Mordred Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Geez! I know that expansion is given by the ratio of 68,7 km per second per megaparsec; but the reason is that the space-time involved is too great to put it in miles per hours. So if you add all the megaparsecs of the universe, the total expansion cannot exceed light speed, and it doesn't. Because if you take Hubble's constant and multiply it with the number of megaparsec of the universe, you'l get a universe of a diameter of 27,6 billion light-years. This is incorrect, taking the speed of light* the age of the universe gives the Hubble Horizon. However we see objects past the Hubble Horizon. Those objects have an apparent recessive velocity greater than c. At the age of the CMB for example the recessive velocity is 3.1c at redshift z=1100.. We cannot see past the CMB. Not yet anyways not until we can measure and detect the cosmic neutrino background. You need to use the scale factor a. Not Hubble constant. Hubble constant is only constant in space not in time. Its one of those misleading terms. The rate of expansion is different prior to the CMB than it is today. There are 3 primary eras. Each has its own rate of expansion. Radiation dominant, matter dominant and Lambda (cosmological constant) dominant. Note inflation occured during the radiation dominant. The radiation dominant essentially stopped just prior to the CMB. Then gravity started to slow down expansion. But not stop it. This continued until the universe was 7.1 billion years old roughly. However as the universe was still expanding, the rate of expansion was gradually slowing down. Then the cosmological constant became dominant and as such the rate of expansion started to accelerate. The lineweaver and Davies article covers these details. The tangentspaces article simplifies the lineweaver and Davies article. The observable universe as Strange mentioned is 93 Gly in radius today. From our perspective on Earth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe The FLRW metric to distance formula is. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex] [latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sin r/R & k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sin r/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) I should note if your reading textbooks older than roughly the year 2000 you will be learning the wrong FLRW metrics. Prior to WMAP the cosmological constant was not confirmed. So all distance formulas will be in conformal distance. Based on the Hubble sphere. Not on commoving distances. Which includes the cosmological constant. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116"Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg This article has an excellent coverage Here is an article I wrote on redshift and expansion with some coverage on luminosity distance and the cosmic distance ladder. I originally intended it as a FAQ but it got too lengthy lol http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion The balloon analogy use to represent more than what is explained in the link. At the epoch that everybody was sure that space-time was curved, the surface of the balloon represented this curvature of space that everything had to follow to get from one point to another. So nobody could ever get inside the balloon. Only speed could modify the curvature of space-time. But since space-time his proven flat, everybody (every gravitational deformation of space-time) "lives in the balloon. . This is garbage, the balloon analogy is only used to show how the dots move away from each other and how it's increase in distance between dots increase regardless of which dots you use, and the angles between any 2 or more dots do not change. The inside our outside the balloon is 100% meaningless. Flat does does represent the universes shape either. It is a differential geometry descriptive of the universes density to expansion/contraction rates. If the universes actual density =the calculated critical density the universe is flat. "The 'critical density' is the average density of matter required for the Universe to just halt its expansion, but only after an infinite time. A Universe with the critical density is said to be flat." However this is prior to the cosmological constant. The critical density formula is [latex]\rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}=10^{-29} grams/cm^3[/latex] http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Critical+Density Edited July 26, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) As long as people will think that quantity of matter floating in space has an influence on the expansion of the universe (and keep using the formulas that they say "proves" it), we will get nowhere. The critical density notion was devised at a time when everyone thought that mass (of matter) were attracting themselves so it had to slow down expansion and was (by the same token) curving space-time. When it was discovered that it wasn't at all, the fact of the non observed curvature (flat space-time) was explained by the existence of matter we didn't see, that brought up matter density very near to critical density. Nobody dared say and probably even thought saying that expansion didn't have anything to do with gravitation; mainly because gravitation "had to be" universal even if we observed that it was not. The fact is that matter, spread in the universe, has just as much effect on the expansion as fishes, spread in a river, have the possibility to stop or reverse its flow (ever expanding universe or a Big crunch). As for clusters and super clusters of galaxies, they all have better chances to be "formed" by the expansion of space-time in between the filament structures we see at large scale. Those "empty" spaces are so great that they expand exponentially more faster than the filaments which contains all the matter of the universe. As a matter of fact, if you take the picture of CMB made by COBE and you imagine the expansion of the "blue spots" (no matter) expanding faster than the "red spots" (where there's matter), after 13 billions years you get the filament styructures we see at large scale universe. But what can I say more that all this? I've been "studying" astrophysics (not learning by heart what others were saying) for 60 years; so I know its trajectory of development it as adopted and the only thing I can say is that all that development was based on an imaginary notion which dates 328 years. A notion that even its owner couldn't beleive. But like he said: "It works" So..." But it doesn't work anymore; but no one will admit it; so... Edited June 30, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Tell you what you tell us how a force of attraction only... Can dictate how objects separate without using vacuum pressure or radiation. It's obvious you seem to believe you have the answers despite the textbook and professional peer reviewed material developed by thousands of highly regarded professional scientists . So impressed me show the mathematics of how your expansion works based only on matter You claim to have studied astrophysics for 60 years and didn't know how expansion is properly described??:? Not did you understand what the relationship between critical density is to universe geometry. So impress me... show your mathematical model. By the way you even had the size of the observable universe wrong. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people assume established science is wrong simply because they can't understand or study how it works. The Planck datasets confirms the accuracy of the 6 parameter [latex]\Lambda CDM[/latex] model. The CMB is direct result of Big bang nucleosynthesis which involves thermodynamic laws, as well as particle physics. Those same laws conform to how the universe expands. Non relativistic matter has a negligible influence upon pressure. Radiation and relativistic radiation does. You can deny this all you like but those influences are fully tested. I showed you the energy momentum stress energy tensor. P is pressure [latex]\rho[/latex] is energy density. I've shown you the acceleration equations and the ideal gas law relations and provided peer reviewed papers to support my answers. Your turn to prove myself and the rest of science wrong I assume your aware that inflation in Allen Guth's original inflation model involves vacuum right? That's why it's called "False Vacuum.". Vacuum and pressure is the same entity. Currently there is still 70+ viable inflation models. False vacuum isn't one of them due to "runaway inflation" http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 Encyclopedia inflationaris. They are listed and tested here. Here is a relevant quote from that article. "In order to produce a phase of inflation within General Relativity, the matter content of the universe has to be dominated by a fluid with negative pressure. At very high energy, the correct description of matter is field theory, the prototypical example being a scalar field since it is compatible with the symmetries implied by the cosmological principle. Quite remarkably, if the potential of this scalar field is sufficiently flat (in fact, more precisely, its logarithm) so that the field moves slowly, then the corresponding pressure is negative." Edited June 30, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Like I already insinuated: all I can say for now is: Your'e right. Now, if I could find a mathematician that is ready to create a formula that takes a 0+ kinetic energy of a point of 0+ size, that will describe an exponantial increase of both by rotating at exponantial speed, starting at 0+ speed, then we could talk about the origin of the universe. He would have to consider centripetal and centrifugal force in the process; naturally. Before that moment, you will always be right. Edited June 30, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The closest you get is inflation. Ever stop and wonder why it includes a quasi particle ? The inflaton. This is because energy does not exist on its own. It is a property in this case of particles. Why would you need rotation ? A rotating universe is the Godel universe and its been proven wrong. Rotation has a center and a preferred direction. The universe is measured to have neither a preferred direction or center. It is homogeneous and isotropic. Here I wrote this a bit ago, but the material is also covered in the links I provided. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89385-cosmological-principal/page-2#entry871587 Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing" mathematically it works but it misses one key detail. It takes energy to form virtual particles. Another option is zero energy universe.. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063 That's about as close as I've ever seen on original universe models without including a previous universe ie bounce or cyclic. The inherent problem is where does the energy come from without violating the conservation of energy laws As far as BH origin models. Probably the best one is a 5d star becoming a 4d BH which forms a 3d universe. Planck stars. http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562
Andre Lefebvre Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) The closest you get is inflation. Ever stop and wonder why it includes a quasi particle ? The inflaton. This is because energy does not exist on its own. It is a property in this case of particles. Couldn't it be simply the neutrino? Why would you need rotation ? Because I have to increase exponentially the size of the point 0+ and the kinetic energy of 0+ up to 10-35 meter and the actual total energy of the universe by increasing exponentially the rotating speed up to the point reached at 10-45 sec after time = zero, when everything "exploded" because centripetal force couldn't anymore hold everything together since the small difference between it and centrifugal force had also increase exponentially. Centrifugal force manifested itself at the beginning of the first rotation while centripetal force manifested itself only at the end of that first rotation. . Rotation has a center and a preferred direction. If you supply me the formula needed, I'll tell you the direction of the rotation and what happens to the center of the surface created when everything explodes at 10-45 sec. Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing" mathematically it works but it misses one key detail. It takes energy to form virtual particles. No I haven't. Thanks for the tip. But in a rotation, all it needs is a "non-null" energy at the start; and from a unidimensional point you access to a surface after the first rotation. The inherent problem is where does the energy come from without violating the conservation of energy laws The non-null energy could come from the dilemna "to be or not to be". A 0+ energy is enough for a start. It's the least quantity of energy that can exist at the zero point. But that problem doesn't exist when we are talking of Planck's era when energy increased until it reached its maximum at 10-45 sec after time = zero. We are talking of a period where volume didn't exist. It was a two dimensional universe period. Edited June 30, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) This has definitely gone from mainstream to speculation. Model development is done in the speculation forum. The mods will probably move it there. There is a key detail your still missing your trying to describe the beginning of the universe from a finite point of origin. Expansion has no point of origin, we don't know the volume of the entire universe. We only know how our Observable portion today started in volume from 10^43 seconds forward. So your not going to find a formula that will work on this scenario. Like I already insinuated: all I can say for now is: Your'e right. Now, if I could find a mathematician that is ready to create a formula that takes a 0+ kinetic energy of a point of 0+ size, that will describe an exponantial increase of both by rotating at exponantial speed, starting at 0+ speed, then we could talk about the origin of the universe. He would have to consider centripetal and centrifugal force in the process; naturally. Before that moment, you will always be right. This scenario has a point of origin and rotation. The universe isn't rotating. That's why the Godel universe was proven wrong. Couldn't it be simply the neutrino? Because I have to increase exponentially the size of the point 0+ and the kinetic energy of 0+ up to 10-35 meter and the actual total energy of the universe by increasing exponentially the rotating speed up to the point reached at 10-45 sec after time = zero, when everything "exploded" because centripetal force couldn't anymore hold everything together since the small difference between it and centrifugal force had also increase exponentially. Centrifugal force manifested itself at the beginning of the first rotation while centripetal force manifested itself only at the end of that first rotation. . If you supply me the formula needed, I'll tell you the direction of the rotation and what happens to the center of the surface created when everything explodes at 10-45 sec. No I haven't. Thanks for the tip. But in a rotation, all it needs is a "non-null" energy at the start; and from a unidimensional point you access to a surface after the first rotation. The non-null energy could come from the dilemna "to be or not to be". A 0+ energy is enough for a start. It's the least quantity of energy that can exist at the zero point. But that problem doesn't exist when we are talking of Planck's era when energy increased until it reached its maximum at 10-45 sec after time = zero. We are talking of a period where volume didn't exist. It was a two dimensional universe period. So how did you increase the energy without violating conservation of energy laws to go from 0+ to over 10^16 GeV? Or 10^27 Kelvin? Energy isn't free. As far as zero point energy. You can use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle quantum harmonic oscillator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Here perhaps you can use the Godel metrics though Godel himself admits this doesn't describe our universe. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/15/1/013063/article Edited June 30, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) So how did you increase the energy without violating conservation of energy laws to go from 0+ to over 10^16 GeV? Or 10^27 Kelvin? The 0+ energy starts the rotation. That energy gives a rotation speed of 0+. At the end of the first rotation speed is 0+ but the original energy still apply so at the start of the second rotation energy doubles (original energy + kinetic energy of the spêed of the firts rotation). Energy is now (0+)2 . At the end of the second rotation energy is (0+)4 and so on. Because energy is conserved, it increases exponentially. Edited June 30, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 What supplied the energy to increase Rotation speed? Objects don't change rotation speed without energy being supplied Google conservation of angular momentum. See a problem here. Let's look at the conservation laws and universe creation theories. 1) universe from nothing models cannot define where the energy to create matter/universe came from 2) bounce or cyclic universe models amount to "turtles all the way down" They cannot answer how the first universe started. Any universe beginning model suffers those two problems. The BB model doesn't try to answer that question. It simply deals with how our universe evolves from 10-43 seconds forward. Despite pop media shows of some cataclysmic explosion which is ,100% wrong
Andre Lefebvre Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 The way I see it, supplying isn't needed in a rotation. Let's say that the energy is installed at the center of de rotating surface (disc). That energy is not spent when the first rotation is done; it is still there in the center; otherwise the rotation would stop and you would have annihilated energy which is impossible. So the same amount of energy as at the start of the rotation is still there at the end of the rotation. That rotation takes place in a bidimensional universe where there's no "volume". This is a "virtual" universe. So that energy manifests itself once more adding to the kinetic energy of the speed already gained by the first rotation. That's why the speed doubles, the surface extend (centrifugal) for the second time and the centripetal force appears for the first time. And now, the energy at the center of the rotating surface is doubled because it has to be equal to the speed of the disk.
