Mordred

Cosmological Principle implies \[d\tau^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu=dt^2-a^2t{\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2d\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2}\] the Freidmann equations read \[(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho\] for \[\rho=\sum^i\rho_i=\rho_m+\rho_{rad}+\rho_\Lambda\] \[2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=-8\pi Gp\] for \[p=\sum^ip_i=P_{rad}+p_\Lambda\] with conservation of the energy momentum stress tensor \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu=0\] \[\dot{p}a^3=\frac{d}{dt}[a^3(\rho+p)]\Rightarrow \frac{d}{dt}(\rho a^3)=-p\frac{d}{dt}a^3\] \[p=\omega\rho\] given w=0 \(\rho\propto a^{-3}\) for matter, radiation P=1/3 \(\rho\propto{-3}\), Lambda w=-1.\(p=-\rho\) for k=0 \[H_o^2=\frac{k}a^2_O=\frac{8\pi G}{3}(\rho^0+\rho_{rad}^0\\rho_\Lambda)\] dividing by \(H^2_0\) and \(P^0_{crit}=\frac{3H^2_0}{8\pi G}\) gives \[1=-\frac{k}{h_0^2a^2_0}+\Omega^o_m+\Omega^0_{rad}=\Omega^0_\Lambda\] \[\Omega_k^0=-\frac{k}{h^2_0a^2_0}\Rightarrow 1=\Omega_k^0+\Omega^0_{rad}+\Omega^0_\Lambda\] densities can be written as \[\rho_{rad}=\rho^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a})^4=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_0^2\Omega^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a})^4\] \[\Omega_m=\rho^0_m(\frac{a_o}{a})^3=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_0^2\Omega^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a})^3\] \[\rho_\Lambda=\rho_\Lambda^0=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_o^2\Omega^0_\Lambda\] \[-\frac{k}{a^2}=\overbrace{-\frac{k}{a^2_0H_o^2}}^{\Omega^0_k}H^2_0(\frac{a_o}{a})^2\] with \(1+z=\frac{a_0}{a}\) densities according to scale factor as functions of redshift. \[\rho_{rad}=\frac{3}{8\pi g}H^2_o\Omega^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a}^4=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H^2_0\Omega^0_{rad}(1+z)^4\] \[\rho_m=\frac{3}{8\pi g}H^2_o\Omega^0_m(\frac{a_o}{a}^3=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H^2_0\Omega^0_m(1+z)^3\] \[\rho_\Lambda=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_0^2\Omega^0_\Lambda\] \[H^2=H_o^2[\Omega^2_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_m^0(1+z)^3+\Omega_k^0(1+z)^2+\Omega_\Lambda^0]\] the Hubble parameter can be written as \[H=\frac{d}{dt}ln(\frac{a(t)}{a_0}=\frac{d}{dt}ln(\frac{1}{1+z})=\frac{-1}{1+z}\frac{dz}{dt}\] look back time given as \[t=\int^{t(a)}_0\frac{d\acute{a}}{\acute{\dot{a}}}\] \[\frac{dt}{dz}=H_0^{-1}\frac{-1}{1+z}\frac{1}{[\Omega_{rad}(1+z^4)+\Omega^0_m(1=z0^3+\Omega^0_k(1+z)^2+\Omega_\Lambda^0]^{1/2}}\] \[t_0-t=h_1\int^z_0\frac{\acute{dz}}{(1+\acute{z})[\Omega^0_{rad}(1+\acute{z})^4+\Omega^0_m(1+\acute{z})^3=\Omega^0_k(1+\acute{z})^2+\Omega^0_\Lambda]^{1/2}}\]

No that's not what I'm stating. The time reversal for anti particles results from the negative frequency modes. It doesn't mean the antiparticle travels back in time. That particular model suggested it did. One detail though electroweak symmetry breaking isn't really about CPT. That's more relation to baryogenesis and leptogenesis. Electroweak symmetry breaking describes when particles acquire mass and lose symmetry with other particles aka drops out of thermo equilibrium. This corresponds to the relevant force couplings. Strong, weak and EM force couplings. ( yes this includes Higgs Dirac and Yukawa couplings of the SM model). There's two very similar named processes that can get confused (Electroweak Baryogenesis) and (electroweak phase transition). The latter is the thermal equilibrium dropout. The former is suggested to occur during the EWPT (electroweak phase transition) happens. The (EWBG) electroweak baryogenesis is where the CPT relations are involved. Leptogenesis would occur just prior to EWBG. Once again involves CPT.

