Speculation about the history of the universe

[julius2]

Speculation:

So one thing I observe is that everything is so "fresh and new". We are not hampered by anything from the past. This makes sense as according to modern theory everything came from an "infinite point" and evolved over billions of years. So in effect this is a new "time". The question is were there any previous "times".

According to Roger Penrose (scientist), this universe is born from the collapse of a previous one. In effect there is an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. The question is were there were any "earth worlds" previously in time? And if so were they more connected to that of previous times? For us we are not connected to previous time at all. We obviously inherit the previous history of this world through ancient monuments and written history and cave drawings. But we have no link per se to time previous to the formation of this world. And hence the search and theorizing about what did actually happen. Eg there were quarks and other subatomic particles per se.

The theory is that this universe is a "rehash" of the "smashup" of previous times. Essentially like a "recycle garbage bin" in time. Yet we see ourselves as completely new. Wonderous, exciting etc. The theory is that previous times are reflected very well in this world. Through our stories, creativity, art etc.  The theory is that there is no such thing as "creativity". Our minds are drawing upon a "mashup" of the past !!!

[exchemist]

40 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Speculation:

So one thing I observe is that everything is so "fresh and new". We are not hampered by anything from the past. This makes sense as according to modern theory everything came from an "infinite point" and evolved over billions of years. So in effect this is a new "time". The question is were there any previous "times".

According to Roger Penrose (scientist), this universe is born from the collapse of a previous one. In effect there is an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. The question is were there were any "earth worlds" previously in time? And if so were they more connected to that of previous times? For us we are not connected to previous time at all. We obviously inherit the previous history of this world through ancient monuments and written history and cave drawings. But we have no link per se to time previous to the formation of this world. And hence the search and theorizing about what did actually happen. Eg there were quarks and other subatomic particles per se.

The theory is that this universe is a "rehash" of the "smashup" of previous times. Essentially like a "recycle garbage bin" in time. Yet we see ourselves as completely new. Wonderous, exciting etc. The theory is that previous times are reflected very well in this world. Through our stories, creativity, art etc.  The theory is that there is no such thing as "creativity". Our minds are drawing upon a "mashup" of the past !!!

If you think being 13.8 billion years old is "fresh and new", you have a curious conception of these terms. 

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, julius2 said:

Speculation:

So one thing I observe is that everything is so "fresh and new". We are not hampered by anything from the past. This makes sense as according to modern theory everything came from an "infinite point" and evolved over billions of years. So in effect this is a new "time". The question is were there any previous "times".

According to Roger Penrose (scientist), this universe is born from the collapse of a previous one. In effect there is an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. 

Cyclic universe models is one possible cause for our universe coming into existence. It does nothing to address how the first universe developed but for this thread your not concerned about that.

 

4 hours ago, julius2 said:

 

The theory is that this universe is a "rehash" of the "smashup" of previous times. Essentially like a "recycle garbage bin" in time. Yet we see ourselves as completely new. Wonderous, exciting etc. The theory is that previous times are reflected very well in this world. Through our stories, creativity, art etc.  The theory is that there is no such thing as "creativity". Our minds are drawing upon a "mashup" of the past !!!

This however doesn't really follow. The conditions of the BB according to mainstream physics was in a thermal equilibrium state. The extreme high temperature wouldn't even allow atoms to form. The four forces were in a state of thermal equilibrium. Once electroweak symmetry breaking occurs the 4 fources could separate. Gravity Em, weak and strong force. Particles could then drop out of thermal equilibrium.

That's simply one process where it would be impossible for past information ideas etc would be literally obliterated even assuming such things could even survive the initial collapse of the previous universe.

 

[julius2]

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

If you think being 13.8 billion years old is "fresh and new", you have a curious conception of these terms. 

I mean we don't have any inkling about any past time.

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

Cyclic universe models is one possible cause for our universe coming into existence. It does nothing to address how the first universe developed but for this thread your not concerned about that.

 

This however doesn't really follow. The conditions of the BB according to mainstream physics was in a thermal equilibrium state. The extreme high temperature wouldn't even allow atoms to form. The four forces were in a state of thermal equilibrium. Once electroweak symmetry breaking occurs the 4 fources could separate. Gravity Em, weak and strong force. Particles could then drop out of thermal equilibrium.

That's simply one process where it would be impossible for past information ideas etc would be literally obliterated even assuming such things could even survive the initial collapse of the previous universe.

