Mashmead Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Introduction This discussion is intended as a start to develop what the aerospace industry calls a concept description document, building the largely speculative basis for a conceptual model at something close to a philosophical level. It proposes a new idea as to the origin of the universe, the nature of the Big Bang and/or inflation, a new perspective on the expanding universe, and a new idea on how the universe might end. The level of this discussion is pointed towards an architectural level; defining the piece parts, the relationship of the parts, and the conceptual flow among the parts as a process. The concepts for the piece parts are almost all taken from existing published materials, with references shown in the text for convenience. Some of the piece parts are trimmed or expanded, changed in scale, or applied differently, but mostly I am taking existing ideas and developing a new framework conceptualization (NFC) that flows end-to-end and is internally consistent. Someday I hope it becomes the New Framework Theory (NFT). I have a B.S. in Physics and over 30 years of experience in conceptualizing, developing, and testing large scale earth physics models. That experience, however, was strictly Newtonian and classical physics, and not directly related to cosmology theory supporting the discussion about the universe. However, the analysis methods used do incorporate a lot of experience in making large complex physics models represent reality. The Universe Part 1: Origin Cosmology questions addressed in this part: - One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? (https://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/ - One may wonder, what came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing?... Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology. (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cosmology) - How is the arrow of time related to the special state of the early universe? (https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/10/03/ten-questions-for-the-philosophy-of-cosmology/) Some efforts to address the beginning of the universe assume that in the beginning, there was existing mass and energy. This is a very strong assumption. It seems to be a much more defensible assumption that in the beginning there was nothing. Really, deeply, totally nothing, in a way that we can describe, but not really understand, much like infinity. Several papers seem to endorse a university created from nothing, but their version of nothing is not the same as a total and absolute nothing: “The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing."… “It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness..” https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/26/175352714/the-origin-of-the-universe-from-nothing-everything At face value, the concept of the universe originating as a quantum vacuum fluctuation that grew to universe size would seem to suffer from the fact that the creation of the universe is first necessary in order to have a quantum vacuum field, unless you assume that “primordial” quantum vacuum fields existed before the universe. As one paper put it: “Many discussions of origins pursue a more ambitious target: they aim to explain the creation of the universe “from nothing” … The origins are supposedly then explained without positing an earlier phase of evolution; supposedly this can be achieved, for example, by treating the origin of the universe as a fluctuation away from a vacuum state. Yet obviously a vacuum state is not nothing: it exists in a spacetime, and has a variety of non-trivial properties.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/#SingTheo However, this paper presents a concept that an absolute nothingness existed before the universe, and argues that this is both scientific and defensible and plays a key role in understanding the origin of the universe. The state of absolute nothingness can be named and described. We start with a straight-forward definition of absolute Nothingness. Mathematically, this approach is simple: +1-1=0. Or, if you prefer, 0=+1-1 While this appears trivial, it simply shows that Nothing can be divided into a plus something and a minus something, which, when combined, is returned to where you started: nothing. Call this state of absolute nothingness, for lack of a better name, the N-state. It is then possible to postulate an event compatible with physics. The event is this: In order to create matter and energy, it is conceptually possible to separate the N-state into plus and minus components that sum to the N-state. In simplest terms to start, a +M and +E component, and a -M and -E component. (Nomenclature note: I am going to use +M and +E to designate normal matter and energy in our universe; -M and -E to designate negative matter and negative energy as the opposites of matter and energy in our universe). The idea then is simply this: In a manner that might be in some sense a functional parallel to the creation of particle/anti-particle pairs in a quantum vacuum field (although it is certainly a wholly different phenomenology), the N-state created a pair of universes. A universe and an anti-universe came into existence. I make no assumption as to why or how this separation may have occurred; this is just establishing that there is a way compatible with physics that it could have occurred. There are many opportunities for confusion arising from terms. Negative mass as the opposite of positive mass appears clear: Washington State University physicists have created a fluid with negative mass…Hypothetically, matter can have negative mass in the same sense that an electric charge can be either negative or positive. https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-negative-mass.html Note that the concept of negative mass and negative energy have been theorized in several different papers, such as: “… We review the standards of relativistic quantum mechanics such as the Dirac equation under the concept of negative masses. We show that negative energies are acceptable provided the masses are simultaneously negative.” https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aaedcc/pdf The concept of negative energy is established in physics, although it seems to have two possibly different definitions. The first, as envisioned by Hawkins is summarized as: “The laws of physics demand the existence of something called 'negative energy'….” When the Big Bang produced a massive amount of positive energy, it simultaneously produced the same amount of negative energy. In this way, the positive and the negative add up to zero, always. It’s another law of nature. So where is all this negative energy today? It’s in the third ingredient in our cosmic cookbook: it’s in space.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe The idea that gravitational potential energy is a precise negative energy offset to positive energy in the universe has substantial support, although not all agree: “Experimental proof for the observable universe being a "zero-energy universe" is currently inconclusive. Gravitational energy from visible matter accounts for 26–37% of the observed total mass–energy density. Therefore, to fit the concept of a "zero-energy universe" to the observed universe, other negative energy reservoirs besides gravity from baryonic matter are necessary. These reservoirs are frequently assumed to be dark matter.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe Note that the concept of negative energy as gravitational potential energy is not clearly the same as the concept of negative energy as envisioned by the separation of nothing into components of equal amounts of positive matter and negative matter, positive energy and negative energy. However, the concept of negative energy fields as described in various papers exploring the concept of negative energies and time reversal in Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity appears consistent with what would be expected in an anti-universe, and introduces the third structural component of the anti-universe: the arrow of time is pointing backwards in the anti-universe. One example: “The proposed link between negative energies, time reversal and the existence of two conjugated metrics opens the way to a new natural gravitational interaction mechanism between positive and negative energy fields.” https://hal.science/hal-00001476v1/document It should be noted that there is a distinct difference the positive matter and negative matter relationship vs. matter and anti-matter. Both matter and anti-matter are based on positive matter with opposite electrical charges, and destroy each other, with a release of energy, when combined. In the case of both +M/-M and +E/-E, the combining of the opposites results in a simple ceasing of existence, with no release of energy. Call these two universes (rather than “universe” and “anti-universe”) the Positive Universe (Posiverse) and the Negative Universe (Negaverse). The Posiverse blended with the Negaverse equals the N-state. The Posiverse is assumed to be our currently observed universe. One immediate issue is that, if the N-state was separated into a Posiverse and a Negaverse, how can the two universes be kept apart, given the likelihood that there would likely be an instant strong attraction to recombine the two universes, gravitationally and possibly for other reasons. As introduced above, negative mass and negative energy are associated with time reversal. The separation solution is that the Negaverse is moving backward in time, while our Posiverse is moving forward in time. Note that, even though the universes are separated by time, they both occupy the same space. A configuration that appears to have some conceptual similarity with the above, considering the possibility of negative matter and time reversal but not negative energy, has also been proposed: “Some bimetric theories of the universe propose that two parallel universes with an opposite arrow of time may exist instead of one, linked together by the Big Bang and interacting only through gravitation. “ Summarized at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#Arrow_of_time_and_energy_inversion Summary taken from the original paper: "Cosmological model of the Universe with a time vector inversion". JETP Lett. 52: 349–351. 1980. The possibility of a mirror-image (as described, effectively an anti-universe) has also been proposed by CPT researchers: “To preserve the CPT symmetry throughout the cosmos, there must be a mirror-image cosmos that balances out our own. This cosmos would have all opposite charges than we have, be flipped in the mirror, and run backward in time. Our universe is just one of a twin. Taken together, the two universes obey CPT symmetry.” https://www.livescience.com/mirror-universe-explains-dark-matter Note that time reversal is also associated with negative mass and negative energy in Part 4, below, as part of the discussion of the connection between the two universes. Given some theoretical support for the possibility of this configuration of universes, what might be the initial condition of matter and energy in the Posiverse and Negaverse? Considering what has to be preserved outside the obvious of matter and energy, then another major component that needs to be balanced between the Negaverse and Posiverse is entropy. Therefore, one would expect that at creation, the entropy of the Posiverse would be at a minimum. This in turn would suggest that, before time began, all of the matter and energy of the Posiverse would be confined to an almost infinitely small, energetic, and ordered (this is important) physical configuration. Contrarywise, the initial conditions in the Negaverse are at maximum entropy. Note, however, what happens if we add space to the quantities that must be perfectly balanced between the Negaverse and Posiverse. Space has no obvious positive and negative attributes, except for its three dimensional characteristics. While it is possible to conceive of negative energy and matter, conceiving of negative space (negative dimensions) is more difficult. An alternative line of thinking is that an almost infinite large space would balance out an almost infinitely small space. While the subject needs more thought, accepting this approach indicates that the Negaverse is born with space expanded to a size approaching infinity with matter dispersed in a maximally cold and disordered state, because entropy is at a maximum. That would imply that space in the Posiverse at the moment of creation would be an almost infinitely small, infinitely energetic, and infinitely ordered state. The reason matter, energy, entropy, and space could exist (and that it can be characterized as infinitely dense, energetic, and ordered in an infinitely small space) was because there was no time; it was frozen in timelessness. Without time, motion is not possible and entropy cannot proceed. If I understand it correctly, these are exactly the hypothesized initial conditions thought necessary for the Big Bang. The state of the pre-time physical configuration also meets Guth’s conditions for inflation: “The key property of the laws of physics that makes inflation possible is the existence of states of matter that have a high energy density which cannot be rapidly lowered.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0002156.pdf One potential new consideration is that the expansion of space due to the start of time may perform some or all of the function now attributed to an inflaton scalar field. At the moment of birth of the two universes, time starts to flow for both universes. The Negaverse will start to move back toward the negative equivalent of the initial conditions (minimum entropy) of the Posiverse, as the Posiverse moves forward in time toward the initial conditions (maximum entropy) of the Negaverse. As a side note, it is interesting to note that time is also one of the quantities that is preserved; the net time for the two universes is zero. To summarize so far: The initial state is absolutely Nothing, with no time, no matter, no energy, not even “space” as we think of it. In an instant, a birthing event occurs; the Nothing is (torn, split, divided, rendered) and births two universes. One, arbitrarily labeled the Posiverse, consists of positive matter, positive energy, and is in a minimum state of entropy, the arrow of time is pointing “forward” and it is almost infinitely small. The second, complementary universe, labeled the Negaverse, consists of negative matter, negative energy, is in a maximum state of entropy, the arrow of time is pointing “backward” and it is almost infinitely large. All is conserved in that the sum of all is equal to the original Nothing. Separation of the two universes is sustained by their relative movement in time. This does not exclude the possibility that there is still some connection between the two universes, a concept indicated in quantum field theory, and developed in more detail in Part four of this analysis. Also note that this analysis effectively invokes a new principle of physics, or perhaps expands on current principles, i.e., the addition of space and time to conserved quantities; maybe call it the conservation of space, time, energy and mass (STEM). The Universe Part 2: Growth Cosmology questions addressed in this part: - So, although there may have been a cause for the Big Bang that we are unaware of, modern cosmology neither defines nor requires one. (https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-caused-the-big-bang) - What caused the universe to inflate at all? (https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-big-bang-happened/) The growth of the universe started with the first tick of the cosmic clock. An easy assumption is that when time started, the effect was similar to any situation where an exceedingly highly compressed and energetic mass is suddenly released from confinement. However, this effect by itself could not have resulted in the hypothesized inflation. For the dominant source of inflation, space itself is the likely source. Space exists before the cosmic clock starts in an intensely compressed state. When the cosmic clock starts, the current laws of physics start. Compressed with space is its associated vacuum energy field, also necessarily compressed into the almost infinitely small volume. As a pure speculation, some large percentage of the positive energy in the Posiverse is likely held in the vacuum energy field, and the response to the start of time is the trigger to the Big Bang/inflation sequence of events. Assuming that the general concept of the Big Bang/inflation event is essentially correct as theorized, there are some aspects of the Big Bang/inflation event that are not consistently presented, and the order of events is important. A look at easily available publications on the Big Bang and Inflation shows that there appear to be somewhat different understandings and presentations of the Big Bang and inflation, their relationship and their order of occurrence. Some sources report the Big Bang as preceding inflation, such as: “Although the universe has been expanding since the initial Big Bang, inflation refers to the hypothesis that, for a very short time, the universe expanded at a sharply INCREASING rate, rather than at the decreasing rate it followed before inflation and has followed since.” https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_inflation.html “… cosmological problems could be solved, however, if there had been a very short period immediately after the Big Bang where the Universe experienced an incredible burst of expansion called "inflation." “ https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/ Other sources report that inflation preceded the Big Bang, such as: “When cosmic inflation stopped, the energy driving it transferred to matter and light – the Big Bang.” https://universe.nasa.gov/universe/basics/ “The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion.” https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html and a definitive statement from the person who originated the theory of inflation: “For physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth, one big question about the big bang remains: “What was it that banged?” “The answer lies in his theory of cosmic inflation. “It sets up the conditions for the big bang—like a prequel,” says Guth, a professor of physics at MIT.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/biggest-questions-in-science/the-founder-of-cosmic-inflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/ Based on the above, a strong case can be made that the preferred sequence of events for the Big Bang is that the inflation event came before the start of the sustained expansion that is generally characterized as the Big Bang. There is also an interesting possibility, considered in more detail below, that the inflation event expansion was the Big Bang in its entirety. Which brings us to the next question associated with how the universe grew: Was inflation (or any preceding or following Big Bang) an explosive event or a non-explosive event? First order, if the event was caused by the first tick of time, the reaction that we would expect, based on rapid state changes we are familiar with in our daily lives, is a classical explosion on an unimaginable scale. One description of the Big Bang as such an explosive event is: “The Universe began about fourteen billion years ago in a violent explosion; every particle started rushing apart from every other particle in an early super-dense phase. The fact that galaxies are receding from us in all directions is a consequence of this initial explosion and was first discovered observationally by Hubble” https://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/big_bang_four.php However, the explosive nature of the event is frequently downplayed, emphasizing instead the expansion of space: “An explosion where the mass explodes in all directions is not an accurate picture of the Big Bang. “It's easy to think that the Big Bang was an explosion, in which substances were thrown out, like pieces of wood flying off after a hand grenade goes off. "But when it comes to the Big Bang, it's not the substance that travels out," says Raklev. "The universe itself expands, space itself expands.” https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html Of the two different scenarios, the favored assumption here appears to be that during inflation, the universe expanded through the expansion of space and, as theorized above, uniformly carried all of the original matter (described as a hot gas in Big Bang theory: “The matter in the early universe is described as a uniform, hot gas of particles undergoing uniform expansion.” Guth, Alan H. (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Basic Books. P85. ISBN 978-0-201-32840-0.) with it. This extreme uniformity was possible because the original matter was highly ordered, and that order was carried through the inflation expansion phase. Had a violent and chaotic inflation period occurred, the expected result would be unlikely to have resulted in an isotropic and homogeneous universe at any scale at any time. The next question to consider is whether or not inflation resulted in the matter carried with it having momentum. The most common assumption is that it had momentum, and the ongoing expansion of the universe is due to that momentum. One NASA source says: “When cosmic inflation stopped, the energy driving it transferred to matter and light – the Big Bang.” https://universe.nasa.gov/universe/basics/ and: “The expansion of the universe can be understood as a consequence of an initial impulse (possibly due to inflation), which sent the contents of the universe flying apart. The mutual gravitational attraction of the matter and radiation within the universe gradually slows this expansion over time, but expansion nevertheless continues due to momentum left over from the initial impulse.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe These statements are explicit that the matter carried in the inflation event would indeed have acquired momentum from being relocated effectively instantaneously across thousands or millions of light years. However, if the description of inflation is that the matter particles were not violently exploded into space, but that space expanded around them, it appears compatible with classic physics that the matter particles carried within the expansion of space did not arrive at its destination at the end of inflation with outward momentum. The matter particles remained motionless in local coordinates; space expanded around proto-matter particles that were originally extraordinarily dense and highly ordered. Matter arrived at its post-inflation position maintaining its high degree of order; uniform throughout the space generated by inflation. It was literally transformed from an infinitely small, dense, energetic, and ordered state to an exceptionally large, sparse, cooler, and ordered space solely through expansion of space around each particle of matter, with each particle of matter maintaining its relative positions within the space and the exact shape of the original pre-time matter aggregation. (I would hypothesize that this scenario supports the concept that the universe is likely spherical). With or without continued expansion of the universe, this would have created the initial state of a perfectly isotropic and homogeneous universe, with all matter distributed equally over the entirety of the universe. If the matter in the universe reached maximum expansion at the end of inflation without momentum, that this brings up the interesting possibility that inflation may have been the entirety of the Big Bang. This implies an event with a discreet beginning and end, and the universe reached its maximum size at the end of inflation. It also explains why the universe appears isotropic and homogeneous at a large scale. Time has allowed local and regional differences to develop, but at a larger scale it still appears isotropic and homogeneous. As a key part of this hypothesized chain of events, one event remains unclear. When the cosmic clock made it first tick, space expanded, presumably as calculated by Big Bang theorists. This was a response to the start of time; before time began, the universe was confined in an almost infinitely small construct. Space was necessarily a part of this highly confined construct, and when time began, space and its vacuum field responded with the inflation event. The idea of space itself being compressed in some manner is difficult to conceptually model, but it is exactly the same conceptually as the accepted theory that space (and its vacuum field) is expanding or has expanded in the past. At some point, expansion either stopped, or slowed down. One reason that expansion may have come to a stop has been theorized as a reason why the (positive) universe may have exactly zero positive energy, but this theory may also provide a rationale for the end of inflation: “The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity. Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking or Alexander Vilenkin, call or called this state "a universe from nothingness", although the zero-energy universe model requires both a matter field with positive energy and a gravitational field with negative energy to exist.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe The proposed approach of this paper is different in terms of origination of initial conditions, with a Posiverse having all or substantially all of the positive energy, which is balanced out by the negative energy in the Negaverse (anti-universe). However, when inflation distributes the matter over the universe as it expands, it is conceivable that there was a balance point reached, where the energy well created by the generation of gravitational potential energy by inflation (assuming that inflation used the positive energy available in the Posiverse as its energy source) reached a balance point with the remaining positive energy that existed at universe creation. This concept is somewhat different from the zero-energy universe as generally described, as it does not require a pre-universe state with existing matter, positive energy, or a gravitational field for existence. However, the result may be the same and our universe may be a zero-energy universe, but its origin is derived from a very different set of conditions. This sequence of events sets a scenario such that conditions were present very early in the universe for the universe’s gravitational contraction to begin. However, given that the universe’s extent may be much larger than now thought, gravity would have taken a very long time, probably billions of years, to start a significant inward movement through the entire universe. Local and regional gravity would have been the dominant evidence of gravitational influences for a very long time, and the universe has had a great deal of time to build complex local and regional structures. An interesting thought is that if this theory of the state of the universe at the end of inflation is correct, with matter distributed totally uniformly over the universe, then the stage is set for elements of chaos theory to come into play. The vacuum fluctuations are randomly occurring, very local, and, by causing minute disturbances in ongoing gravitational attraction, generating many different sets of initial conditions in gravity fields in random locations throughout the universe. Given the amount of time available, this could account for the significant local and regional structural differences in the evolution of the universe. The final interesting thought for this section is this: If inflation was the big bang, and the matter in the universe had no expansion momentum, why would the universe still appear to be expanding? There is a possible explanation for the current observations, as analyzed in the next section. The Universe Part 3: Current Observations Cosmology questions addressed in this part: - Are the observations usually interpreted as the accelerating expansion of the universe rightly interpreted, or are they instead evidence that the cosmological principle is false? - What is the cause of the observed accelerating expansion of the universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#cite_note-51) - The exact nature of dark energy remains a mystery… (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy) Examining the red shift/expansion assumption: there is a near one hundred percent agreement that the red shift indicates that the universe is expanding outward at the same rate in all directions. Looking at basic physics definitions and examining perspectives does imply that the accepted expansion model is not the only possibility. The definition of the cause of red shift is that two bodies are moving apart. There are multiple ways this can occur. The observer may be still, and the observed doing all the moving. The opposite is true; the observed may be still and the observer is doing all of the moving. Both the observer and the observed may be moving apart in opposite directions. Or both observer and observed can be moving in the same direction, one moving faster than the other. Clearly this only means that the more red-shifted the light from a distant body is, the faster the distant body is moving away from Earth. The only thing we can say about the direction the bodies are taking relative to Earth is that the direct line component of the relative motion is generating a red shift along an axis between two points, and that distance is increasing. This point is critical to keep in mind as part of the analysis presented below. Note: I understand that when there are redshifts in all directions that the most logical assumption is that the universe is expanding in all directions. Please stay with me; I may have an explanation that is a specific case that mimics the assumed general case while not actually agreeing with the implicit assumption embedded in it. Note that I am aware that many individuals are under the impression that the red shift is caused primarily by the expansion of space. I am assuming that the dominate effect is Doppler: “This cosmological redshift is commonly attributed to stretching of the wavelengths of photons propagating through the expanding space. This interpretation can be misleading, however; expanding space is only a choice of coordinates and thus cannot have physical consequences. The cosmological redshift is more naturally interpreted as a Doppler shift arising due to the recession of distant objects.” Bunn, E. F.; Hogg, D. W. (2009). "The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift". American Journal of Physics. 