Pre universe "foam" as expansion & contraction

[36grit]

We know that during the big inflation that distance was spreading faster than light. So I'm thinking that maybe the big nothing that existed prior to the universe was an infinate flow of faster than light expansion existing along side fields of faster than light contractions. Perhapse charge, wich can exist without time or distance per my understanding, comes from the friction of these two fields of basically nothing more than momentum. Perhaps the positive and negative charges canceling each other out causes a disturbance and this momentum to spin into tiny little vortexs. The low preasure zones of these vortexes might cause like charge to condense into electrons and positrons that wreck havoc until something we call the atom forms as this little pocket of expanasion cools down and becomes to slow for this "dark matter" to comprehend.

I would say that the strong force within the atom is probably "captured" original expansion and fuels the atom, and that the weak force within the atom is captured contraction. and everything is else is a matter of the momentum inbetween vibrating and spinning. The universe is a kind of "momentum resistor". Dark matter is probably the "boson" of dark energy. There are probably "viens" of dark energy rays that cruise right through our entire universe faster than the speed of light and keep every thing in it's place.

[lemur]

How exactly does "distance spread faster than light?"

[DJBruce]

How exactly does "distance spread faster than light?"

 

 

I believe he is referring tocosmic inflation.

 

As for your theory you seem to make a lot of "maybe" statements without a lot of explanations, evidence or proof, and for the most part none of them make any sense.

 

 

[lemur]

I believe he is referring tocosmic inflation.

But wouldn't that be like saying that from any vantage point, the distance to redshift-disappearance was closer or further relative to other moments? I mean, you could say that the universe is presently inflating/expanding at faster than the speed of light at a scale beyond observable redshift-horizon, couldn't you? In that case, distance would always spread faster than light at some scale or other.

 

As for your theory you seem to make a lot of "maybe" statements without a lot of explanations, evidence or proof, and for the most part none of them make any sense.

Are you referring to the OP with "you?" or something I wrote in another thread?

 

 

[DJBruce]

But wouldn't that be like saying that from any vantage point, the distance to redshift-disappearance was closer or further relative to other moments? I mean, you could say that the universe is presently inflating/expanding at faster than the speed of light at a scale beyond observable redshift-horizon, couldn't you? In that case, distance would always spread faster than light at some scale or other.

Not really sure about the exact sure this, I just know that the phrase 36grit used is a common explanation in popular science books and shows.

 

Are you referring to the OP with "you?" or something I wrote in another thread?

Completely at the OP. By no means meant you lemur; sorry that I was unclear there.

[imatfaal]

But wouldn't that be like saying that from any vantage point, the distance to redshift-disappearance was closer or further relative to other moments? I mean, you could say that the universe is presently inflating/expanding at faster than the speed of light at a scale beyond observable redshift-horizon, couldn't you? In that case, distance would always spread faster than light at some scale or other.

 

 

 

Not sure about the perspectives bit - but otherwise yes. there are parts of the universe that are moving away from other parts such that the distance is growing faster than light could cross the gap. The relative velocity between galaxies increases with distance - unless you put a bound on the maximum distance then at some distance apart the relative velocity seems higher than the speed of light. Bear in mind however that nothing is moving through space with the speed of light; in simplistic terms more space is being added between them.

 

 

inflation and expansion are not the same - inflation was rapid extreme and was at a period of the universe we can probe only through echoes and archaeology, expansion is now.

[lemur]

Not sure about the perspectives bit - but otherwise yes. there are parts of the universe that are moving away from other parts such that the distance is growing faster than light could cross the gap. The relative velocity between galaxies increases with distance - unless you put a bound on the maximum distance then at some distance apart the relative velocity seems higher than the speed of light. Bear in mind however that nothing is moving through space with the speed of light; in simplistic terms more space is being added between them.

 

 

inflation and expansion are not the same - inflation was rapid extreme and was at a period of the universe we can probe only through echoes and archaeology, expansion is now.

