-dependent and conservation only applies locally.

 

However, as Mordred says, there are models that define the total energy of the universe as zero. This appears to me to be an attempt to justify a "universe from nothing" speculation.

 

 

3. That the event we see as our universe has already completed it's cycle and we are in a review.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a cycle here. The universe is still (as far as we can tell) still expanding. In fact the expansion has (relatively recently) started accelerating. Sounsd like we are mid-cycle, if anything!

 

 

5. That the universe is created via the original pinpoint " dying".

 

The whole idea of the the universe being created is (currently) pretty much speculation with no real evidence. If by "pinpoint" you mean "singularity", then there is no evidence that this "mathematical anomaly" represents a physically real "thing". If by dying, you mean "no longer being a singularity" then, yes; the universe is not a singularity.

 

 

6. I see the universe as neither finite or infinite

 

Do you mean in spatial extent? (Or in time?)

 

I'm not sure how it can be neither (and your last paragraph doesn't make it any clearer, to me). Either it has a size which could, in principle, be measured or it doesn't. But you seem to have your own definition of infinity. Maybe you need to explain what the word means to you.

 

However, the generally accepted model is that the universe may be finite but if it is, it is "unbounded" (i.e. has no boundary or edge/end). Maybe that is closer to what you mean?

Edited July 10, 2014 by Strange

[Mordred]

 

As far as I know, this is unknown. It probably requires a theory of quantum gravity (causal dynamical triangulation, loop quantum gravity, or something). We may find that space (and time) are just emergent properties of some deeper theory.

This is another good paper: "Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?" http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

It gets pretty mathematical, but the introduction is quite readable.

This is not "THE" proof; it was just one of the earliest experiments to directly measure time dilation. There are thousands of other experiments that have been performed. All of them are consistent with relativity (note that, in science, nothing is ever proved). And yes, the people on the plane would have experienced less time, just as much as the clocks did. It is not about clocks failing at high speed.

I'm not sure what you mean by misuse. In terms of physical extent, infinite would mean "without end" or larger than any distance you can measure. (After all, if you can measure it, then you can just get a longer ruler. Infinity is larger than that.)

This assumption may not be realistic. There is no clear definition of energy in general relativity. Energy is frame-dependent and conservation only applies locally.

However, as Mordred says, there are models that define the total energy of the universe as zero. This appears to me to be an attempt to justify a "universe from nothing" speculation.

I'm not sure what you mean by a cycle here. The universe is still (as far as we can tell) still expanding. In fact the expansion has (relatively recently) started accelerating. Sounsd like we are mid-cycle, if anything!

However, the generally accepted model is that the universe may be finite but if it is, it is "unbounded" (i.e. has no boundary or edge/end). Maybe that is closer to what you mean?

 

 

I've always liked the root of all evil paper, its one of my favorite articles. I also agree that the zero point universe is AFIAK only used in the universe from nothing model, and I've studied a lot of various models. Many of which are all but forgotten, I never worry too much about how the universe began as I find the subject matter too speculative due to the limits of our understanding and observations. (almost as speculative as multiverse models, but not quite) A working GUT theory may or may not answer that question, or being able to measure the cosmic neutrino background may provide some insight as well.

 

LQC has some strong possibilities, here is a decent pedagogal review of LQC (though it gets technical and the metrics take a bit of getting used to)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3833

 

At the moment answering the questions of how inflation occurs, and explaining dark matter and the cosmological constant, are goals that will lead to a better understanding of how the universe began. Perhaps when we can explain those 3 aspects with a strong degree of certainty then we will have the final pieces to narrow down the universe beginning models (along with a working GUT)

Edited July 10, 2014 by Mordred

[Iseason]

Hi Mordred ,Strange

 

I am off to work soon , but will give a very quick answer . The best or closest thing to my model is this one Mordred posted.

 

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

I use 'something TO nothing' and so have a slightly different outcome/ behavioural expectation. When I use the term " dies

" I am highlighting the complete and utter collapse of the energy point from having 1 to having 0 energy.

 

I don't have time now but will explain the last two posts slightly better when I get back.

