A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

[joshgreen]

 

Simple. There will be noise. Random (white) noise in the power will integrate to a random walk in energy deposited. Thus the total energy deposited in two systems at a given time will random walk away from each other.

 

But I think the larger picture is why would the nominal power be the same in the first place? And what is the mechanism for regulating the temperatures?

This is absolutely meaningless. Show me the mathematics.

[swansont]

This is absolutely meaningless. Show me the mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_noise#Power_spectrum

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=nUj8AeGskN4C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=integral+of+brownian+random+walk&source=bl&ots=ylNJoWBPyF&sig=cTbfpx1rEWT5WcVMaxlPIs4GB3I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kvZcVIHRNsOVNqzQgvgB&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=integral%20of%20brownian%20random%20walk&f=false

[joshgreen]

The LCDM model says nothing about energy existing on its own. Study the FLRW metrics its basically GR and the ideal gas laws. All forms of energy interactd via particles including inflation the particle is the inflaton. the cosmological constant doesn't have a particle assigned yet so the consensus is via virtual particle production.

 

Never in any peer reviewed model is energy on its own.

 

 

The reason I asked for metrics on how inflation can come to a stop then start again is that no inflation model has that specific a characteristic. Inflation in most models comes slowly to a smaller rate. Our current expansion may or may not be inflation still progressing.

 

With 70+ models on inflation there can easily be tons I'm not fully up on. However none I am aware of stop then start

I stated this in another thread a model without the math isn't a model its only an idea or conjecture.

Meant to respond to something else. Don't know how to delete this.

I'm working from my phone atm but the links I posted throughout this thread already have the metrics your requesting. If you like look on my signature cosmology101. Read particle physics of the Early universe. Also there is a free textbook by Liddle. If you specifically want inflation then you need the vacuum equation of state.

 

Here is why. Particle physics tests on Earth show us that above temp 246 Gev all known particles reach thermal equilibrium. If you apply the ideal gas laws to our observable universe and reverse time. The temperature will easily exceed this value. At this point the equation of state for vacuum becomes important. The different models of inflation also uses this formula but derive modifications to it.

 

 

As far as the NASA article they state energy like ie via virtual particle production like the inflation. You need to look deeper than multimedia style articles regardless of source. Too often they are written for those with zero knowledge so they keep them as simplified as possible. Often to the point of being inaccurate.

 

As stated The metrics are in the links I posted. However they are also in the textbook I mentioned.

 

Any cosmology model must include thermodynamics. They can't be based just on distance measures. The FLRW metrics and the Einstein field equations include the ideal gas laws.

As far as your BH scenario. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. We know our observable universe started at a point. But we have zero data on anything outside our observable universe. As such we may never know if the universe is finite or infinite.

 

So how can we say we started at a point? We can only show the observable portion did. We cannot say the rest did.

 

There was one paper that calculated our current curvature. Our universe isn't perfectly flat. Just extremely close to it.

 

If you stopped expsansion right now and using that slight curvature then assumed a finite universe the universe would take 880 billion years to circumnavigate. Now squeeze that volume into a single point. How hot do you get to and how dense.

 

You would easily get into the Tev temperature range.

 

Keep in mind these statements can all be mathematically shown in the materials I listed.

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

Here is the FLRW metric in different dimensions ,2d 3d and 4d for flat positive and negative curvature.

 

I wrote this article. References are listed.

 

Here is page 1 the first link is page 2

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

Oops it was another thread I had posted the articles in. Anyways this article covers everything I stated above.

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf

Should be noted if you work at it you can do neat stuff like calculate the number of photons at a specific temperature such as say the CMB or the number of neutrinos etc

See the chapters covering Bose-Einstien and Fermi-Dirac distributions

I've gotten a chance to look over your stuff. Very interesting. You certainly sound like you know your stuff. As valid as all this looks, the only issue I have with it is that none of his was written Edwin Hubble. The issue (of first order) here is, is observation enough to present a theory?

 

"Edwin Hubble discovers that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Edwin Hubble uses the new 100-inch telescope on Mt. Wilson in Southern California to discover that the farther away a galaxy is, the more its light is shifted to the red."

See http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/tl18.html and many other sources.

 

The key is "Edwin Hubble uses the new 100-inch telescope." It's observation that pretty much kicked off the theory of an expanding universe. Most, if not all, of the metrics came later.

 

My theory is at the stage that the big bang was in 1929. And I do present well-known cosmological facts that seem to corroborate my theory. Will it stand up upon further scrutiny? I believe it will, but only time will tell.

 

But I do appreciate your input. You sound like quite a scholarly person.

 

I'll be moving on. It's been nice. I came here to have a scientifically intellectual discussion. And to a certain degree, I did get that from the scholarly sounding Mordred. He presented some interesting data to bolster his points. That's the way it should be.

 

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for STARNGE. A discussion with him is like telling someone not to stay on the sun too long so he doesn't get a sunburn, and he comes back with something like "prove to me that the sun is hot." Really? If you can't get past obvious, self-evident facts without being confronted with "prove to me," aside from stifling a conversation, it degenerate the entire discussion into a childish, "wise guy" type of discussion. In a classroom, an individual like STRANGE would be called an instigator and a trouble maker.

 

To the moderator:

You state "who has to show the maths, it is you." I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world visual observation does count as substantiating a claim. It is so in court and it is so in science. My theory is backed up by many observations and is as testable as the big bang was in 1929; by observation and other established facts. Math is only one method of testing. You seem to be plagued with the same confusion as STRANGE. Or are you actually STRANGE?

 

Doesn't matter. I'm outta here. You may trash this thread; it does not have the value I'd hoped it would have. I did start this thread with nothing but an honest presentation of a theory and my response were nothing but polite (and that is testable, just refer back to the beginning, no mathematics required). It is responses such as STRANGE's that turn an intellectual discussion confrontational and childish.

 

Moderator, you have my blessing to trash this thread. Have a nice life, ya all.

 

Edited November 7, 2014 by joshgreen

[swansont]

My theory is backed up by many observations and is as testable as the big bang was in 1929

It's not 1929.

[Strange]

By the way, the introductory front matter of a book is called a "foreword" nor a "forward".

[Mordred]

Thanks for the compliment.

[ajb]

I am still amazed that someone wrote a book on cosmology without knowing any cosmology.

 

Maybe I will write a book the Chinese language, I am sure it can be made much simpler than it currently is.

Edited November 8, 2014 by ajb

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Since the OP has declared his self-exile, there is nothing to discuss and this is locked.