77 (8): 688–694 The shape of the universe: There is a near consensus that the observable universe is flat. However, consistent with an observation that the universe’s processes seem to be rather architecturally consistent over scale, I think it is conceptually difficult to envision a universe that originated with all the matter of the universe in a single point and then began expanding uniformly around matter particles would do so in anything except in a spherical manner. If there were some feasible constraints on the expansion, then the shape might be modified, but no such constraints are obvious. There is some consideration in the physics community for a spherical expansion, summarized as follows: “If the universe is curved, though, it must be so colossal that the entire 93 billion light-years we can see isn’t a large enough portion to reveal the curvature. To take an example from Earth, Gratton says, it could be as if we’re standing in a fog, unable to see beyond a small, flat patch of land — but somewhere out of sight, the horizon proves we live on a sphere. “When we say the universe is flat,” he says, “what we’re saying is, of the little bit of the universe we can see, it’s consistent with being part of a [3D analogue of a] flat surface.” https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-shape-is-the-universe/ And there is some recent observational evidence that the universe may be closed, which would support a spherical universe: “We show that the shape of the universe may actually be curved rather than flat, as previously thought—with a probability larger than 99%. In a curved universe, no matter which direction you travel in, you will end up at the starting point—just like on a sphere.” https://phys.org/news/2019-11-universe-rethink-cosmos.html The possibility that the universe is much, much bigger than currently thought has some theoretical support: “Inflationary cosmology therefore suggests that, even though the observed universe is incredibly large, it is only an infinitesimal fraction of the entire universe.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0002156.pdf Therefore, there is a reasonable possibility that the universe has expanded uniformly in all directions, which is spherically if it began as a sphere, from an almost infinitely small point as hypothesized in Part 2 of this analysis, and is much, much, larger than currently thought. If this is true, then there is an identifiable center of mass of the universe, a concept that is sometimes asserted to not have (or ever had) a physical reality. The Big Bang happens and/or inflation occurs, mass moves outward in all directions with the expansion of space, entropy increases. By this point Newtonian physics apply to the early universe; distributed mass exists, gravity works on the mass. As the expansion of space slows or halts, there was/is a gravitational effect, impacting the collective mass, resulting in the gradual development of an “inward” attraction toward a Universe center of mass (UCOM). This model is consistent with the models of the universe that postulate that it is possible that the universe will eventually collapse inward toward the UCOM: “In 1922, Russian physicist and mathematician Alexander Friedmann derived a famous set of equations aptly named the Friedmann equations. These calculations showed that our universe’s destiny is determined by its density, and it could either expand or contract, rather than remain in a steady state. With enough matter, gravity would eventually halt the cosmos’ expansion, causing it to come crashing back inward.” https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-beginning-to-the-end-of-the-universe-the-big-crunch-vs-the-big-freeze/ Please note that even if the universe is not spherical, there will exist a UCOM; a spherical universe makes the following analysis easier to visualize, but is not essential. In any case, there is general agreement that it is possible that eventually the universe may quit expanding and could fall into gravitational collapse, among other possibilities, which requires a UCOM. For purposes of developing a cohesive system model, I am assuming that there that there is such a thing as a UCOM, and that there has been enough time for the development of a spherical universe with a gravitational field such that “inward” and “outward” have meaning, indicating direction with respect to the center of mass of the universe. These assumptions bring about the possibility of a different understanding of what is now observed in the red shifted universe. If there was no outward momentum after expansion, and a great deal of time has passed, then it follows that the universe is presently in aggregate moving inward toward UCOM. Wouldn’t we see mostly blue shifts instead of red shifts? Not necessarily. I am postulating a more or less spherical universe that is much larger than currently thought; so large that from our observation point it appears to be flat. Also, if the cosmological principle holds, on a scale this large the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, appearing the same in all directions regardless of location. This implies that the matter in the spherical universe is visible as approximately evenly distributed within the sphere, and if the universe’s mass is contracting toward the UCOM, it would be contracting approximately uniformly within any given radius from the UCOM. Visualize the universe as built up of concentric spheres, with some selected radial distance defining the concentric spheres. As the universe’s matter reaches a maximum expansion and starts into gravitational collapse, the mass in the inner concentric spheres will start to accelerate toward the UCOM first. The mass in the outer concentric rings, at an immensely larger radius from UCOM, will accelerate much slower toward the UCOM. Question: what will this look like to an observer anywhere in the middle of the universe’s radius? If the observer is looking inward toward UCOM, the mass closer to the UCOM will be moving faster toward the UCOM than the observer, even though they are both moving in the same direction. If the observer looks outward away from the UCOM, the outer concentric spheres of mass are also moving inward, but slower than the observer is moving inward, meaning that we are moving away from the outer mass faster than it is moving toward us. In both cases the relative velocities will generate red shifts from unequal velocities inward, instead of a difference in velocities among bodies all moving outward. While not identical in assumptions, this concept of red shifts being generated in a contracting universe has presence on the internet, not as a peer-reviewed paper, but as a personal effort to convey the concept: http://bigcrunchuniverse.net/home-big-crunch-model/big-crunch-universe-contracting-universe/ This framework is significantly different from the current universe models. If it is accurate, the observed value of the red shift looking inward should be somewhat different (depending on where we are in the middle) from observations looking outward. There should be one group of similar values representing larger red shifts in one direction (say inward), and another group representing less red-shifted observations looking outward. This would be a violation of the isotropy hypothesis that the universe should be expanding at the same rate in all directions. Is there any evidence of that the isotropy hypothesis might be being violated? Yes; for example, a study published in 2020: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/04/aa36602-19/aa36602-19.html cites numerous findings of directional sensitivity found in recent measurement efforts. The findings of their own extensive data collection and analysis are summarized in https://www.inverse.com/science/universe-expanding-theory and concludes that: “The results suggest that while the universe is expanding, it is not expanding at the same rate in all directions…. “The isotropy of the late Universe and consequently of the X-ray galaxy cluster scaling relations is an assumption greatly used in astronomy. However, within the last decade, many studies have reported deviations from isotropy when using various cosmological probes…“We saw that clusters with the same properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction,” Thomas Reiprich, professor at the University of Bonn, Germany and co-author of the new study, said in a statement….“These differences are not random, but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky.”” (emphasis added). If the analysts are interpreting differences in inward movement as differences in outward movement, they would assume that they were seeing continued expansion of the universe. It is hard to account for a clear pattern dependent on direction except as a difference in the relative velocities in those directions. While this interpretation is inconsistent with the theorized constant state of expansion in all directions, it is wholly consistent with the framework proposed in this paper, with mass closer to the UCOM moving away from the earth faster than outward mass is moving toward the earth. Other data points are from similar data generated in efforts to confirm the Hubble constant: “The rate at which the universe is expanding, known as the Hubble constant, is one of the fundamental parameters for understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of the cosmos. “However, a persistent difference, called the Hubble Tension, is seen between the value of the constant measured with a wide range of independent distance indicators and its value predicted from the afterglow of the Big Bang.” https://phys.org/news/2024-03-webb-hubble-telescopes-affirm-universe.html The Hubble constant tension controversy has evolved because there have been different values reported for what is assumed to be a constant recessional velocity of all bodies in the universe, and there have been a range of values that tend to cluster around two different points, with some measurements falling