Mordred Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Sorry conservation laws don't work that way. The object rotates due to the amount of force applied to it on its first rotation. In a frictionless system it will continue rotating at the same RPM. Until additional force/energy is applied. Newtons three laws of inertia apply. However this does nothing to describe how a universe would form. Honestly look at basic physics before trying to solve a problem thousands of professional scientists haven't been able to answer lol. Edited June 30, 2015 by Mordred
Mordred Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) No prob it was an interesting discussion. Though word of advise on forum rules. Any details outside of mainstream science belongs in speculations forum. So if you like to propose alternative ideas that's the place to do so. The forum mods gave us considerable leniancy in this thread. Modelling toy universes however can be fun lol A great deal of mainstream science can be learned via toy universe conjectures. For example Barbera Rydens " Introductory to Cosmology" has specific mathematics to the following. (All assuming flat geometry) Matter only Radiation only Lambda only Combinations of the above. The value is this teaches how each affects the universe specifically. However all these models must conform to the conservation and thermodynamic laws. Edited June 30, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 I'm working right now on Barbera Rydens " Introductory to Cosmology" . It's very interesting. She brings us trhough the history of astrophysics and physics where we have the "decisions" taken by science to push forward. It's important to compare the new results of observations to those "decisions" I think. That's what I'm doing now. Thanks for the info.
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Mordred I have a question for you. if you please, naturally. You asked me prebiously: So how did you increase the energy without violating conservation of energy laws My question is: If a "virtual" surface in rotation has a certain speed that is constant, will centrifugal effect extend its surface? (Like a pizza we throw in the air in a rotation to extend its surface). If the answer is yes, the de length of the radius increases and the speed of the edge of the surface also increases. Just like a skater, at the end of a line of five skaters, as to skate faster than all the preceding ones up to where the first one rotate slowly on himself. So the more the surface extends, the more speed its edge gains. That would be an increase of kinetic energy; would it not? The same as if we had a sixth, seventh and eight skater. Each one of them will have to skate faster than the precedent? Edited July 1, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Let's use your pizza example. At the first radius your have an RPM. As the pizza increases in volume that RPM will slow down unless you add inertia to the rotation. In other words as the radius increases you need to supply energy to maintain the same rate of rotation. Take your single speed skater as an example. Start with her arms tucked in. When she extends her arms her spin slows down and vise versa. This is covered under conservation of angular momentum. Edited July 1, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Thank you. I'm only trying to find a way that increases kinetic energy from zero to maximum so it explodes in a Big bang at 10-45 sec. If it's impossible to create energy in the Planck epoch, it's impossible to have a Big bang at 10-45 sec The only possibility to get it will be to install a "conscience" rated 0+ that wants "to be" instead of "not to be" and increases its "will" at the rate of evolving. Like if all I want is money and as I get some, I want more and more etc. But that's far from science speculation. So I'll let the idea settle by itself for a while. Thanks to all, Edited July 1, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
md65536 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Why would you need rotation ? A rotating universe is the Godel universe and its been proven wrong. Rotation has a center and a preferred direction. The universe is measured to have neither a preferred direction or center. It is homogeneous and isotropic. Is rotation in higher dimensions also ruled out? This is purely speculation... Imagine a one-dimensional universe embedded on the equator of a rotating sphere. Different centrifugal force and preferred direction would be seen on the surface of the sphere, depending on phi coordinate or latitude. The center of rotation is on the r coordinate. In "flatland" style, the 1D beings seeing only the equator would see no preferred direction or center, and inertia/centrifugal force would appear as a homogeneous, isotropic expansion force. Is it possible that a rotation in 5D (or 4D?) could hide a center and preferred direction? If it's impossible to create energy in the Planck epoch, it's impossible to have a Big bang at 10-45 sec The only possibility to get it will be to install a "conscience" rated 0+ that wants "to be" instead of "not to be" and increases its "will" at the rate of evolving. Like if all I want is money and as I get some, I want more and more etc. But that's far from science speculation. Have you watched the Krauss "Universe from Nothing" video linked earlier? It explains how it is possible that a universe, consistent with measurements of our own, can exist with 0 net energy. I think it shows that questions like "what came before that, and what was its cause (ie. anything making or "wanting" the big bang to happen)?" don't need to have answers... or that the answers might just be "nothing." Edited July 1, 2015 by md65536
