Holes in Big Bang

DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

Thanks for the clarification.

What is "quantum cosmology"? How is it related to "the big bang theory"? What is the relationship between quantum cosmology and inflation (as you understand inflation)? What phenomenology is there concerning "the planck time"?

Which paper - published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - may an interested reader refer to to compare your answers to the above questions to the common views found in the cosmology community?
Click to expand...
Quantum cosmology is when one deals with the universe when its very very small, when its not too far off planck scales are taken into consideration. The idea is to treat the universe like a particle, understanding ground and excited states, relativity applied to time, and how planck time is taken into consideration, which has a value of around [latex]5.3(10^{-44})[/latex] which is the smallest known time some kind of action can be performed. It's very important in particle physics, and gives the specific amount of time in which a universe is allowed to prevail from the nothingness at t=1, the very first instant of the big bang, which was the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second.

I'll need to look for papers another time.
 
Perhaps we can make this discussion more productive by offering thoughts on some of the alternatives presented, so far. For example:

Does anyone know why or why wouldn't either the Ekpyrotic model or the PC/EU theory make a good replacement for inflation and/or Big Bang?!

Let's try to discuss the "competing arguments", not the people making the arguments, please!
 
Piggy said:
Ah, but there's the problem. It's not.

The ground is the red shifting and the cosmic background radiation.

Take those two together, along with the existence of galaxies and a few other big facts, and when you look backward, you eventually get to a Big Bang.

Inflationary models were proposed to explain how we got from there to here with the particular kinds of details we see. And so far, no one's come up with a model that we can put a fork in.

All our current models could be wrong, though, and when we look in our rearview we still see that damn gumball.
Click to expand...
The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.
 
Wowbagger said:
Perhaps we can make this discussion more productive by offering thoughts on some of the alternatives presented, so far. For example:

Does anyone know why or why wouldn't either the Ekpyrotic model or the PC/EU theory make a good replacement for inflation and/or Big Bang?!

Let's try to discuss the "competing arguments", not the people making the arguments, please!
Click to expand...

I believe the Ekpyrotic theory of the universe is good because it resolves the issue of any initial beginning to time, which means it also takes away the need of a ''cause'' for the initial expansion of the standard model.

The Ekpyrotic Theory also develops nicely a reason to encoporate string theory for any string theory entusiasts, so it is in effect, opening doors for new investigation. I don't know much about EU (which i think stands for Electric Universe theory?) so i cannot comment much on it.
 
Singularitarian said:
The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

I'll bite ... please provide a clear, rigorous case that demonstrates that "the big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing".

As usual, please back up your case with references to relevant primary documents (and if you can't, please say so openly and directly).

Oh, and BTW, the second part of your sentence contains an elementary flaw in its logic; can you spot it?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

I'll bite ... please provide a clear, rigorous case that demonstrates that "the big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing".

As usual, please back up your case with references to relevant primary documents (and if you can't, please say so openly and directly).

Oh, and BTW, the second part of your sentence contains an elementary flaw in its logic; can you spot it?
Click to expand...

The reason i said this, is because the inflation requires a physical field. Relativity unites spacetime and matter and energy as components of one big mix. Essentially, you cannot have spacetime without energy (note E=Mc^2). So if the inflation was but part and parcel of the vacuum itself, then expansion which engulfs everything, is the same vacuum which gives rise to the physical fluctuations of the inflaton, the subatomic particle required to make the spacetime expand faster than light.
 
Singularitarian said:
I believe the Ekpyrotic theory of the universe is good because it resolves the issue of any initial beginning to time, which means it also takes away the need of a ''cause'' for the initial expansion of the standard model.

The Ekpyrotic Theory also develops nicely a reason to encoporate string theory for any string theory entusiasts, so it is in effect, opening doors for new investigation. I don't know much about EU (which i think stands for Electric Universe theory?) so i cannot comment much on it.
Click to expand...
Does "The Ekpyrotic Theory" predict voids of the kind mentioned in the OP (assuming they are confirmed)? If so, please provide a reference to a paper which demonstrates this.

And yes, "EU" stands for "Electric Universe". Note, however, that it is not a theory in any scientific sense.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Does "The Ekpyrotic Theory" predict voids of the kind mentioned in the OP (assuming they are confirmed)? If so, please provide a reference to a paper which demonstrates this.

And yes, "EU" stands for "Electric Universe". Note, however, that it is not a theory in any scientific sense.
Click to expand...

What we understand from the Ekpyrotic theory, is that matter is not created at the big bang. In fact, it wasn't a big bang at all. The universe had lay dorment for many eons, until it came into contact with another branch, (or brane as it is known in string theory). This ''excited'' the dorment energy, and time began to have associations to the entropic arrow of time. How structures are formed in-between the many eons and collisions i wouldn't specifically know, but i would have believed it to be somewhat different to big bang, since it does not require an inflationary model.
 
Wowbagger said:
I'm taking about details. Precise measurements of phenomena found within the CMB.
Click to expand...