 

Thanks Mordred

Nice to see you strange

Cheers iseeson

[Iseason]

Hi Mordred , Strange,

 

Strange , fi find the multiquote disconcerting and confusing as I feel I give each point less attention if I try to answer this type of post.

But I'll see what I can answer.

 

I'll certainly take the time to read that link and any other you might think is helpful.

Misusing infinity is more in the nature of conversation I can find using google and the word infinite. Most of these are referring to infinity as " going on forever and ever" . Any forum is full of this use of the term by very well educated posters , so I can find any number of examples of it's misuse in relation to actual physical space.

In saying the universe is neither infinite nor finite , I am saying that neither of these options need be the case. I hear your objection already " it must be one or the other" and I do have a reason for rejecting both. It's just hard to explain. I have argued against an infinite universe for a long time before I realised that a finite universe is just as wrong.

 

To understand which way round I approached the problem that I am working on , it would seem to you a little unorthodox. That could be why I can be adamant about my position on something , but it confuses others. What I noticed a while back was that people were looking for the theory of everything and the solution was hampered by what was in between the beginning and the end. So I looked for the solution and worked backwards.

 

The solution is a quantity which is not only the value at the beginning and the end , but never alters . Never. Since we can measure it's parts the soundest starting point is the smallest division of energy we can measure. In fact , it matters not at this point if we find we can measure something smaller some time in the future , since the methodology is not dependant on the size being actually known.

In empty space , there is no reference point to measure this single point against , so as long as it remains the only thing " actually" present , then it can keep the balance of the theory intact. So I hold to this methodology no matter what.

To satisfy what we observe , it needs to have causality and be able to " do stuff" . I have recently used the reduction idea to show it can do this. I am only happy to use this methodology if it retains the ability to protect the result.

 

The other points such as inevitability are the result of a truly closed system. Not pretend closed where change can occur , but a real closed system which has a completely fixed cycle. The reason for seeing it this way is that we are about the only things in the universe that see this process as personal . In atomic ....it's all process . At universal...it's all process. Us even caring about the process is on a scale of the ant pushing over the house. And there is such a huge dampening effect possible in the size of the universe that what we do matters little. An inevitable universe is tidy and clean and in fact makes everything that happens in the middle essential to the whole. To the very smallest photon. As I said early on . It gives the result.

We are very offended by the concept and i know everything screams that it couldn't be correct. But things can be very strange. That's actually a common statement in any science web explainations I have ever looked at . So I am not daunted by it.

 

I have used this analogy before. That it is like watching a DVD. The contents are fixed and we are watching from within the completed process.

 

When you decide to strip reality down to it's basics , the only things you find is atoms and electrons swirling round in mostly empty space. It would be a mistake to give our personal view of the universe much credit and base anything on our limited scope of reality.

 

Cheers iseeson

Edited July 11, 2014 by Iseason

[Mordred]

truthfully whether the universe is infinite or finite is largely meaningless, both models has its own set of problems. The only time this question becomes important is possibly in how the universe began. The Observable universe however is without a doubt finite. As this is the only possible portion we can gather data from it should be our primary area of concern. A solid understanding of how particles interact is critical to our understanding. Its also one of the reasons I study high energy particle physics, some of the references I posted show the correlations. Your model should include those aspects as well. However as far as you've described thus far, the only way to truly develop your model is to sit down bite the bullet and study the textbooks and related articles. Doesn't take a physicist to learn the material, just takes dedication. I myself am not a physicist and am self taught. However I bought over 30 related textbooks. Learning from a forum can only get you so far, the textbooks are the next best thing to institutional training.

[Iseason]

Thanks Mordred

 

You've been very helpful . Possibly because , as you've stated , your self taught. I know you're right about the study aspect , but I guess I was looking more for a partnership of abilities to develop somewhere along the way. It hasn't happened yet .

 

I have always been amazed at how difficult it is to explain concepts in words in these forum , yet people seem to get complicated (to me) formulas. Obviously different processing methods .

 

However , I think people make as great a study as what we discuss.

 

Cheers iseason