 

The basic theory is that in previous time, there were many thousands of previous "times", looking very different to the universe we see today. Each "time" is spawned, and exists. The theory is that this formation process was getting old and was heading towards a terrible "death". The "death" would have been extremely painful for time. So the times shrank, compressing etc. until there was an incredible explosion (the BB). The times sit like vectors.

One thing of note is that there are no actual observers of the BB. Unlike a light interference experiment where one can observe the light interference pattern. Likewise there are no actual observers of life being formed on earth, but we have fossils etc. to guide us. So everything is "up for grabs". To say that we come from a "thermal equilibrium" may not be strictly true as there are no actual observers. We are using a lot of subatomic physics in order to see right back. Quite valiant.

The key will be in the recombination of matter of previous times, but the vastness of the current universe is a problem.

According to theory, the current universe is both a recombination of a massive explosion and a transformation as well. The transformation is to get away from the spawning of times process. Away from linear vectors and towards a circular model.

[joigus]

It seems to me that you don't really have a theory. It's a non-falsifiable vague answer to a vague question: Things 'seem' fresh. Why?

Do they, really? In what sense? Rocks age, but neutrons don't. You take a thousand of them and, after a quarter of an hour, half of them have decayed on average. And we're pretty sure that's what happened in the time of the pharaohs. So in a sense neutrons get old, but in another sense they don't. But rocks do get old. The amount of different radioactive materials decreases with time precisely due to beta decay, which helps geologists in the dating of rocks.

So what do you even mean?

Science concerns itself with things that can be measured, not with fancy notions that take place only in the eyes of the beholder.

[Phi for All]

On 5/4/2024 at 11:47 PM, julius2 said:

According to theory, the current universe is both a recombination of a massive explosion

No. Rapid expansion of everything that exists, not an explosion.

[julius2]

On 5/8/2024 at 3:49 AM, Phi for All said:

No. Rapid expansion of everything that exists, not an explosion.

It seems improbable to me that everything came from an infinitely dense point.

Is matter uniform everywhere in the current universe? Would we need to take a particle accelerator to another star system to find out?

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, julius2 said:

It seems improbable to me that everything came from an infinitely dense point.

What is "infinitely dense point"?

 

4 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Is matter uniform everywhere in the current universe?

No, it is not.

 

5 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Would we need to take a particle accelerator to another star system to find out?

No, we would not.

[julius2]

On 5/8/2024 at 3:49 AM, Phi for All said:

No. Rapid expansion of everything that exists, not an explosion.

How fast is the rapid expansion? What is the rate of matter per minute?

Is it not possible that the singularity scientists talk about is the "other side" of an explosion or explosions.

As per scientists why did matter come into existence "all of a sudden".

Does the big bang model explain how we have life? Are we just composed of quarks / neutrinos created after the singularity?

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, julius2 said:

How fast is the rapid expansion? What is the rate of matter per minute?

Mordred might have those numbers. I remember reading that the universe doubled in size about 90 times, going from the sub-atomic level to about the size of a golf ball in an instant (remember we're talking about faster than hundredths of a thousandth of a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a second here). Also, I'm not sure but I don't think a per minute rate is applicable at that point in the timeline. The universe is still all matter with no space, so I'm not sure time has much meaning. 

11 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Is it not possible that the singularity scientists talk about is the "other side" of an explosion or explosions.

The singularity is a maths problem. When we calculate back far enough, we end up with temperature and density problems that we can't be precise enough with so they calculate as infinite. We know that can't be true, but it's what the maths tell us based on our current input.

I have no idea what you mean by "other side", but again, calling it an explosion is physically wrong. 

16 minutes ago, julius2 said:

As per scientists why did matter come into existence "all of a sudden".

I may not understand this correctly, but the explanations I've heard don't claim that matter suddenly came into existence. Instead, matter can be compressed in a degenerate state where it loses its electrons and neutrons, becoming extremely dense and hot. As the matter regained its current structure, it was diluted (for lack of a better term) into the various particles and quanta we see now, and a lot of it boiled away in matter/antimatter annihilations.

21 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Does the big bang model explain how we have life? Are we just composed of quarks / neutrinos created after the singularity?

BBT is not a theory about life. We are composed of matter that came from the rapid expansion of all matter at the time of the Big Bang.

 

[Mordred]

It's calculated by a logarithmic function called E-folds. The value will vary depending on which form of inflation your using. The only valid inflationary models must be higher than 60 e-folds.

We can only extrapolate the hot dense state at 10^{-43} seconds. The models do not state how the energy/mass came into existence only that our beginning was a hot dense state roughly 10^19 GeV. Which corresponds to Planck temperature for a starting volume 1 planck length. The rate of expansion depends on the kinetic energy to potential energy terms described by the scalar field equation of state. (Will vary depending on inflationary model).

This link will help understand e-folds 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)

Here is a listing of still valid inflationary models.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787

Personally I feel Higgs inflation is highly likely it has the same equations of state as Chaotic inflation so subsequently the e-folds will be the same.

Edited May 15 by Mordred

[julius2]

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Mordred might have those numbers. I remember reading that the universe doubled in size about 90 times, going from the sub-atomic level to about the size of a golf ball in an instant (remember we're talking about faster than hundredths of a thousandth of a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a second here). Also, I'm not sure but I don't think a per minute rate is applicable at that point in the timeline. The universe is still all matter with no space, so I'm not sure time has much meaning. 

The singularity is a maths problem. When we calculate back far enough, we end up with temperature and density problems that we can't be precise enough with so they calculate as infinite. We know that can't be true, but it's what the maths tell us based on our current input.

I have no idea what you mean by "other side", but again, calling it an explosion is physically wrong. 

I may not understand this correctly, but the explanations I've heard don't claim that matter suddenly came into existence. Instead, matter can be compressed in a degenerate state where it loses its electrons and neutrons, becoming extremely dense and hot. As the matter regained its current structure, it was diluted (for lack of a better term) into the various particles and quanta we see now, and a lot of it boiled away in matter/antimatter annihilations.

BBT is not a theory about life. We are composed of matter that came from the rapid expansion of all matter at the time of the Big Bang.

 

Any theory which does not explain how we have life can really not see itself as complete.

The theory is that it takes a long time for things to evolve. An example might be initially there is a faint light for 1 million years. Then this transforms into spherical globules for the next 500,000 years. Then becomes globules with spikes for the next 200,000 years.

I am in agreement with the scientists roughly about rapid expansion, reconstitution of particles etc. Mainly because it would have been rigorously researched etc. Where I disagree is that the process is very mathematical. My proposal is that our current universe began with a "birth". Similar to how a person is born.

The singularity is probably some kind of "wierd" state very foreign to us. Not really just a plasma. The universe had a "birth", involving tremendous forces - exploding a lot of past time.

The theory is that this "time" is caught in all matter. What we see and know is the main reconstitution. But the theory is that time is caught in this reconstitution. The time itself is a living thing that evolved prior to the singularity. If it is not possible to consider that there MAY have been time previous to the BB then it is hard to work through the following stuff.

The basic tenet is that life is somewhat "mechanical", once you know the process.

 

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Mordred said:

It's calculated by a logarithmic function called E-folds. The value will vary depending on which form of inflation your using. The only valid inflationary models must be higher than 60 e-folds.

We can only extrapolate the hot dense state at 10^{-43} seconds. The models do not state how the energy/mass came into existence only that our beginning was a hot dense state roughly 10^19 GeV. Which corresponds to Planck temperature for a starting volume 1 planck length. The rate of expansion depends on the kinetic energy to potential energy terms described by the scalar field equation of state. (Will vary depending on inflationary model).

This link will help understand e-folds 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)

Here is a listing of still valid inflationary models.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787

Personally I feel Higgs inflation is highly likely it has the same equations of state as Chaotic inflation so subsequently the e-folds will be the same.

It is interesting to know about the different inflationary models. But you guys MAY be missing a key piece.

[Mordred]

That's always possible but that key piece hasn't been mentioned in this thread from what I've seen. The reason for the different inflationary models is that we cannot see far enough to discern which is most accurate. We can only look for CMB signatures to isolate which is more accurate.

Universe birth isn't part of the model no one can accurately answer where the original mass/energy originated. It could be from a previous universe but it's also viable to originate from nothing.

Cyclic models never attempt to answer what formed the first universe.

If you cannot tie mathematics into known  mainstream physics then it's not valid. That is an absolute essential step. No argument will change that. The very purpose of physics is to be able to calculate cause and effect.

If an idea cannot do that it's useless for physics.

Edited May 16 by Mordred

[julius2]

On 5/17/2024 at 2:10 AM, Mordred said:

That's always possible but that key piece hasn't been mentioned in this thread from what I've seen. The reason for the different inflationary models is that we cannot see far enough to discern which is most accurate. We can only look for CMB signatures to isolate which is more accurate.

Universe birth isn't part of the model no one can accurately answer where the original mass/energy originated. It could be from a previous universe but it's also viable to originate from nothing.