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Have you watched the Krauss "Universe from Nothing" video linked earlier? Yes I have; and I also have read the opinion of scientists that oppose Krauss affirmation which they say are not based on facts of science. I think it shows that questions like "what came before that, and what was the cause, and why?" don't need to have answers. I think that if those kinds of question had been eliminated at the beginning of history of science, we would still be tenderizing meat with a rock. Any question that arises in a mind deserves an answer. At least, mine. Imagine a one-dimensional universe embedded on the equator of a rotating sphere. Different centrifugal force and preferred direction would be seen on the surface of the sphere, depending on phi coordinate or latitude. The center of rotation is on the r coordinate. In "flatland" style, the 1D beings seeing only the equator would see no preferred direction or center, and inertia/centrifugal force would appear as a homogeneous, isotropic expansion force. That's a good remark. I'll think about it. Since in my speculation the starting point is a "unidimensional point" that produces a surface, it has to have duplications of that unidimensional point emerging from the center of the rotation (axis) to make a two dimensional surface. Surfaces and volumes are made of unidimensional points in Euclidian geometry; and since our univers is Euclidian...Adding "points" could change the "game" maybe. If I take the example of skaters, and start with one skater rotating at a constant speed with his arms streched. Then, you and me, we start skating and join the lonely skater, each of us taking one of his hands. We are skating quite a bit faster than the shoulders of our former lonely skater are rotating. If we keep on adding skaters at each ends of the line (in reality one new point was taking place in the center making the hole surface wobble), there will be a moment where they won't be able to hold the hand of their previous skater; and if they do (wich is what happens when there's no place to be ejected to; space doesn't exist yet), it's the original lonely skater that will have his arms torned from him. That's what happened at 10-45 sec after time = zero. The "line" (surface of multiple points) split in two, the rotation of both new lines reversed and...bang! the motions of the ejected skaters in all directions created space-time, resulting from their "movement", which represented the sum of kinetic energy attained before the "splitting" of the line (surface). Three dimensional space-time was born. Space-time is the product of movement (kinetic energy). Edited July 2, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Well I can't really state a 5d dimension is impossible. There has been similar ideas though they refer to them as Branes. Aka a version of string theory. In the case I'm thinking of is the Ekpyrotic universe. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0103239v3.pdf I should however note the Planck dataset measurements specifically state the observations do not support this model. I'm sure there is other possible alternates.
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Well I can't really state a 5d dimension is impossible. Mordred I'm not talking of a 5d dimension at all; I'm talking of time = 0 whith a unidimensional point (inobservable) that represents the first dimension. That point start to rotate because his energy is 0+ . Its rotation makes it "expand by adding a new uni-dimensional point and both keep rotating; both two unidimensional points become a bidimensional "event" and the rotation makes it a surface which represents a bi-dimensional "dimension" (virtual universe); and this bi-dimensional dimension expands to the point where it splits in half with all its points (in fact half of them) are projected in all directions. The center of the bi-dimensional surface had "exploded"; so the movement in all directions, giving depth to the former surface, resulted in a tri-dimensional universe. Our universe is the result of movement. That movement produces "distances" and "duration" which we now call space-time. So I'm talking of a three dimensional space plus the time dimension. Nothing more. When I was young, scientists use to explain Planck's time like if someone would pull a three dimensional fish from the surface of a lake that had no depth. Which is pretty close to a two dimensional "universe". Today we talk about a fluctuating "foam" that as zero thickness. I guess we can say it's the same "picture" for Planck's time. I should however note the Planck dataset measurements specifically state the observations do not support this model. I'm sure there is other possible alternates. All this happened beforme Planck's time of 10-45 sec. This hapenned during Planck's epoch. Edited July 2, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) There is no professional answer to what happens at t=0 to t=10^-45 seconds that is beyond speculative models. Those models include the ones I've posted. Our physics breaks down at this era into what is known as the big bang singularity state of unknown size and origin. All these alternative ideas are just proposals. You have to understand particle accelerators cannot come close to generating the temperatures involved. So we