[36grit]

Perhaps the big bang was the result of a few little bangs. Here's what I mean, Let's imagine that vacuum energy existed before the big bang. They don't call it vacuum energy for nothing. Now, let's imagine that vacuum energy is made up of postive and negative particles that exist within infinite positive and negative fields. These two fields have been expanding since their own Little bangs of creation. The positive plane is expanding faster than the negative pane. Within their own planes they are waves. The speed of light is maintained in each plane. Distance must give. The faster plane will particlize relative to the slower plane. This would allow both planes to expand for some amount of virtual time, until the strength of the natural attraction of positive and negative forces caused a fluctuation that slowed the negative plane down enough to particlize within it's own field. This occurance could possily cause a chain reaction that would almost completely annihilate the these two fields. Thus the big bang.
The inihilation of the particles is seen as inflation on popular time frame graphs of the universe. Next we see the dark ages. As time moves on the positive and negative fields and field particles start expanding again. But this time their is a third and slightly slower infinite field of gravity. Gravity gives the possibility of more complex fields. The universe is a complex field of at least four forces all acting within themselves and within each other in various and every combination possible. The atom is the complex particle of the complex field that tells the story of this event over and over as instants of time.
Our universes expansion rate is directly related to the amount of energy available for it to expand. The vacuum energy will someday reach a point of rexpansion and other big bangs will occur. Dark matter is probably the result of other big bangs that occured in the past. Globs and rings of dark age material disolving into what one might call "natural space" or "cooled expansion".

[KUKTLE]

Sorry though I wouldn't agree (just my opinion) though check out my recent post. It's also about the big bang



Sorry though I wouldn't agree (just my opinion) though check out my recent post. It's also about the big bang

[khaled]

Just curiosity, now if a matter hits its inverse, they collide resulting nothing, isn't that impossible given Newton's Law ? or is there something else produced ??

[IM Egdall]

khaled, on 31 August 2011 - 07:26 AM, said:

Just curiosity, now if a matter hits its inverse, they collide resulting nothing, isn't that impossible given Newton's Law ? or is there something else produced ??

If matter and anti-matter collide, they produce energy. LIke an electron colliding with an anti-electron (positron) -- they can annihilate each other and produce photon.

But what about virtual particles (so-called vacuum energy)? Here a particle and its anti-particle appear spontaneously out of the the vacuum, annihilate each other, and dissappear. So why don't they produce energy (photons) like real particles? Because one of the virtual particles has positive energy and one has negative energy. So they cancel each other's energy out.

[imatfaal]

IM Egdall, on 31 August 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

If matter and anti-matter collide, they produce energy. LIke an electron colliding with an anti-electron (positron) -- they can annihilate each other and produce photon.

But what about virtual particles (so-called vacuum energy)? Here a particle and its anti-particle appear spontaneously out of the the vacuum, annihilate each other, and dissappear. So why don't they produce energy (photons) like real particles? Because one of the virtual particles has positive energy and one has negative energy. So they cancel each other's energy out.

I thought that it was more along the lines that the time was so short that energy had a considerable amount of variation under HUP


in very layman's terms the time of existence is so short that the universe doesn't realise the energy sum is incorrect - ie the energy used to create them is paid back in annihilation before anyone can notice it is missing

This post has been edited by imatfaal: 31 August 2011 - 02:52 PM

[36grit]

I like to think that vacuum eneregy comes out of a small void in the space time continuum. The anihilations release just enough momentum to patch the voids in relativaty.

[morgsboi]

Interesting, it could be possible. There are so many theories though. Here's mine: http://www.sciencefo...f-the-big-bang/

[IM Egdall]

imatfaal, on 31 August 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

I thought that it was more along the lines that the time was so short that energy had a considerable amount of variation under HUP


in very layman's terms the time of existence is so short that the universe doesn't realise the energy sum is incorrect - ie the energy used to create them is paid back in annihilation before anyone can notice it is missing

You are talking about virtual particles, which appear out of "empty" space and collide. They are a particle and antiparticle pair. One has positive energy and the other has negative energy. So when they collide, no energy is released. The amount of time a pair exists is determined by the HUP, as you note.

I was talking about real particles. Here they are a particle and antiparticle pair. But they both have positive energy. So when they collide, they release energy.

This post has been edited by IM Egdall: 16 October 2011 - 02:50 PM

[imatfaal]

IM Egdall, on 16 October 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

You are talking about virtual particles, which appear out of "empty" space and collide. They are a particle and antiparticle pair. One has positive energy and the other has negative energy. So when they collide, no energy is released. The amount of time a pair exists is determined by the HUP, as you note.

I was talking about real particles. Here they are a particle and antiparticle pair. But they both have positive energy. So when they collide, they release energy.

I was responding to this statement about virtual particles

IM Egdall, on 31 August 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

...
But what about virtual particles (so-called vacuum energy)? Here a particle and its anti-particle appear spontaneously out of the the vacuum, annihilate each other, and dissappear. So why don't they produce energy (photons) like real particles? Because one of the virtual particles has positive energy and one has negative energy. So they cancel each other's energy out.

and I still think that the HUP explanation is correct rather than talking about negative energy. If the two particles had opposing energy there would be no need for the DeltaE of the HUP - as there would be no change in energy.

This post has been edited by imatfaal: 17 October 2011 - 01:23 PM

[IM Egdall]

imatfaal, on 17 October 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

I was responding to this statement about virtual particles



and I still think that the HUP explanation is correct rather than talking about negative energy. If the two particles had opposing energy there would be no need for the DeltaE of the HUP - as there would be no change in energy.

I think it goes like this. One of the virtual pair particles has to be negative energy so the resultant collision doesn't produce energy.

This is invoked in Hawking radiation: a particle, antiparticle pair appears out of the vacuum at the edge of a black hole event horizon. The negative energy virtual particle falls into a black hole, but the positive energy particle escapes.

This post has been edited by IM Egdall: 17 October 2011 - 10:26 PM

[imatfaal]

It doesn't produce energy - it is merely "paying back" the energy that it "borrowed" for an incredible short time ie deltaEnergy multiplied by deltaTime is less than planks constant.

Hawking radiation is a difficult one - I know the explanation you are talking about, I also know that Hawking dismissed it as only a heuristic later on in the same paper; my maths and physics is not good enough to understand his actual explanation