Yes it's plausible the model I just mentioned had the same BB origin point. Matter and forward time in one universe. Antimatter and reverse time in the other universe. Both resulting from the same BB event. However as stated that model essentially died though you do come across attempts to renew the model. Here is a brief description of the model https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/

Rather meaningless to describe time as diluting. How one measures time is observer dependant. However you do not get time dilation due to expansion.

There was an older multiverse model that has matter in one universe with antimatter and time reversal in the other universe. It long ago fell out of any research interest. ( due to better understanding of anti-matter in that the time reversal is a mathematical treatment for symmetry purposes and not actuality)

Good but it's still useful to understand how the NFW profile deals with Kepler curve. Now a little hint there is a means for a matter only universe to expand though it's related to gravity it isn't how it's described so far in this thread. Gravity only attracts it never repels. Matter also exerts no pressure term. So it isn't due to pressure.

Once again simply applying Newtons gravitational laws will tell you differently. The only way to avoid Kepler curve for rotation is to surround the galaxy with a fairly uniform mass density that is greater than the baryonic matter distribution. Aka dark matter via the NFW profile. We can also detect our motion and compensate this is called dipole anistropy it's actually why the first Planck dataset had the axis of evil. They didn't have the needed calibration for our peculiar motion.

How does attraction cause expansion ? Can you answer that ? You are attracting with a BH or the great Attractor which by the way only affects our local cluster. However attraction is not the same as expansion. You need something to counter gravity affects.

Well once again we come back to how massive distance between galaxies are and how massive the universe is compared to how quickly the effect of gravity reduces to ineffective. I've already shown those calculations. For example the SMBH at the center of our Milky way has next to zero influence on our solar system let alone another galaxy. Here is the thing, one equation is all it takes to show your idea is invalid. Ignoring or avoiding that detail doesn't change anything. There are of course numerous other pieces of evidence that run counter to the idea I could mention such as lack of corresponding temperature anistrophy and resulting plasma mass distribution which can be measured via the mass to luminosity relation but the one equation is sufficient as a counter piece of evidence.

One thing to recall is that point is strictly the portion of our shared causality. We know the universe is larger than our Observable portion. We do not know how large the entire universe is beyond our Observable universe region of shared causality. This is one of thr fundamental reasons not to think of the singularity condition at 10^-43 seconds as being the same as the singularity condition of a BH.

In so far as any means of measurement via particle accelerators etc correct. We simply cannot produce those temperatures.

As everything is in thermal equilibrium including the four forces you can describe that state as a single photon field. It doesn't mean the other particles didn't exist but you wouldn't be able to tell one particle type from any other. The reason it's oft treated as a photon field is that temperature is part of the EM field and blackbody temperature uses the virtual photon as the mediator. Keep in mind one can arbitrarily describe any state by any arbitrary number of fields the term field is any collection of values under a geometry treatment

Roughly 10^90 particles all in a state of thermal equilibrium so indistinguishable from one another. The initial volume if you extrapolate back corresponds to roughly 1 planck length in volume for a temperature of 10^19 GeV which if you convert corresponds to Planck temperature. Any math prior to 10^{-43} seconds will give a singularity condition. The universe is described by thermodynamics as using a homogeneous and isotropic system. Where expansion is an adiabatic and isentropic system so yes a closed system

I see, so you have no intention of having any form of testability. In essence not doing what's needed for a physics theory. Pictures and drawings mean nothing for physics. They are nothing more than a visual aid and of zero value beyond that. I would have thought you would have realized when I used math to demonstrate where your idea fails you would have caught on to the value of calculations. For example at what distance from a mass such as a BH would a particle follow an orbit ? Or when will the path remain straight ? Guess or calculate? Which do you think is the better route of determination ? What velocity must the object have to maintain an orbit if it's too slow it will simply fall into the BH. If it's too fast it escapes (function of 1/r^2 ) Newtons gravitational law.

More accurately 10^{-43} seconds and yes it does have a volume but as mentioned the entire observable universe is contained in that volume that expanded. In other words you can't point anywhere and state the BB happened in that direction or in that location as every location was part of the initial volume.