can only make reasonable guesses based on current particle physics understanding. Also we cannot observe anything prior to the surface of last scattering on the CMB. Photon light path has too short a mean free path due to other particle interference. Prior to last scattering is the dark ages. It's hoped detecting the cosmic neutrino background will help gather data before the last scattering surface. Grand unification models depends on which particle physics models are most accurate. The list includes SO(10) MSM minimal standard model SO(10) MSSM minimal super symmetric. These are currently the two main contenders. The hope is we can finally detect super symmetric particles. All multiverse model proposals are hoping to find evidence of a previous interaction in the CMB. Baryon accoustic oscillations offer some clues on inflation itself but the data isn't thus far conclusive enough to narrow down the list. Any knowledge we have prior to the surface of last scattering is based upon thermodynamic, GR, the ideal gas laws and particle physics tests not upon actual observation. So any of the models I've posted are all valid until proven invalid... They all make testable predictions otherwise they wouldn't be a model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe So there is no mainstream professional answer to your question. Your quantum foam model is currently in the form of LQC loop quantum gravity. This model avoids the singularity issue by using a bounce from a previous collapsed universe. Quantum foam itself was essential proven inaccurate as it lead to energy levels 120 orders of magnitude too high. Also the tests that were done showed no evidence of space being lumpy as opposed to smooth. They timed different wavelengths of light from supernova and found no difference in arrival times due to wavelength interactions of space time quantum foam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam Though counter arguments still exist So I can't give you an answer to a problem with no conclusive answer. I can only point you into possible proposals. By the way GUT happens to be a field I enjoy studying. Here is some of the better materials I found. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES On Higgs involvement in Higgs inflation, potentially dark matter, and the cosmological constant. (These are based on the S0(10) primarily MSSM minimal super symmetric standard model.) Note these articles all intensily involve the Higgs field metastability Mexican hat potential. 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 The left hand right hand neutrinos involves Pati Salam model. Which is a subset of SO(10) SO(10) A La Pati-Salam http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0204097 Another helpful article is this gem The Phenomenology of Right Handed Neutrinos http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6912 Edited July 2, 2015 by Mordred
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Thank you for all the links Mordred. I'll see if there's anything new I never read about. There is no professional answer to what happens at t=0 to t=10^-45 seconds that is beyond speculative models Then what are String theories doing then? Our physics breaks down at this era into what is known as the big bang singularity state of unknown size and origin. I hope than you saw that I was trying to give you a proposition that tries to describe the origin of the singularity that stands at 10-43 sec with a size of 10-35 meter that would be a "surface" before it "explodes". My proposition explains a lot more than what I said already. But I guess I won't have time to tell you since I've got so much things to read before doing it. Also we cannot observe anything prior to the surface of last scattering on the CMB. Photon light path has too short a mean free path due to other particle interference. I thought everybody knew that. But you're right we never repeat enough. Prior to last scattering is the dark ages. It's hoped detecting the cosmic neutrino background will help gather data before the last scattering surface. Information from CMB by Planck does give a lot to think about that refers to the big bang. Especially on the original "radiance" after 10^-45 sec followed by inflation where appeared the first gravitational "fields" containing massive particles like quarks and so on. But even if my proposition dates more than ten years ago, it says that "radiance" (in fact, movement of left hand neutrinos instead of "inflaton") was the only existing particle in the universe. That at 10-36 sec the gluon particle "jumped" in our universe from Planck's epoch and started disintegrating in massive particles starting the inflation. And so on. My proposition explains why particles appeared with antiparticles. It explains why space-time at the Big bang was a "flat universe" and still is. It explains how gravity works and what is "mass" and "mass energy". In fact I didn't find anything yet it doesn't explain. But it doesn't explain anything that bases itself on the false notion that mass is attracted by mass. Sorry. All multiverse model proposals are hoping to find evidence of a previous interaction in the CMB. Mine does; and it's simply because it's not a multiverse proposal it's a single evoluting universe proposal. Any knowledge we have prior to the surface of last scattering is based upon thermodynamic, GR, the ideal gas laws and particle physics tests not upon actual observation. Too bad. Mine is based on observation, physics law (including thermodynamics'), GR. SR, standard