between the extremes. For example: “But after scanning stars and galaxies across our universe, some experts calculate the constant to be 69.8 km/s/Mpc, while others find it to be as high as 74 km/s/Mpc, depending on the method of measurement. Still others have suggested solutions that fall between the two.” https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-hubble-tension-universe-expansion A small survey of summary literature shows that these differences are generally believed to be based the different methodologies and measurement methods used to collect and analyze the data. Sorting by direction is not something that would obviously occur to an analyst when searching for a believed constant value. However, if there were consistent but different values in two distinct clusters (looking inward vs. looking outward) unknowingly and randomly mixed into data, the results would appear consistently inconsistent and puzzling. Re-examination of data generated for Hubble constant studies based on different methodologies and measurement methods and sorting for direction could add (or subtract) credibility to the proposed framework. If there are consistent differences based on the direction of the sky being surveyed, then the impact on cosmology is major. The rate at which the universe is expanding, the Hubble constant, is one of the fundamental parameters for understanding the evolution and age of the universe. Under the proposed framework, there is no Hubble constant; its derivation is based on data reflecting a contracting universe rather than an expanding universe, and it is sensitive to direction, and not a constant. Does this inward moving scenario generate results that violate Hubble’s Law? Will an observer in this situation see that the velocity of recession of any distant galaxy, relative to said observer, is directly proportional to the galaxy’s distance from the observer, to a first approximation? I think this works; the further inward you look, the stronger the acceleration of the object moving away from us which generates a red shift. The further you look outward, the more strongly we are accelerating away from these distant objects. The red shifts observed are not, as Hubble (implicitly) assumed, from more distant bodies accelerating outward away from us due to the universe’s outward expansion, but by the fact that all of us are moving inward due to gravity, and we are accelerating faster inward than more outwardly distant bodies, but not as rapidly as more inward bodies are accelerating toward the UCOM. Another major impact on current cosmology theory would be a significant revision for a need for a dark energy theory, including the possibility of complete deletion for explaining current observations. The theory of dark energy drives what is believed to be an unexpected acceleration of universal expansion. However, under this new framework, what is actually happening is exactly as expected in a gravitational contraction; the matter more outwardly distant from UCOM than the Earth is accelerating more slowly downward than we are and the distance between us is expanding; the matter closer to the UCOM is accelerating more rapidly inwardly than we are and the distance is expanding. Both are increasing with time, and in the flipped perspective assumed in current observations, this appears to be an acceleration of outward expansion. This does not, in the new framework, indicate anything unexpected; classical physics applies with no need for any additional factors or a new hypothetical form of energy. The new perspective may also, pending analysis, play a role in explaining the Hubble flow anomaly: “Well, there’s the bulk flow anomaly: our entire galaxy is moving through this sea of radiation with a well-measured speed and direction. In the standard theory, we’re moving because of the gravitational pull of some fluctuation from uniformity [in the distribution of matter in the universe]. But it’s not pulling us in the direction that you would expect.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26134750-100-a-legendary-cosmologist-on-how-to-find-a-deeper-theory-of-the-universe/ One other study indicates directional differences related to the early universe: “Carroll also discussed new research he and a team of physicists have done, looking at, again, results from WMAP. Carroll and his team say the data shows the universe is “lopsided.” Measurements from WMAP show that the fluctuations in the microwave background are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than on the other.” https://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/ It is not clear that the present proposed framework of a contracting universe is supported by this data point, but it is interesting that a sensitivity to direction, which should not exist, does appear to exist. While obviously not definitive, pending a lot of details to be resolved, the successful and consistent fitting of the anomalies cited above into the hypothesized new framework does support the possibility that the universe is not expanding uniformly in all directions, and is actually in gravitational contraction and behaving as expected. The Universe Part 4: Speculations Cosmology questions addressed in this Part: - Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch, or a Big Bounce? Or is it part of an infinite recurring cyclic model? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#cite_note-51) The Wormhole Possibility When the Posiverse separated from the Negaverse, it seems possible, based on the general rule that opposites attract, that there was an instant and strong attraction between the universes. This attraction would be logically be strongest at their point of closest approach, which would be the point of their separation, which is also the point that became the starting point for the Big Bang/Inflation, and presumable is the UCOM of both universes. However, the two universes started moving in opposite directions in time. While there is no obvious theoretical support, I think that there is a possibility of a bridge connecting the two universes, separated by time. One end opens to a universe of +E and +M; the other end opens up to a universe of – E and -M. There could be a steady flow through the bridge-or perhaps, tunnel-with Posiverse meeting Negaverse and turning into nothing: “Forward also coined a term, "nullification", to describe what happens when ordinary matter and negative matter meet: they are expected to be able to cancel out or nullify each other's existence. An interaction between equal quantities of positive mass matter (hence of positive energy E = mc2) and negative mass matter (of negative energy −E = −mc2) would release no energy…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass There are other possibilities about potential flow characteristics discussed below. This can only happen if there is a theoretical way to establish this tunnel and keep it open. This is obviously the description of a wormhole, probably the mother of all wormholes. The scale may not match current thinking, but the theoretical conditions cited in wormhole articles lend some direct support to the favorable conditions for the presence of a wormhole, such as: “Theoretically, a wormhole might connect extremely long distances such as a billion light-years, or short distances such as a few meters, or different points in time, or even different universes” "Focus: Wormhole Construction: Proceed with Caution". Physical Review Focus. Vol. 2. American Physical Society. 1998-08-03. p. 7. “Wormholes that could be crossed in both directions, known as traversable wormholes, were thought to be possible only if exotic matter with negative energy density could be used to stabilize them.” Rodrigo, Enrico (2010). The Physics of Stargates. Eridanus Press. p. 281. ISBN 978-0-9841500-0-7. “The scientists who are skeptical about wormholes believe that after a short time the middle of the wormhole would collapse under its own gravity, unless it had some force pushing outward from inside the wormhole to counteract that force. The most likely way it would do that is using what’s called “negative energies,” which would oppose gravity and stabilize the wormhole. But as far as scientists know, negative energies can be created only in amounts much too small to counteract a wormhole’s own gravity. It’s possible that the Big Bang created teeny, tiny wormholes with small amounts of negative energies way back at the beginning of the universe, and over time these wormholes have stretched out as the universe has expanded.” https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-are-wormholes-an-astrophysicist-explains-these-shortcuts-through-space/ “As the theory allows the fabric of spacetime to be stretched and bent, one can imagine all sorts of possible configurations. In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen described how two sheets of spacetime can be joined together, creating a bridge between two universes. This is one kind of wormhole – and since then many others have been imagined.” “Some wormholes may be "traversable", meaning humans may be able to travel through them. For that though, they would need to be sufficiently large and kept open against the force of gravity, which tries to close them. To push spacetime outward in this way would require huge amounts of "negative energy". “Sounds like sci-fi? We know that negative energy exists, small amounts have already been produced in the lab. We also know that negative energy is behind the universe's accelerated expansion. So nature may have found a way to make wormholes.” https://phys.org/news/2021-01-wormholes-lurking-universeand-ways.html In summary, it appears that a number of serious theorists have specified derived conditions for wormholes, most of which were not believed to be commonly available. However, the conditions for the wormhole between the Negaverse and the Posiverse appears to be a very strong candidate to meet the specified conditions. One question remains: conditions appear consistent with theory for the wormhole to exist, to remain open, and to be traversable by matter, but what is it that would attract matter and/or energy into the wormhole from the universes? It doesn’t appear that normal gravity is the answer: “Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists … have been able to describe some of the anticipated properties such particles may have. Assuming that all three concepts of mass are equivalent according to the equivalence principle, the gravitational interactions between masses of arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Newtonian approximation of the Einstein field equations. The interaction laws are then: Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses. Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass This would mean that the negative mass in the Negaverse would actively repel the positive mass in the Posiverse, impeding any flow between the universes. However, electrical attraction, if present, might overcome gravitational attraction. If, for some reason, there was as much anti-matter (and little ordinary matter) in the Negaverse as there is ordinary matter (with very little anti-matter) in the Posiverse, there could be a strong attraction based on electrical charges. Another possibility (at least a hint) is a paper that refers to theorized gravitational attraction between positive and negative energy fields: “The proposed link between negative energies, time reversal and the existence of two conjugated metrics opens the way to a new natural gravitational interaction mechanism between positive and negative energy fields.” https://hal.science/hal-00001476v1/document One interesting finding from this framework is that distance between the two universes is not a constraint. The Negaverse occupies the same space as we do, just separated by time. The connection is not really a bridge or tunnel so much as a gateway, doorway or portal. However, it is unlikely that a somewhat more appropriate term will supplant the popular wormhole name. This is a situation that, so far as I know, has never been characterized before and has no theoretical exploration. There is extensive work on gravitational effects as a function of distance and mass, but no work on any possible relationship based on the effect of time on gravitational attraction. How the universe ends There are multiple possibilities. If the wormhole is real, then possibly eventually, all the +M and +E, -E and -M, flows through the WCU and turns to nothing, the wormhole collapses into the process, and the N-state is restored to its original condition: Nothing. Whether or not there is a cycle is dependent on the development of a theoretical concept of why and how the N-state was divided into equal but opposite components to begin with. If the wormhole is not there, or is there but with no strong flow through it, then the Posiverse continues on to a minimum entropy state and the Negaverse continues on to a maximum entropy state. Perhaps at that point (maximum/minimum entropy) time momentarily ceases to exist, and then flips so that the entire cycle is repeated. Basically, a Big Flip kind of a Big Bounce. Cosmology questions created by this model and not answered - What caused Nothing to divide up into a universe and an anti-universe? - How was Nothing divided up into a universe and an anti-universe? - What caused time to begin? A Special Acknowledgment When I started the quest to come up with an overall framework to fit the various pieces together, I spent many months trying to understand if there was an alternative interpretation of the red shift that would explain some of the difficulties with the disagreements among theory and observation. Much of this time was spent ignoring my subconscious which kept saying “It’s contracting, not expanding.” Finally, I decided to really work on a contraction scenario, and realized that it was possible to conceptualize a way that the observations of the red shift could be generated by a universe in gravitational contraction, and then I was able to find substantial data to support that view. At that time, I was firmly convinced that I was the only person to have ever made such an analysis. I was therefore shocked when, as a part of a final wrap-up of the paper, I looked at the section of Wikipedia on the “Big Crunch” and noticed one of the citations, authored by Stephen A. McSween in November 2015, mentioned a contracting universe. He had arrived at the essentially the same conclusions I had, years ago. That means, I think, that there are exactly two of us that are even willing to consider a contracting universe scenario, since it undercuts a foundational belief of all current cosmology models. However, if my larger scope end-to-end model should gain acceptance, he deserves credit for (so far as I know) being the first to think of this part of the NFC model. http://bigcrunchuniverse.net/home-big-crunch-model/big-crunch-universe-contracting-universe/ The end Max Ashmead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) Well you have quite a bit to go through, but one side note. As an accredited Cosmologist your really going about trying to learn cosmology in a rather haphazard manner. The reason I state haphazard is that using random google searches and subsequent articles will really twist you around a great deal of convoluted paths. My biggest suggestion is to pick up a couple of cosmology textbooks. For example the zero energy universe, while it is the most popular choice for a universe from Nothing model. Has the inherent problem in that it will only would in Euclidean spacetime. Although your statement of the universe arising from quantum fluctuations is commonly accepted. The problem with negative energy and negative mass is that those terms and applications are negative to a (and this is a very important point) NON ZERO baseline. True Negative energy and negative mass however isn't viable under GR. Though antiparticles were once thought of as one possibility. An antiparticle has the same mass density as its positive partner. We will start there for now edit I should add I can easily counter a contracting universe by simply pointing out its effect on the Blackbody temperature history of the CMB. If the universe was contracting the Blackbody temperature would be increasing and not decreasing in accordance with the ideal gas laws. Edited March 24 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) Wheeew ! That's a long post, and I certainly haven't read and digested the whole lot, but if Mordred is willing to give your approach consideration, I can do no less. I'll start with the very first question ... 1 hour ago, Mashmead said: One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? Entropy is proportional to the number of degrees of freedom, or microstates of a system. The universe, pre-Big Bang ( whatever that means ), would have had no degrees of freedom, and only one state, until a possible quantum fluctuation set in motion the Big Bang evolution that results in ever increasing degrees of freedom, microstates, and entropy. Someone should tell Sean Carroll ( in your link ) not to over-think it; it could really be that simple. Edited March 24 by MigL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 19 minutes ago, MigL said: Wheeew ! That's a long post, and I certainly haven't read and digested the whole lot, but if Mordred is willing to give your approach consideration, I can do no less. I'll start with the very first question ... Entropy is proportional to the number of degrees of freedom, or microstates of a system. The universe, pre-Big Bang ( whatever that means ), would have had no degrees of freedom, and only one state, until a possible quantum fluctuation set in motion the Big Bang evolution that results in ever increasing degrees of freedom, microstates, and entropy. Someone should tell Sean Carroll ( in your link ) not to over-think it; it could really be that simple. Quite correct. Though I am going to add some detail for the posters clarity. Lets start with time is \[10^{-43}\] seconds. The volume of the Observable universe is so miniscule that curvature loses any meaning. At the extreme hot temperatures at this time roughly \[10^{19} Gev \] all particle species will be at thermal equilibrium. As no particle species are distinguishable from one another. One can describe the this state via its temperature. As photons mediate temperature (temperature being part of the EM field) the the effective degrees of freedom is 2. Edited March 24 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mashmead Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 I am still trying to figure out how the site works, so please bear with me if I fail to get the reply process correct. I thought I could reply to each post, but it looks like I can do more than one reply at once; To Modred: Thanks for the useful comment on the Blackbody temperature history. Hopefully it only points out my own sloppiness in word choice. I did not write, even after extensive review, exactly what was in my head. I was not proposing that the universe is contracting in the same sense as an exact counter process to the original universe expansion; i.e., an actual contraction of space. What I was trying to say is the the mass in the universe is now in a contraction mode. You will have to cut me a little slack here, since the last blackbody problem I had to deal with was probably over 50 years ago, but I believe if the universe is still the same size as it was at the end of inflation, then the blackbody signature would still be unaffected if the mass were in gravitational contraction. To MigL: I am speculating the the universe (and anti-universe) were created in an initial timeless state. Based on analysis of differing opinions, I believe that inflation was the Big Bang in its entirety, but I am leaving open any opinion as to what exactly triggered inflation, outside of an association with the start of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) As your new to the site Be aware your restricted to 5 posts on the first day. After that the number of posts/day is unlimited. I was gathering an article you will find useful in regards to early universe entropy as well as cosmology in general as its in a textbook style. Particle Physics of the Early Universe Uwe-Jens Wiese Institute for Theoretical Physics Bern University http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf see section 4.2 with regards to how entropy is calculated in |Cosmology applications 21 minutes ago, Mashmead said: I am still trying to figure out how the site works, so please bear with me if I fail to get the reply process correct. I thought I could reply to each post, but it looks like I can do more than one reply at once; To Modred: Thanks for the useful comment on the Blackbody temperature history. Hopefully it only points out my own sloppiness in word choice. I did not write, even after extensive review, exactly what was in my head. I was not proposing that the universe is contracting in the same sense as an exact counter process to the original universe expansion; i.e., an actual contraction of space. What I was trying to say is the the mass in the universe is now in a contraction mode. You will have to cut me a little slack here, since the last blackbody problem I had to deal with was probably over 50 years ago, but I believe if the universe is still the same size as it was at the end of inflation, then the blackbody signature would still be unaffected if the mass were in gravitational contraction. To MigL: I am speculating the the universe (and anti-universe) were created in an initial timeless state. Based on analysis of differing opinions, I believe that inflation was the Big Bang in its entirety, but I am leaving open any opinion as to what exactly triggered inflation, outside of an association with the start of time. Inflationary models commonly use the inflaton which is a quasi-particle placeholder. However a lot of modern research is leaning towards Higgs inflation this includes Allen Guth as one of his recent papers ran a comparison between the inflaton and Higgs. I myself also support Higgs inflation however I never push personal feelings as to a preference. I'm not sure what you mean by mass contracting however the mass/energy density distribution is commonly understood via the equations of state (cosmology). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) with this we can further detail the evolution of said components as the universe expands. Those details are also in the link. I should further note the BB isn't a kinetic type explosion but a rapid spacetime expansion caused by those ideal gas laws as well as inflation. A kinetic explosion has different measurable properties. That are not homogeneous and isotropic and cannot give an homogeneous and isotropic expansion Edited March 24 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 minutes ago, Mashmead said: I am leaving open any opinion as to what exactly triggered inflation, outside of an association with the start of time Inflation would have started as a result of the drop from a false zero point vacuum energy due to a symmetry break. The last would have occurred at about 10-35 to 10-32 seconds, at least, according to most Inflation theories, the first of which was A Guth's inthe 80s. At this time, geometry ( and therefore space-time ) would already have 'formed', as that change, from the initial quantum foam occurred at Planck time, 10-43 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mashmead Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 Modred "I'm not sure what you mean by mass contracting however the mass/energy density distribution is commonly understood via the equations of state (cosmology)." Took me a while to understand this comment-I wasn't implying that I thought that all the mass was somehow shrinking. I was referring to the idea that the universe is now in gravitational contraction. The idea is that the universe reached a maximum size at the end of inflation and remains the same size, but the matter in the universe is moving inward now. "I should further note the BB isn't a kinetic type explosion but a rapid spacetime expansion caused by those ideal gas laws as well as inflation. A kinetic explosion has different measurable properties. That are not homogeneous and isotropic and cannot give an homogeneous and isotropic expansion" I believe I made these same points in the posting. Appreciate the answers as to the direct cause of the start of inflation. I think that either initiation would fit into the proposed framework, unless I am missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Mashmead said: I was referring to the idea that the universe is now in gravitational contraction. The idea is that the universe reached a maximum size at the end of inflation and remains the same size, but the matter in the universe is moving inward now. That doesn't meet observational evidence. We know that expansion is accelerating in so far as the radius of our observable universe. Might surprise you to know though that the Hubble parameter itself is decreasing over time. If the universe were in gravitational contraction this would overpower the cosmological constant which is not something that observational evidence supports. \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] this here is the critical density formula. Historically it was use to describe the point where an expanding universe would commence in collapse. This formula was derived via the equations of state for matter. The discovery of Lambda however made this equation less useful in that regard however its still used to calculate the energy density of Lambda today as we are currently in the Lambda dominant era. Lambda aka cosmological constant aka dark energy is currently the dominant contributor to expansion. In point of detail the universe was starting to slow down in expansion towards the end of the matter dominant era however Lambda turned over and started accelerating expansion. This occurred when the universe was roughly 7 Billion years old. The calculator in my signature can show the inflection point but finding it is rather a painful exercise. The precise time however will vary depending on which cosmological parameter dataset is being used Edited March 24 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mashmead Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 Modred: In Part 3 of my posting, I propose looking at the red shift, expanding universe, Hubbell constant, dark energy construct with a different perspective, and identify an observational metric that would support this different perspective. I then had some success, so I think, in finding observational evidence that supported the new perspective to an intriguing degree. If my speculation should stand up to to initial criticism and is deemed worthy for some follow-up by any interested party , that would be nice. However, I have been doing physics for a long time, and I am acutely aware that the whole concept may be total garbage, and will not have my feelings hurt if you assess it as such. However, I would like an honest look and evaluation; I think it is interesting if shocking. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my posts and the references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, Mashmead said: Modred: In Part 3 of my posting, I propose looking at the red shift, expanding universe, Hubbell constant, dark energy construct with a different perspective, and identify an observational metric that would support this different perspective. I then had some success, so I think, in finding observational evidence that supported the new perspective to an intriguing degree. If my speculation should stand up to to initial criticism and is deemed worthy for some follow-up by any interested party , that would be nice. However, I have been doing physics for a long time, and I am acutely aware that the whole concept may be total garbage, and will not have my feelings hurt if you assess it as such. However, I would like an honest look and evaluation; I think it is interesting if shocking. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my posts and the references. fair enough however there are sections of part 3 that indicate that you have a few misunderstandings in regards to universe geometry. Universe geometry doesn't describe the shape of our universe. In actuality it describes the the null geodesics due to spacetime curvature terms. Our observable universe is a sphere. However that is not its metric geometry. (Newtonian solution under GR for flat spacetime). Now this has ramifications on redshift as well as any visual observations. In point of detail spacetime curvature causes distortions. whereas flat spacetime doesn't. So we can confirm that our universe is indeed flat by studying the CMB for distortions. There is a statement in my signature. " If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules." the meaning of this is that one must understand the models they wish to fix and why those models state what they do before they try to fix it. I'm positive as a physicist you can relate to that statement. Another key point is that a homogeneous and isotropic expansion can also be tested by not distance per se but just as important any changes in angles. For example let us assume expansion started at some central point radiating outward. In this scenario you would have measurable changes in angles between stellar objects as those objects move further away from the starting point. This would be an anisotropic and inhomogeneous expansion. Expansion rates would vary in locations and have a preferred direction with a preferred location. The preferred location being the starting point. You would also have varying mass density distribution. keep in mind much of this post is also to the benefit of other readers so they can also learn what is involved As many of the older forum members can tell you, I tend to try to provide as much added information as I can as well as resource links etc for those very reasons. That way everyone learns something and it has the side effect of attracting interest in a thread. I have another key policy. If a poster wishes to learn how to go about developing a model correctly and is willing to work at learning then I have no issue with doing my best to guide them in the needed formulas, lines off research or textbooks etc. Regardless if I believe their model is feasible or not. Provided that there is some measure of feasibility of course. Now I fully recognize at no point are you stating