You don't need to be in this case you can use Newton laws and Keplers laws for orbiting bodies. I'm confident that if a high school student in grade 9 can apply those formulas you should be capable of doing so. You only need basic algebra most commonly used in astrophysics. Quite frankly most formulas used by astrophysics are first order Newtonian approximations. When you get right down to it the FLRW metric only requires geometry and Algebra to learn.

Instead of pictures why not simply use the Schwartzchild metric with CoM being the CBH. Then add your vectors for particle motion.

That's always possible but that key piece hasn't been mentioned in this thread from what I've seen. The reason for the different inflationary models is that we cannot see far enough to discern which is most accurate. We can only look for CMB signatures to isolate which is more accurate. Universe birth isn't part of the model no one can accurately answer where the original mass/energy originated. It could be from a previous universe but it's also viable to originate from nothing. Cyclic models never attempt to answer what formed the first universe. If you cannot tie mathematics into known mainstream physics then it's not valid. That is an absolute essential step. No argument will change that. The very purpose of physics is to be able to calculate cause and effect. If an idea cannot do that it's useless for physics.

Love that video I couldn't agree more. Here's another little tidbit with regards to step 3. A very important step is to make considerable effort to prove your idea wrong. Never ignore counter evidence. You must take into consideration (ALL experimental and Observational evidence).

As to the last suggestions perhaps looking over some literature may help http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Start there first look over the balloon analogy. This will describe a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. The last article details the FLRW metric as well as the equations of state for expansion.

It's calculated by a logarithmic function called E-folds. The value will vary depending on which form of inflation your using. The only valid inflationary models must be higher than 60 e-folds. We can only extrapolate the hot dense state at 10^{-43} seconds. The models do not state how the energy/mass came into existence only that our beginning was a hot dense state roughly 10^19 GeV. Which corresponds to Planck temperature for a starting volume 1 planck length. The rate of expansion depends on the kinetic energy to potential energy terms described by the scalar field equation of state. (Will vary depending on inflationary model). This link will help understand e-folds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant) Here is a listing of still valid inflationary models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 Personally I feel Higgs inflation is highly likely it has the same equations of state as Chaotic inflation so subsequently the e-folds will be the same.

We can also measure redshift via plasma using spectography for the 21 cm line. Any well understood process can be used as a standard candle reference. You don't require supernova. They are simply one convenient well understood process. The other essential piece of evidence is any blackbody temperature measurements via the ideal gas laws. As the universe expands the blackbody temperature will reduce. The rate of temperature reduction is the inverse of the scale factor.

Your welcome

No the Higgs field does not interact with gluons nor does it interact with photons. Both being massless particles.