Cyclic models never attempt to answer what formed the first universe.

If you cannot tie mathematics into known  mainstream physics then it's not valid. That is an absolute essential step. No argument will change that. The very purpose of physics is to be able to calculate cause and effect.

If an idea cannot do that it's useless for physics.

Cool

On 5/5/2024 at 12:05 AM, Mordred said:

Cyclic universe models is one possible cause for our universe coming into existence. It does nothing to address how the first universe developed but for this thread your not concerned about that.

 

This however doesn't really follow. The conditions of the BB according to mainstream physics was in a thermal equilibrium state. The extreme high temperature wouldn't even allow atoms to form. The four forces were in a state of thermal equilibrium. Once electroweak symmetry breaking occurs the 4 fources could separate. Gravity Em, weak and strong force. Particles could then drop out of thermal equilibrium.

That's simply one process where it would be impossible for past information ideas etc would be literally obliterated even assuming such things could even survive the initial collapse of the previous universe.

 

The problem with this is that we don't know enough about the "initial conditions" for the state of the current universe.

Let's say our current state is called T1. We are made of T1 particles. When we look into space we only see T1 objects. We live with objects that are T1 only.

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, julius2 said:

When we look into space we only see T1 objects.

How do you know this?

[Mordred]

19 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Cool

The problem with this is that we don't know enough about the "initial conditions" for the state of the current universe.

Let's say our current state is called T1. We are made of T1 particles. When we look into space we only see T1 objects. We live with objects that are T1 only.

that makes little sense, we describe our universe with standard model of particles why would you think the initial conditions wouldn't apply the same standard model of particles we see in our present ? (other than particle generations)

[julius2]

12 hours ago, Genady said:

How do you know this?

Well, assuming T1 represents time since the BB, then everything out there including space must be T1??

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

that makes little sense, we describe our universe with standard model of particles why would you think the initial conditions wouldn't apply the same standard model of particles we see in our present ? (other than particle generations)

Because we have little observation going that far back in time. The initial conditions may not be so straight forward as we imagine. I propose something "wierd" ie unexplained may be in the mix.

But I must say that the current research using particle accelerators, and smashing atoms eg CERN, is a good idea.

Hence we probably have a good idea of what matter consists of today. But maybe not that far back.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Well, assuming T1 represents time since the BB, then everything out there including space must be T1??

Where we are, T1 is (about) 14 bln years. When we observe an object 9 bln light years away, its T is only 5 bln years. 

[MigL]

On 5/16/2024 at 9:13 AM, julius2 said:

The theory is that this "time" is caught in all matter. What we see and know is the main reconstitution. But the theory is that time is caught in this reconstitution. The time itself is a living thing that evolved prior to the singularity. If it is not possible to consider that there MAY have been time previous to the BB then it is hard to work through the following stuff.

What ???

[Mordred]

10 hours ago, julius2 said:

Well, assuming T1 represents time since the BB, then everything out there including space must be T1??

Because we have little observation going that far back in time. The initial conditions may not be so straight forward as we imagine. I propose something "wierd" ie unexplained may be in the mix.

But I must say that the current research using particle accelerators, and smashing atoms eg CERN, is a good idea.

Hence we probably have a good idea of what matter consists of today. But maybe not that far back.

I doubt that's justification for new particles outside the standard model considering what we do know in regard to electrowesk symmetry breaking occurring less than a second after the BB.

So far too much handwriting is in this thread that has little to do with anything physics related.

[swansont]

On 5/4/2024 at 5:30 AM, julius2 said:

The theory is that this universe is a "rehash" of the "smashup" of previous times. Essentially like a "recycle garbage bin" in time. Yet we see ourselves as completely new. Wonderous, exciting etc. The theory is that previous times are reflected very well in this world. Through our stories, creativity, art etc.  The theory is that there is no such thing as "creativity". Our minds are drawing upon a "mashup" of the past !!!

!

Moderator Note

Does this “theory” make any testable predictions that might falsify it?

 

[julius2]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Does this “theory” make any testable predictions that might falsify it?

 

I agree. I guess the most testable assertion is "is there "time" in matter".

If this is true, then you would find "time" in a rock. You would find "time" in water. No one has found "time" in these objects as yet. It is a tricky one. Just because we haven't found it using sub-atomic physics to date, doesn't necessarily mean I am completely wrong.

The trick is we are trying to find something that no one has found yet. I am guessing induction?

[swansont]

You’ve given no explanation of how one might find “time” in matter. This is just way too vague to be testable. Not enough to comply with the rules of speculations.