model and doesn't interfere with any science information that doesn't come from the false notion of gravity. All is based on Einstein's notion that gravity is a consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time. So any of the models I've posted are all valid until proven invalid...They all make testable predictions otherwise they wouldn't be a model. Then I can say: "So is mine". Thank you. So there is no mainstream professional answer to your question. In fact I was passed the question situation. Quantum foam itself was essential proven inaccurate I'm glad to hear that. I hate that model. And it's not "my model" like you say. It's the model scientists present as the fluctuation epoch of the universe before Planck time. It's not an accurate description anyway.My model is the surface of a lake without depth and "almost" no waves, from where tridimensional universe emerges. Also the tests that were done showed no evidence of space being lumpy as opposed to smooth. Which means that my model is the right one. Thanks. By the way GUT happens to be a field I enjoy studying. I agree with you; it's a fascinating field of research. Note these articles all intensily involve the Higgs field metastability Mexican hat potential. Well, even if I agree that there was the "signature" of a particle found at 125 GeV, in my proposition, I don't need Higgs particle to explain mass a lot better than the Higgs field. I'll check the Pati-Salam model Thank you very much. The Phenomenology of Right Handed Neutrinos The right Handed Neutrino should have light speed; the Left Handed Neutrino would have a bit less speed which permits distances and time "to be". But I'll read your links. Thanks a lot. Edited July 2, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre
Mordred Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Thank you for all the links Mordred. I'll see if there's anything new I never read about. Then what are String theories doing then? I hope than you saw that I was trying to give you a proposition that tries to describe the origin of the singularity that stands at 10-43 sec with a size of 10-35 meter that would be a "surface" before it "explodes". My proposition explains a lot more than what I said already. But I guess I won't have time to tell you since I've got so much things to read before doing it. I thought everybody knew that. But you're right we never repeat enough. Information from CMB by Planck does give a lot to think about that refers to the big bang. Especially on the original "radiance" after 10^-45 sec followed by inflation where appeared the first gravitational "fields" containing massive particles like quarks and so on. But even if my proposition dates more than ten years ago, it says that "radiance" (in fact, movement of left hand neutrinos instead of "inflaton") was the only existing particle in the universe. That at 10-36 sec the gluon particle "jumped" in our universe from Planck's epoch and started disintegrating in massive particles starting the inflation. And so on. My proposition explains why particles appeared with antiparticles. It explains why space-time at the Big bang was a "flat universe" and still is. It explains how gravity works and what is "mass" and "mass energy". In fact I didn't find anything yet it doesn't explain. But it doesn't explain anything that bases itself on the false notion that mass is attracted by mass. Sorry. Mine does; and it's simply because it's not a multiverse proposal it's a single evoluting universe proposal. Too bad. Mine is based on observation, physics law (including thermodynamics'), GR. SR, standard model and doesn't interfere with any science information that doesn't come from the false notion of gravity. All is based on Einstein's notion that gravity is a consequence of the deformation of the geometry of space-time. Then I can say: "So is mine". Thank you. In fact I was passed the question situation. I'm glad to hear that. I hate that model. And it's not "my model" like you say. It's the model scientists present as the fluctuation epoch of the universe before Planck time. It's not an accurate description anyway.My model is the surface of a lake without depth and "almost" no waves, from where tridimensional universe emerges. Which means that my model is the right one. Thanks. I agree with you; it's a fascinating field of research. Well, even if I agree that there was the "signature" of a particle found at 125 GeV, in my proposition, I don't need Higgs particle to explain mass a lot better than the Higgs field. I'll check the Pati-Salam model Thank you very much. The right Handed Neutrino should have light speed; the Left Handed Neutrino would have a bit less speed which permits distances and time "to be". But I'll read your links. Thanks a lot. Here is the problem, personal models need to be in the speculation forum. Not the mainstream physics forum. So I would recommend opening a thread there to discuss your personal model. Despite your model though the Higgs boson is a confirmed particle. This is confirmed not just at Cern but several LHCs.
Andre Lefebvre Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 Despite your model though the Higgs boson is a confirmed particle. This is confirmed not just at Cern but several LHCs. I know that. But what can I do? As for changing these messages to the speculation forum, I can't do it myself. so if nobody can. I'll just stop discussing it. It was nice exchanging with you all. Thank you.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now