Here is a clear example of lack of guess work. This uses only 5 main equations and look at what can be calculated. \[{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&Scale (a)&T (Gyr)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H(t)&Temp(K)&rho(kg/m^3)&OmegaM&OmegaL&OmegaR&OmegaT \\ \hline 1.09e+3&9.17e-4&3.71e-4&6.25e-4&4.53e+1&4.15e-2&5.67e-2&8.38e-4&2.12e+1&3.13e+0&6.64e+1&1.56e+6&4.59e-18&2.97e+3&7.56e-1&1.29e-9&2.44e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 6.08e+2&1.64e-3&9.75e-4&1.59e-3&4.48e+1&7.36e-2&1.01e-1&2.28e-3&1.49e+1&3.10e+0&4.63e+1&6.16e+5&7.13e-19&1.66e+3&8.48e-1&8.31e-9&1.52e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.39e+2&2.94e-3&2.49e-3&3.94e-3&4.41e+1&1.30e-1&1.79e-1&6.05e-3&1.08e+1&3.05e+0&3.29e+1&2.48e+5&1.16e-19&9.27e+2&9.09e-1&5.12e-8&9.12e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.89e+2&5.27e-3&6.20e-3&9.64e-3&4.32e+1&2.28e-1&3.15e-1&1.57e-2&7.90e+0&2.99e+0&2.36e+1&1.01e+5&1.93e-20&5.17e+2&9.47e-1&3.07e-7&5.31e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.05e+2&9.44e-3&1.52e-2&2.34e-2&4.20e+1&3.96e-1&5.52e-1&3.98e-2&5.83e+0&2.90e+0&1.69e+1&4.18e+4&3.28e-21&2.89e+2&9.70e-1&1.80e-6&3.03e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 5.82e+1&1.69e-2&3.71e-2&5.65e-2&4.03e+1&6.81e-1&9.61e-1&9.98e-2&4.33e+0&2.79e+0&1.21e+1&1.73e+4&5.64e-22&1.61e+2&9.83e-1&1.05e-5&1.72e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.20e+1&3.03e-2&8.98e-2&1.36e-1&3.80e+1&1.15e+0&1.65e+0&2.47e-1&3.22e+0&2.63e+0&8.47e+0&7.20e+3&9.73e-23&9.00e+1&9.90e-1&6.09e-5&9.65e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.74e+1&5.42e-2&2.17e-1&3.26e-1&3.50e+1&1.90e+0&2.80e+0&6.08e-1&2.40e+0&2.42e+0&5.81e+0&3.00e+3&1.69e-23&5.03e+1&9.94e-1&3.51e-4&5.41e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 9.29e+0&9.71e-2&5.21e-1&7.83e-1&3.09e+1&3.00e+0&4.61e+0&1.48e+0&1.79e+0&2.14e+0&3.84e+0&1.25e+3&2.93e-24&2.81e+1&9.95e-1&2.02e-3&3.02e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 4.75e+0&1.74e-1&1.25e+0&1.87e+0&2.55e+1&4.43e+0&7.32e+0&3.61e+0&1.35e+0&1.76e+0&2.37e+0&5.23e+2&5.14e-25&1.57e+1&9.87e-1&1.15e-2&1.67e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 2.21e+0&3.12e-1&2.97e+0&4.36e+0&1.83e+1&5.69e+0&1.09e+1&8.70e+0&1.03e+0&1.26e+0&1.30e+0&2.24e+2&9.43e-26&8.74e+0&9.36e-1&6.28e-2&8.87e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 7.91e-1&5.58e-1&6.80e+0&9.18e+0&9.27e+0&5.18e+0&1.44e+1&2.06e+1&8.79e-1&6.42e-1&5.64e-1&1.06e+2&2.13e-26&4.88e+0&7.22e-1&2.78e-1&3.81e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.45e+1&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&1.66e+1&4.62e+1&1.00e+0&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&6.77e+1&8.60e-27&2.73e+0&3.11e-1&6.89e-1&9.18e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -4.38e-1&1.78e+0&2.29e+1&1.68e+1&6.88e+0&1.22e+1&1.72e+1&9.44e+1&1.53e+0&4.76e-1&7.31e-1&5.84e+1&6.40e-27&1.53e+0&7.43e-2&9.26e-1&1.23e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -6.84e-1&3.16e+0&3.27e+1&1.73e+1&1.11e+1&3.51e+1&1.74e+1&1.81e+2&2.64e+0&7.67e-1&2.03e+0&5.66e+1&6.01e-27&8.62e-1&1.41e-2&9.86e-1&1.31e-6&1.00e+0\\ \hline -8.22e-1&5.62e+0&4.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.35e+1&7.58e+1&1.74e+1&3.36e+2&4.67e+0&9.33e-1&4.36e+0&5.62e+1&5.94e-27&4.85e-1&2.53e-3&9.97e-1&1.33e-7&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.00e-1&1.00e+1&5.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.48e+1&1.48e+2&1.74e+1&6.10e+2&8.30e+0&1.03e+0&8.52e+0&5.62e+1&5.93e-27&2.73e-1&4.51e-4&1.00e+0&1.33e-8&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.44e-1&1.78e+1&6.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&2.77e+2&1.74e+1&1.10e+3&1.48e+1&1.08e+0&1.59e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&1.53e-1&8.03e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-9&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.68e-1&3.16e+1&7.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.60e+1&5.07e+2&1.74e+1&1.97e+3&2.62e+1&1.11e+0&2.91e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&8.62e-2&1.43e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-10&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.82e-1&5.62e+1&8.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.63e+1&9.15e+2&1.74e+1&3.51e+3&4.67e+1&1.13e+0&5.25e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&4.85e-2&2.54e-6&1.00e+0&1.33e-11&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.90e-1&1.00e+2&9.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&1.64e+3&1.74e+1&6.26e+3&8.30e+1&1.14e+0&9.42e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&2.73e-2&4.51e-7&1.00e+0&1.33e-12&1.00e+0\\ \hline \end{array}}\] No guessing straight application of the FLRW metric.