The primary "problem" with other "explanations" revolves around the near perfect BB spectrum. To my knowledge no other 'explanation' can 'yet' explain that feature. That doesn't mean it will never happen.

When something better comes along. And, by better, I mean something that makes better, more precise predictions than BB ever could. Especially if they are completely novel ones......

Perhaps you can explain how it does a better job?
Click to expand...

The term "better" seems rather subjective from where I sit. Birkeland "better" predicted the behaviors of the sun. Standard solar theory *STILL* can't explain full sphere solar wind acceleration, solar flares, million degree coronal loops, etc. If we're talking "bigger picture" issues rather than solar system phenomenon, that's a completely different story. What is "better", knowing why solar wind accelerates from the sun, or why there is a background spectrum?

That is not going to satisfy professional cosmologists, who have a responsability to solve physics problems.

Tossing out a theory, without having a better replacement, is counter-productive.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how anything has actually been 'solved' by introducing an imaginary force. It's a speculative "solution" at best and it's does nothing to explain solar wind, coronal loops, etc. I guess it all depends on what you personally believe is important to understand and "explain" and whether or not one believes that an imaginary force is actually an "explanation".
 
Singularitarian said:
The reason i said this, is because the inflation requires a physical field. Relativity unites spacetime and matter and energy as components of one big mix. Essentially, you cannot have spacetime without energy (note E=Mc^2). So if the inflation was but part and parcel of the vacuum itself, then expansion which engulfs everything, is the same vacuum which gives rise to the physical fluctuations of the inflaton, the subatomic particle required to make the spacetime expand faster than light.
Click to expand...
In an earlier post, I commented that you seem to be confused about the physics incorporated in big bang models; I think it's accurate to say that this post of yours - that I am quoting - goes a long way to providing independent confirmation of my earlier, tentative, conclusion.

Perhaps you could provide a reference, to the material you read that lead you to write the above? With that in hand it may be easier to unpack the misunderstandings, the errors of logic, etc that may have gone into how you arrived at the above.

Sound like a plan?

BTW, I am looking forward to your answers to my other questions ...
 
(actually, it's Tricky, but he said it well, and no, he didn't report anything.)]Can we please keep the personal comments aside?
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Wowbagger

Several bickerish posts moved to AAH. See above.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
In an earlier post, I commented that you seem to be confused about the physics incorporated in big bang models; I think it's accurate to say that this post of yours - that I am quoting - goes a long way to providing independent confirmation of my earlier, tentative, conclusion.

Perhaps you could provide a reference, to the material you read that lead you to write the above? With that in hand it may be easier to unpack the misunderstandings, the errors of logic, etc that may have gone into how you arrived at the above.

Sound like a plan?

BTW, I am looking forward to your answers to my other questions ...
Click to expand...

Sure F. Wolf, ''Parallel Universes''

''Einsteins general relativity makes curvature the same as matter, the same as acceleration, the same as energy, the same as gravity. They are all one part one thing.''

Note also that curvature is geometry, which is space, which must imply time. This is proof that Einsteins general theory unites spacetime as one physical entity.
 
Mr.D said:
*Cough*
Click to expand...


Totally unrelated Mr D.

I can assure you, anything pointlike for me is hard to imagine to exist in the real world. Nothing however generally to do with my knowledge on particle physics. You even didn't know about the double 360 spin required, so i don't see what you're standing so high and mighty for.
 
Singularitarian said:
The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have this quite clear. Comparing the models:

Ekpyrotic theory:
  1. The collision of two branes gives us a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
  2. This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
  3. The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
  4. Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
  5. The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
  6. The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
  7. The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids


Standard inflation theory:
  1. Inflaton-driven expansion gets us from an unknown initial state to a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
  2. This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
  3. The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
  4. Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
  5. The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
  6. The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
  7. The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids

They're exactly the same except for the very first step. Even the fluctuations have to be the same, since they're observed at least twice, in the CMB and later in the large-scale structure. If something about the large-scale structure were to invalidate the Big Bang, it invalidates both inflation and the ekpyrotic alternative.

(Note: there may be gravity-wave observables which distinguish these different pre-Hubble-expansion theories.)
 
ben m said:
I don't think you have this quite clear. Comparing the models:

Ekpyrotic theory:
  1. The collision of two branes gives us a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
  2. This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
  3. The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
  4. Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
  5. The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
  6. The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
  7. The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids


Standard inflation theory:
  1. Inflaton-driven expansion gets us from an unknown initial state to a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
  2. This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
  3. The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
  4. Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
  5. The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
  6. The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
  7. The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids

They're exactly the same except for the very first step. Even the fluctuations have to be the same, since they're observed at least twice, in the CMB and later in the large-scale structure. If something about the large-scale structure were to invalidate the Big Bang, it invalidates both inflation and the ekpyrotic alternative.

(Note: there may be gravity-wave observables which distinguish these different pre-Hubble-expansion theories.)
Click to expand...

No ben, i wasn't talking about Ekyportic here. Stop mixing this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom