Dubbelosix
-
Posts
518 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dubbelosix
-
-
26 minutes ago, beecee said:
Again for your information, the BB is a theory of the evolution of the universe, from a hotter, denser state beginning at t+10-43 seconds: We cannot apply anything to the singularity region (the quantum/Planck level) because our models ( the BB and GR) break down.
The singularity is part of the model. Even if our model cannot describe it, this doesn't matter. It is seen as some point in which everything came from. If you have any other suggestions under the same situations, then please be my guest, otherwise, its futile to argue that the origin of everything came from a big bang, especially if this is the current trend of thinking and arguing against it not being 'an origin' is semantic fodder.
0 -
It makes no sense for physical reasons, that are too deep for me to go into right now because I have to leave.
But consider a particle, whose radius goes to zero - it also experiences a singularity in the self energy of the system. This means the self energy takes on infinite values, consider the universe like a particle in this sense. Speak later.
0 -
I just told you what theory covers it, are you not reading my posts properly?
I said, go read the singularity theorems by Penrose and Hawking.
0 -
Just now, beecee said:
The singularity marks the barrier if you will, of where the BB model does not cover, ie t+10-43 seconds....the Planck/quantum era.
You don't know what you are talking about, I can tell from the way you are talking about this.
The singularity was very much part of the big bang literature, for a very long time. Hawking and Penrose, literally became famous because of their work on the theorems that shows how a universe can be traced back to a point - in which they named a singularity. That means there is a causal history.
If there is a causal history, then the singularity would mark the origin from which everything came from.
Regardless of the singularity, the big bang is the origin of what we see anyway - there may have been pre big bang phases, but who cares? This all started with strange challenging me on my statement that everything we see in nature results from this big bang scenario, which is true whatever way you look at it.
-1 -
Just now, beecee said:
Then you need to realize that the BB does not talk about a beginning, but an evolving from t+10-43 seconds.
The Big Bang did talk about a beginning, go read the singularity theorems. This was the earliest attempt at modelling a universe from some origin we called a singularity - the moment at which space and time made no sense as we understand it.
0 -
Wrong.
Beyond the standard model physics posits the big bang may not be all there is. I am actually on this side. But I know conventional big bang theory and the singularity theorems, which you seem to be ignoring. You quoted my post and started an argument on the big bang not being the origin of everything: That may be so in beyond the standard model physics, but not in a science forum for a poster who wants to know what the consensus of the standard model is.
0 -
1 minute ago, beecee said:
Strange is correct and I suggest you calm down a tick. The BB is not a theory of the creation of the universe: It is a theory of the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) from a hotter, denser state beginning at t-10-43 seconds. It was also not an explosion. That first instant up to 10-43 seconds of time, is the quantum/Planck era of which we have no true inkling of what happened and can only speculate.
I hope that helps.
I never said creation, so you need to take that back. The theory of the big bang, is actually one about how space and time came into existence - it has long been written that big bang in conventional form is the point at which time as we understand it, began. This means space as well, strictly within relativity.
I am very well read on these subjects, would do you good to listen. Carrol however called it more a moment in time rather than space. That may be because pointlike dynamics in a singularity has no space.
Just now, Strange said:Here is one example of a model where the universe does not have a beginning: Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
So???
I explained these models existed. This isn't your defence is it?
0 -
Everything leading up to the state of the universe today, has origins at the big bang.
Who said creation????
You guys are ridiculous, you are putting words in my mouth, and no, strange is NOT correct.
0 -
No it doesn't. Find me where it says the big bang was not the origin of what we see in existence today?
Are you actually arguing with me on this? Do you even science?
No one says we have to look back literally to know. All that we know is that the wonder of what we see today, was a product of something we called a big bang, which was indeed, a highly dense, high pressure, highly curved region of spacetime or singularity.
0 -
That doesn't say it isn't the origin of what we see.
I've worked on the Friedmann equation, i don't need you to tell me the big bang is about '' an expanding and contracting universe.''
Its much more than that. The theory of the big bang was that at some point, everything came from a tremendous explosion of energy, space and time. Scientists (almost universally) accept that the big bang is the origin of existence.
I heard from mordred you were a poster of science, I am pretty surprised by your ... childish look at the universe and a lame attempt to use wiki, which never said the big bang was not the origin of existence, as evidence against what I am telling you.
Not impressed.
0 -
Yes, we can't literally look at it.... you are not one of these posters that gets into semantic dribble, because I quickly put those posters on ignore.
Admit there is an origin point and the consensus is that it is called big bang, or did you reply to my comment just for an argument?
''The Big Bang model describes an evolving (expanding and cooling universe) not an "origin".'
What are you talking about???
Big bang is the point in which space and time come into existence, in current tend of thinking.
0 -
Oh there is, we can trace the universe back to a point which we have called, the big bang. This is just another name for some origin point.
The reason why this was said, again, demonstrates the universe has a finite past. What happens for the future universe is for theorists... unless you believe in Cyclic universe theory, or pre-big bang phases, then this is the current trend of thinking - the universe has an origin and has been named the big bang.
0 -
On 01/08/2017 at 2:32 PM, dordle-loddle said:
Is the Universe infinite or just really, really big?
If the universe is expanding, and has an origin, then it has a finite past. There are a few ways a universe could be infinite and I'll provide two such cases -
1) The universe needs to expand forever to be infinite
2) The universe could be cyclic and without a beginning to time
In the realms of physics, the first suggestion doesn't seem like much of an option - when a universe gets really really big, the forces holding a universe together could very well split apart, something called a big rip. A more reasonable assumption is that a universe could suffer a heat death, which is just a fancy name to say the universe will eventually freeze over because the thermodynamic degree's vanish. That may not be entirely true either, because we have no precedence in nature that the fabric of spacetime can even fundamentally be in such zero Kelvin state.
It's one of those, who knows (?) questions. For me, the universe is finite. That may not mean though, that the stuff the universe is made of has to come to an end. Our universe may just be a phase in the grand scheme, a temporary fluctuation in which living organisms like us, can sit and ponder these things.
29 minutes ago, Dan B. said:I still don't know if the whole 14 Trillion Universe is an outcome of just one bang or several bangs process.
The universe is 14 billion years old, not 14 trillion.
0 -
Why should an incredibly slow rotation show up in CMB data? Something surely rotating with such a slow velocity does not couple to the radiation as strongly as massive galaxies. It surely once did. But as scale increases, as rotation decays, this coupling drastically and exponentially falls off as a universe ages - the CMB doesn't show up because the bending and twisting of space with regards to its rotation is negligible.
How slow can only be measured by the way, from measurement of dark flow in this theory. Speculating on how fast from bounds that doesn't involve these measurements, makes a hypothesis, a weak one in my eyes.
This is why I never answered your question of how slow. All I said was, slow enough that even the phenomenon of dark flow is disputed.
Think of it this way, galaxies are barely coupling to the rotation itself, and those objects are massive.
Another way to see this and strengthen what I say is that according to Hoyle and Narlikar, the rotational property decays because linear acceleration takes over. Another way to state this, is that the late universe in their model, satisfies ours because the universe appears to be expanding linearly, with only a very small, almost negligible spin.
0 -
A universe is not isotropic (if) dark flow exists on cosmological scales. The universe would end up having a preferred frame of direction due to rotation. I have seen scientists make bounds on the rotation before. It amuses me, because it is without any experimental data referred to as dark flow. Hawking and Ellis show in 1973 that rotation was less than
[math]3 \times 10^{-11}s[/math]
of arc per century for a microwave background scattering at redshift of [math]10^3[/math]. But if the universe is truly isotropic, then there is no space for this theory. If dark flow is real though, then forget about the theoretical models working on the bounds, we have experimental means to test the speed of the drift and from it, subsequently the rotation of the universe itself, which will indeed be slow. But dark flow is exactly the type of phenomenon we really need.
The fact that there is a chirality problem in galaxies showing a 1 in about a million chance, is just an added bonus. Not just because it adds evidence to rotation, but because it can solve the antimatter problem of the universe as well, if true. It doesn't help that the most recent articles that have attempted to measure the universe has stated that it is perfectly isotropic and homogeneous without any mention of dark flow. Is it honest, that papers do this kind of thing?
There should have at least been a mention to remain vigilant over the phenomenon.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:ASTR.0000009412.72889.13
0 -
The time derivative of the Hubble radius is
[math]\frac{dR}{dt} = v = \dot{R}[/math]
Second derivative in time leads to acceleration (as would be expected say, in Friedmanns acceleration equation)
[math]\frac{dv}{dt} = a = \ddot{R}[/math]
Third derivative in time leads to chaotic systems and is denoted as the jerk
[math]\frac{da}{dt} = j = \dddot{R}[/math]
The suggested equation for a non-conservation in particle number located in the effective density was suggested in a form (with rotation): The rotating universe (at least in the early cosmology case) coupled to the dust inside of it strongly. This causes the charged particles in spacetime to experience a circular trajectory (in which they lose energy through the loss of radiation) which is known as a cyclotron radiation, similar to how we view charged particles accelerating in spacetime giving rise to Larmor radiation,[math]m\dot{R}^2 = \frac{e^2}{6 \pi c^3} \dddot{R} + eV[/math]In which [math]\ddot{R} \propto \dddot{R}[/math]. As noted by Arun and Sivaram, this leads to a path that is an exponentially increasing logarithmic spiral. Of course, in the context of a rotating expanding spacetime, the decaying rotational properties means that the logarithmic path too is overcome by expansion in the bigger picture. So instead of an exponential increase, the coupling of rotation to matter requires also that the coupling fall off as rotation equally decays. Such a logarithmic spiral would instead follow an exponential decay rule in accordance to the rotation which decays ~[math]\omega = \omega_0 e^{-\lambda t}[/math]We can see how this relates to the third derivative directly. Differentiation leads to in the spiral equation, terms that will fit the expanding and rotating Friedmann model
[math]2m\dot{R}\dot{R} = \frac{e^2}{6 \pi c^3} \ddddot{R} + e\dot{V}[/math]
Notice, the potential difference, also known as the voltage [math]V[/math] has picked up a charge to mass ratio coefficient,
[math]\dot{R}^2 = \frac{e^2}{6 \pi c^3} \dddot{R} + (\frac{e}{m})V[/math]We can replace the charge to mass ratio with a gyromagnetic ratio because the universes rotation, is also a classical property. This term that can replace the charge to mass ratio works only if charges in spacetime are distributed evenly. Due to spacetime homogeneity, this seems to be a fitting case. The interesting thing, the additional rotational radiation coming from these charged particles in the early universe can contribute to an exotic zoo. The high radiation densities would lead to new particles of various types. It also stands as a contributor to the background temperatures.The differentiation of both the spiral trajectory equation and the Friedmann Langrangian (an equation I derived some time back) we can see how they relate as power equations
[math]m\dot{R}^2 = \frac{e^2}{6 \pi c^3} \dddot{R} + eV[/math][math]\rightarrow m\dot{R}\ddot{R} = \frac{e^2}{12 \pi c^3} \ddddot{R} + \frac{1}{2}e\dot{V}[/math][math]\mathcal{L} = m\dot{R}^2 - \frac{8 \pi Gm R}{3c^2}(\rho + 3P) + mR \omega^2[/math][math]\rightarrow \mathcal{P} = m\dot{R}\ddot{R} - \frac{8 \pi Gm R}{6c^2}(\rho + 3P)\frac{\dot{R}}{R} + mR \omega \dot{\omega}[/math]
The rotating universe is compatible with the spiral paths taken giving rise to the extra radiation. Notice also, the differentiation of the spiral equation yields the jolt a rare symbol ever if there was one in physics [math]\ddddot{R}[/math]. Very rarely do we have to consider such derivatives but in this model, it cannot be avoided. You may remember, we also have a third derivative in time for non-conservation in the Friedmann equation.(keep in mind we have fixed an error)0 -
The pre-big bang phase (has to be static) for the most part, that is, there is no fluid expansion in this cosmic egg. That is not to say though, that the particles inside of it has no movement - it's just that it has very little thermodynamic degrees of freedom. In my early studies of the non-conservation of a Friedmann equation (which was revolutionary to me that it was possible) because some physicists have taken the Friedmann equation as a statement about the conservation of energy in a universe. I won't get into the why this happened again, only that I will mention, there was no basis in the end that this had to be so. Certainly, this seemed to be the opinion of Motz as early as the late 1960's.
When I worked on how to model the non-conservation, I came to realize a fluid coefficient could be written as [math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R} = \Theta[/math] could be used as a coefficient in the Friedmann equation to mark the non-conservation. The dynamics of [math]\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}[/math] also includes the definition of the scale factor [math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R} = \frac{\dot{a}}{a}[/math] and the derivative of the scale factor tells us how it changes, [math]\dot{H} + H^2 = \frac{\ddot{R}}{R}[/math], which you can plug in to get the Raychauduri equation, which we will use this time around for a refreshing change. I also rewrite the Friedmann equation to account for the particle number series [math](1 + 2 + 3 ... n)[/math].
[math](\dot{H} + H^2 + \frac{kc^2}{a})\frac{1}{N(N -1)} = \sum^{i}_{N = 1} \frac{8 \pi G}{3}(\rho + 3P)\frac{V}{N_i \lambda^3} [/math]
Because [math]\dot{H} + H^2[/math] is constructed from the scale factor which changes in time, we can exclude this component from the pre-big bang model, since, this cannot be taken into account until the system collapses. In the video I linked to, the professor explains how this ''cold stuff'' can explain the really ''hot explosion'' of a big bang, and in a way, this approach may do this same thing. When the particles are subjected to the cold temperatures, their wave functions smear out and becomes indistinguishable.from situations where hot particles are subjected to extreme pressures.It is possible the pre-big bang phase and the post are connected to the phase transition which may depend on this indistinguishability between particle states? I certainly expect there to be near isodensity between the two phase states, so why not? I thought about it, and considered that it would allow the particles to transition without any chaotic and sudden manipulation in the particles structure. The super-heated cosmic egg, (which is the process of a cold universe heating up), is simultaneously the result of the cold particles heating up, giving rise to a photon radiation phase.
I don't want to say nucleosynthesis is wrong, but I don't believe our current model is the only way. I have good reason to suspect that maybe a universe can be born initially with photon radiation and all subsequent matter from it. There is good experimental evidence to suggest, that at the heart of it, photons can create any type of matter in the right circumstances - and there is also the fact that antiparticles and their cousins will reduce back to photon energy (as if), it's a fundamental construct of the energy or conservation of the particles. Certainly portions of radiation will transition from our early universe (while still very hot), giving rise to quark-gluon matter, and everything else that follows as a universe cools down.
Very speculative I know, but it's fun. The real question is how do you falsify this? We can never directly go beyond any point before a big bang... just physically impossible and if it's true the dynamics are irreversible, then any information about the pre-big bang phase has totally converted into something new, which can be interpreted as a ''loss of information.'' This 'loss of information' has been the focal point of many documentaries that surrounded the Hawking vs Susskind black hole debates, which they held a bet over whether information was lost in a universe. Susskind later won the bet, information was most likely stored in a black hole and not lost and gradual release of its mass restored the information back into the universe. I think for this reason, it will be hard to swallow that a pre-big bang universe could do such a thing...
...But I ask, isn't there some room for outside the box thinking, especially when it comes to dubious (possibly) physics breaking phases that may exist before the universe as we have come to understand it? I think its a really appealing model, that we can think of the universe undergoing the phase transitions like we have investigated instead of a rigid, all the one-way to the singularity universes we tend to think about.Of course, we have made some progress since then, we know of several ways to avoid singularities in a universe - in our model, it is avoided by noticing the negative sign arising in the phase change, which prevents a universe from collapsing to a point. Gravitational corrections have also been suggested (but this may depend on the quantization of a gravitational field) and I am dubious about such theories.
There is also possibilities my studies may stick to investigating condensate collapse - a phenomenon I did not know until recently, so while we cannot test the theory directly, we might find analogues in nature to support the theory, at least, support it in principle.
But I wonder if it really is a loss of information between the two phases?
Information is converted all the time and never lost, but it seems to be consensus in the mathematics I have studied that any kind of conservation breakdown would or must result in a loss of information in the system.
If this bit is true, what I said above is true. I'll have to investigate this further as well, to rectify any doubts I have.
Perhaps the terminology is wrong... the system in my universe isn't a true loss of information at all, but a gaining of information. The non-conservation can easily allow a universe to express itself by an early non-conservation in a number of ways, - I investigated irreversible particle production between the phases as an example, which would imply that information is increasing in the [very] early chaotic stage of the universe as it transitions from the pre-to-post conditions.
0 -
This work goes back a few months when I was discussing some findings I had made concerning the supermassive black holes and the rotation curve. Most of the writing here was my own speculations, but below is also additional work from Matti on his blog concerning our discussions and how he views the findings within his own TGD (topological geometrodynamics) theory.
I wanted to find evidence of black holes playing a torsional role on the systems inside of a galaxy in such a way that maybe there are relationships which bind the two and can explain galactic rotation curve phenomenon. The article I am about to link to, explained there are such relationships between the orbital speed of the stars on the outer rim and the size of the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies:
http://www.cosmotography.com/images/supermassive_blackholes_drive_galaxy_evolution_2.html
I realized this could answer a problem that surfaced in cosmology not long ago: We look back 10 billion years and find that galaxies are behaving like they consist of ordinary matter. The cosmological world went abuzz and asked, ''where did the dark matter go?''
I realized this could be answered if the dark matter phenomenon was somehow linked intrinsically to the black holes at their galactic cores. The black holes would not have been supermassive 4 billion years years after big bang, or approximately 10 billion years ago, when the earliest galaxies were starting to form. And so, it seemed that this was a nice solution then to a weird problem: the reason those dark matter effects for galactic curves were not about, because their galactic core black holes were too small to account for it.
After some investigation, it seems like it may be a candidate to provide evidence of black hole torsional structure. It seems that the result of this galaxy losing its black hole could have resulted in the galaxies famous ''loose arms.'' Galaxy is called the Triangulum.
The core is surprisingly a nebula but there is more activity going on in the loose arms of the galaxy than what appears. Star formation should be happening in the center but surprisingly star formation is low.
I am reading this right now, just understanding some basics of the rotation curves of M33.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909252
What was found was that there was nothing too peculiar about the rotation curves, but what I later found out was that there is in fact a lot of activity hiding behind the thick curtain of gas in its arms and there is black hole activity in there.
Then I found a second case to compare the theory, that black holes literally hold the structure of a spiral galaxy together in such a way, that the rotation curves will boil down to the same phenomenon.
This galaxy seems to strengthen my hypotheses about M33. This galaxy had its supermassive black hole ripped away much earlier (or is that later?) than M33. The idea its black hole has been ejected is one of the top explanations apparently. What has happened, is not a collapse of the system, but stars are now diverging away from each other, its massive bulge that is still there - that bulge is created by a gradual separation over time, it probably was never that large.
The bulge is a bit of a mystery, but it can be understood as the separation of the stars in the absence of the supermassive black hole that are now drifting apart. Likewise, M33 is such a case, albeit, an advanced one. It too is loosely separated, the arms are drifting off into space and loosing the rotational energy it once had. This galaxy we just looked at lost its black hole much earlier than M33 lost its supermassive black hole.
The theory was strengthened enough that I have made a new post about this discovery. It's not that the rotation curves disappear when the central black hole disappears, it is that the structure itself will eventually fall apart - the rotation curves seem to be present so long as there is black hole activity. The galaxy which is 10 times the size of our Milky way, will eventually loose its bulge, it will deviate further and further away, maybe fall back on the galaxy and flatten out. There is still black hole activity going on in the arms of M33 and there is black hole activity going on inside of Abel 2261 which appears to be, helplessly, holding the structures together. As in the case of M33, the arms are loose and falling away from the center, which is direct evidence the entire spiral structure owes its structure to the supermassive black hole and if not present, will be overcome by the centrifugal force of the galaxy.
short transcript of a discussion between me and Matti
''The binding energy of a galaxy like our own will need to have a binding energy equal or approx. equal to
[math]E = \frac{GM^2(spiral)}{R} ~ 10^{61} ergs[/math]
The galaxy harbours a black hole. The energy of that hole is
[math]E_{BH} = M_{BH}c^2 = \frac{GM^{2}_{BH}}{R} ~ 10^{61} ergs[/math]
The equality of both of these solutions would be to imply that the entire binding energy of the spiral galaxy is associated to the black hole.