your hypothesis is correct but simply examining the feasibility. That is part and parcel of the scientific method (examine all possibilities). that being said it would be helpful to know your skills in the FLRW metric and GR. The FLRW metric itself is likely sufficient for toy model development but if you understand GR its a good step to understanding how the FLRW metric works. Thermodynamics is something you likely already know but may not be aware of how its applies in Cosmology. One further point in section 3 you describe a UCOM. I'm assuming this refers to a center of mass of the universe. If that was your intent then that would be in error. Newtons Shell theorem would apply for a uniform mass/energy distribution such as described by the Cosmological principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mashmead Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 Mordred: I started reviewing cosmology publications all of 18 months or so ago, just wanting to get up to date, under the impression that things were going rather smoothly overall. Obviously, in 18 months, I can only claim that my level of understanding is quite a bit better than someone who has read a couple of popular science articles and has had a sudden inspiration, but much less than a true domain expert who has graduate level work in cosmology and many years of working in the field. However, I can claim, as I said in my Introduction, to a high level of experience of in developing models of complex physics based systems with many subsystems, many different technologies, and major sensitivities to many interrelated parameters. My goal was to develop sufficient knowledge of the major pieces of the cosmology domain so I could take a shot at developing possible system level alternatives that would address some of the well noted anomalies observed at present. Maybe it is just because I am 77 years old, but the idea of modeling things that have never been seen or measured is bothersome. I am extremely aware of how easy it is to identify possible effects needed in order to make your model do what you think it should do, parameterize that variable or variables, and then fine tune those quantities to arrive at a seemingly working model. You may have successfully described the requirement for the physical characteristics of what you need, but that is establishing a requirement, not discovering what is really out there. I will give up the lectern now. Thank you very much for your time and comments. I obviously need to get a better understanding of universe geometry, and I am following up on your other references and will continue to develop a deeper understanding of the various aspects of cosmology, but am not trying to become a domain expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 It's all good I wasn't expecting you to be an expert on cosmology applications. For any post I will try to keep as much to the FLRW metric as well as supply support material on those formulas. This evening after work I will post some relevant formulas that will apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) On 3/24/2024 at 1:44 PM, Mashmead said: Mathematically, this approach is simple: +1-1=0. Or, if you prefer, 0=+1-1 While this appears trivial, it simply shows that Nothing can be divided into a plus something and a minus something, which, when combined, is returned to where you started: nothing. Call this state of absolute nothingness, for lack of a better name, the N-state. It is then possible to postulate an event compatible with physics. The event is this: In order to create matter and energy, it is conceptually possible to separate the N-state into plus and minus components that sum to the N-state. In simplest terms to start, a +M and +E component, and a -M and -E component. (Nomenclature note: I am going to use +M and +E to designate normal matter and energy in our universe; -M and -E to designate negative matter and negative energy as the opposites of matter and energy in our universe). The idea then is simply this: In a manner that might be in some sense a functional parallel to the creation of particle/anti-particle pairs in a quantum vacuum field (although it is certainly a wholly different phenomenology), the N-state created a pair of universes. A universe and an anti-universe came into existence. I make no assumption as to why or how this separation may have occurred; this is just establishing that there is a way compatible with physics that it could have occurred. I'm start with this statement which is rather erroneous but rather than point out the mistakes I will instead describe the quantum vacuum in accordance with the mainstream. From that the errors will become more readily obvious. I will be including related formulas so may take it a bit (in case of cross posts lol). Lets start with the period prior to inflation the hot dense state. We all agree its a tiny region at an immense density and temperature. In our models we feel the energy density is roughly \[10^{19} K\]. So everything is in that thermal equilibrium state. All particles are in thermal equilibrium. At that temperature if you apply the Bose-Einstein statistics formula you will find you have roughly 10^90 photons. This is an equivalency its actually a quark/gluon plasma state other particles can exist but recall we cannot distinguish any particle species. Here is the Bose-Einstein statistic. Don't worry I don't expect anyone to be able to use these formulas. \[ n_i = \frac {g_i} {e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT} - 1}\] In that formulas the effective degrees of freedom is 2 for photons. I gave you an article with the pertinent details earlier on. That's your low entropy state. Now lets look at the quantum vacuum including zero point energy. Were all familiar with the quantum harmonic oscillator. This was one of the earlier studies on universe from Nothing scenarios. Including Guth's original inflation which unfortunately had the effect of "Runaway Inflation". Now one of the problems you have in that quoted section is your likely not aware that when particles come into existence they have to obey numerous conservation rules. The relevant one is conservation of charge in this particular case this includes matter and its antimatter pair. For photons it is its own antiparticle the distinction lies in its circular polarization. anti-photons are Right hand polarized while photons are left hand. This rule also applies to other particles such as neutrinos. Hopefully you can see a problem with your negative and positive universe scenario. Particularly since anti matter is readily formed in numerous processes including stars. https://www.space.com/21889-solar-flares-antimatter-particles.html not to mention we collide matter particles and can can produce antimatter. Knowing that how would this correlate to you negative and positive energy universes ? Something to keep in mind, just like an electric circuit where you cannot measure voltage by placing your test leads on the same copper wire until you have a potential difference between the two lead points. One cannot determine how much energy a vacuum contains between any two coordinates with there is no difference in its potential energy. We can however look for indirect evidence Casimarr effect is one example. The main problem with the zero point energy quantum vacuum is that observations vs calculation show an error margin of 10^(120) aka the vacuum catastrophe. There are plausible solutions to this still underway. \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\] \[S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}\] lets start with the FLRW metric we wont need curvature so we can keep it set at k=0 c=1 following formulas will be in normalized units. We need to describe two field of lets go with photon/antiphoton for simplicity. Under QFT we have two operators the creation/annihilation operators. They further correspond to their propagators as well but we don't need that detail. QFT uses them to model how particles are created subsequently destroyed. This link details how it applies to the quantum harmonic oscillator aka zero point energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_annihilation_operators#Ladder_operators_for_the_quantum_harmonic_oscillator In essence the positive and negative modes of the harmonic oscillator propagates the operators. Where the operators correspond to particle I wont go into too much detail to see if you have any comments/questions up to this point. However this is the zero point energy field and how it can give rise to particle production in essence. Edited March 26 by Mordred 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 I should add the positive frequency modes are well described via any Good Dirac equations article. In case your familiar with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mashmead Posted March 28 Author Share Posted March 28 Mordred: I think my head is clear enough to respond now. Nothing like a few hours in the hospital to induce an amazingly persistent brain fog. First, thanks for the reply and additional info. Some of these factors I did consider and thought I had worked a way to not be in conflict with them. I need to look more and see it if was a problem in conceptual thinking or a problem in writing down what I was thinking. You have identified some new considerations that I will now go and contemplate. Obviously still coming to grips with a few things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) No problem, hope your getting better. Hospitals are never fun. I would suggest instead of thinking of alternative universes. Simply apply the quantum vacuum positive and negative frequency modes for particle production. QFT already has all the applicable formulas for that scenario. Modelling a 2 component scalar, boson of even a fermionic field under QFT has plenty of textbook support at the introductory level. In QFT field and momentum are your primary operators. Though having familiarity with Fourier transforms and the Langrangian/Hamilton greatly helps to understand and apply QFT. Edited March 28 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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