We know now there is evidence for this as a study of some rare galaxies in absence of supermassive black hole cores seem to either
1) Fall apart slowly due to the centrifugal forces
2) Or display a common characteristic of the spiral arms becoming more detached over time.
It's like that perhaps (nearly the entire) binding energy holding a galaxy is held together by the core massive hole. Black holes in the arms will be able to hold certain structures together over lengthly periods of time I suspect. These black holes will probably correct how much binding energy is holding a galaxy together.''Matti P.
''You say that blackhole mass is equal to galactic binding energy. But can one say that binding energy is associated with the blackole. In any case, the notion of binding energy when represented as interaction potential energy is problematic. Certainly in GRT where also the notion of energy is problematic. And also in QFTs. In TGD framework I would like to get rid of the notion of potential energy altogether and wrote quite recently an article about how the mathematics of Yangians could allow to understand the generation of bound states and also of binding energy.''
It was clear something was incompatible in the model. Matti suggested the size of these early black holes had to be much more massive than we know in theory. Turns out there is evidence for this
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/earliest-monster-black-holes
Early on, myself and Matti concluded the antimatter problem (of where it went to) 10 billion years ago could be answered if black holes were not large enough (whatever the mechanism, there seems to be a direct relationship between rotation curves and black hole size). It seems that this is not always the case, some of these black holes did manage to get supermassive in only 100,000 years! This means this hypothesis we have suggested is testable! Rotation curves need to be measured for these supermassive black holes with a million solar masses. Not only that but they have to be compared with other cases and we will notice if we see the rotation curves after a certain size or threshold.
A link to Matti's work on the subject
http://matpitka.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-view-about-galaxies-and-galactic.html
0 -
On 09/09/2017 at 5:07 PM, Mordred said:
Your welcome, glad to see you got latex working.
I agree the paper is extremely interesting on the pulsation and informative in the confinement of the different scales. Planck, macro and cosmological.
The beauty of the paper is that it shows that the old cosmological problem isn't a problem if you examine the limits of the effective action due to the HUP.
I am still studying several of the details in the paper myself. As you have noted, its fairly intensive in detail. Not something one can easily understand by simply reading it.
The problem of using Wicks rotations on Euclidean space however is still an issue. The issue comes down to renormalization on path divergences when your under significant curvature. The Wicks rotation works well under Euclid space, not so great under curvature.
Most of the papers detailing this is intensive in group algebra, so if your weak on QFT will be pointless to include. I will see if I can dig up a more appropriate level.
I'm a little busy this weekend but would like to assist you on your modelling approach, so once I get a chance I will probably provide some further details to assist you in moving forward into your approach.
In particular we will need to test if your approach gives the equation of state w=-1 for the Lambda term under scalar modelling. Though I see nothing above that shouldn't, one cannot assume that lol.
I found an analogue of a wick rotation in geometric algebra terms... I'll see if I can find it again.
0 -
I wanted a pre-big bang model - a condensate, non-interacting (possibly degenerate) gas of particles in a super cool state - which later I came to think about it in terms of Bose Condensate (even before the paper you had linked). The only way this pre-state could phase transition into the post state, would be through some collapse, leading to the big bang. Then in the last day, I thought, if that is the case, I better look for cases and investigate whether Bose Condensates can collapse. It seems they can, drastically altering the system .
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6844/full/412295a0.html?foxtrotcallback=true
0 -
I understand Diracs theory quite well, I haven't been into it in a while, so no doubt you will refresh things I have almost certainly forgotten.
0 -
If I don't get in, I'll use sci-hub. cheers, will give it a read
0 -
I have a question Mordred so did we measure any spin to the waves?
0 -
Ok, was just checking.
0
Is the Universe infinite?
in Astronomy and Cosmology
Posted
You fool!
You don't even know how this all started, its because strange said the big bang did not imply the universe has an origin there.
I said that the big bang implies there was some point in our history we can call the origin of everything. Unless cyclic universe theories are considered, this statement is completely true. Arguing against it saying big bang doesn't talk about a beginning, is actually silly. It actually does. The mark of the appearance of space and time from some big bang model is a beginning and origin theory.