I can understand the concept that galaxies would be expanding away from each other at greater than the speed of light, and would therefore be invisible to each other. What I don't get is how distance could ever be growing everywhere in the universe at below the speed of light? Wouldn't that just mean that everything that's visible is all there is and there's nothing beyond the hubble horizon? Technically, it can never be known whether there is or ever has been anything beyond that horizon anyway, right? I suppose if distant galaxies vanish in redshift, you could know that they didn't actually annihilate, but when would inflation ever have been below C for everything? I.e. when would distance have been expanding below the speed of light?

[imatfaal]

I can understand the concept that galaxies would be expanding away from each other at greater than the speed of light, and would therefore be invisible to each other.

 

What I don't get is how distance could ever be growing everywhere in the universe at below the speed of light? Wouldn't that just mean that everything that's visible is all there is and there's nothing beyond the hubble horizon?

Why not - surely growing at less than the speed of light is fairly acceptable, No? Cannot see this logical connexion with your second sentence.

 

Technically, it can never be known whether there is or ever has been anything beyond that horizon anyway, right? I suppose if distant galaxies vanish in redshift, you could know that they didn't actually annihilate, but when would inflation ever have been below C for everything? I.e. when would distance have been expanding below the speed of light?

Are you asking about inflation or expansion? Inflation is only recognisable by archaeological methods and agreement with theory - inflation was a vanishingly small fraction of a second after the bigbang; we can observe directly nothing before about 380000 years after big bang. After inflation during reheating the energy of expanding space was converted to radiation/standard particles

[lemur]

Why not - surely growing at less than the speed of light is fairly acceptable, No? Cannot see this logical connexion with your second sentence.

The OP referred to the idea of distance growing faster than the speed of light as being some overall quality of the universe, but that doesn't make sense in that at one scale the universe is expanding faster than C and at other scales it's expanding sub-C. So all I could discern from the idea of everything expanding at sub-C speeds is that everything in the universe would be visible to any observer anywhere. If distance was growing at C or higher, there would be galaxies invisible to other galaxies.

[imatfaal]

No it very much makes sense. the relative velocity between galaxies is proportional to their distance apart - close galaxies move away from each other slowly, distant galaxies race apart.

 

Lose the idea that the galaxies are all moving at same speed - it will not help. The background and space itself is expanding - imagine an oldfashioned cartesian grid on which the universe is set, every second (in each axis) add one more unit for every 10^17 units . the playing surface has got bigger, the pieces are further apart, but none of the pieces have really moved relative to the surface.

 

There are some galaxies we can see (obviously) and some that we will never see

[lemur]

No it very much makes sense. the relative velocity between galaxies is proportional to their distance apart - close galaxies move away from each other slowly, distant galaxies race apart.

 

Lose the idea that the galaxies are all moving at same speed - it will not help. The background and space itself is expanding - imagine an oldfashioned cartesian grid on which the universe is set, every second (in each axis) add one more unit for every 10^17 units . the playing surface has got bigger, the pieces are further apart, but none of the pieces have really moved relative to the surface.

 

There are some galaxies we can see (obviously) and some that we will never see

I know all this. The issue is why the OP deemed it relevant to state that distance grows faster than the speed of light.

[Realitycheck]

I really don't see why such esteemed, intelligent people go out of their way to cause such a commotion amongst the populace regarding multiverse bubble rigamarole. I mean, c'mon. A google galaxies times a billion systems isn't enough for whomever? I mean, what basis is there for a bubbleverse? Absolutely none! Bubbles are meant for popping.

[lemur]

I really don't see why such esteemed, intelligent people go out of their way to cause such a commotion amongst the populace regarding multiverse bubble rigamarole. I mean, c'mon. A google galaxies times a billion systems isn't enough for whomever? I mean, what basis is there for a bubbleverse? Absolutely none! Bubbles are meant for popping.

I don't understand. Isn't the issue which dimensionalities of the universe can be co-present and which can't? Or do I misunderstand the whole issue of multiverse? And is the idea of a foam universe the same thing as multiverse? I thought the foam concept was that there could be an indefinite number of expanding universes and that the expansion rate was dependent on the behavior of other, connected bubbles. Well, at least that's how I understand foam and how I think it would apply to a universe-metaphor of foam.

[Realitycheck]

Oops, that post wasn't actually supposed to go through, thought I said no to posting it. When I read the reference to foam, the first thing that came to mind was the hypothetical bubbleverse which seems to be kind of a fad right now, but it is obviously referring to something else and I thought that I held back on it. I had something totally different on my mind. Errrrrr

Edited May 28, 2011 by Realitycheck

[36grit]

I'm glad there's a speculations forum where I can attempt to put into words the visions in my head.

What I'm seeing is that the atom's nucleus is a fractile entity mirroring a pre universe condition. The strong force is an expansion of two and half times the speed of light. One part escapes as "fluid time" aether, and the other one and half parts fluctuating between contraction and the angular momentum of quatum particles that spin.

What I'm seeing is that the atom is like a cross section of pre-history fibers. The cylinders walls are made up of expansion, in the center we have contraction, and inbetween slight positive and negative charge in a constant state of positive and negative cancelation with pockets of canceled out momentum particles as well. Charge is the relult of friction between the expansion and contraction. If we were to add charge, via some outside source like a lazer, we could probably reduce the entropy of an atom down to near absolut zero by "lubricating" the wall of friction with an outside source of electro magnetic charge. To achieve a perfect cancellation of charge inbetween the expansion and contraction layer of an atom would be to reach an absolute zero state of entropy.

Black holes are probably the result of the strong expansion force of the exploded star's atoms being spent on scattering star parts in an outward direction at near the speed of light all over the universe and the weak contraction force of these atoms condense into objects we call black holes. Constant faster than light implosion.

One might ask, expansion and contraction of what? At this point in time I'd say nothing at all. Just some kind of virtual distance existing outside of and to fast for time. 0+ > 0- = The possibility of reality.

 

 

[imatfaal]

Oops, that post wasn't actually supposed to go through, thought I said no to posting it. When I read the reference to foam, the first thing that came to mind was the hypothetical bubbleverse which seems to be kind of a fad right now, but it is obviously referring to something else and I thought that I held back on it. I had something totally different on my mind. Errrrrr

 

A Freudian post? Perhaps you wish to believe you had something else on your mind - but the subconscious action of in fact posting demonstrates the true nature of your thoughts without the consciousness filtering out un-acceptable notions.

 

Now get comfortable on the couch and, in your own words, tell me about.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

In case of misunderstanding and to avoid offence - I am joking

[36grit]

I'm not talking about multiverses. I am talking about this universe and the infinate fields that permeate our universe. Things like charge and dark energy. It seams that an infinite field requires infinite expansion.

 

Wieght is resistance to the prehistory (dark energy) fibers that exist everywhere and in every direction all at once. The atom's nucleus is a two dimensional disk (or set of disks) that is constantly tumbling to deflect the dominate fiber in a given instant of time. There is a transferance of mometum and the residual energy of the deflection forms the quarks that resinate until the next collision.

Every atom has one disk per proton. A hydrogen atom heats up in a star and the electro magnetic chamber expands to accomidate the excess energy. This shrinks the contraction element (weak force) of the atom. If the contraction element of an atom becomes to small it will bind with a cooler atom's contraction element and form a single atom with two resister disks and two protons. There is one disk per proton. Time flows out of the newly formed atom at the same rate, the speed of light. The two disks deflect as much as twice the prehistory energy as they alternate deflections. This offers upto twice the resistance within the same instant of time and therefore has more wieght in the real world. This is also why two protons cannot be in the same state at the same time.

[36grit]

If my hypothises is correct then black holes should also be part of a larger fractile image of things that where.

This would put a ring of expansion energy (dark energy) around every black hole and somewhere, probably about two thirds in from this ring should be another ring of virtual particles doing there constant anihalation dance. Time should slow down within the expansion rings relative to things that are not in the ring. Light should travel around these rings of expansion as a path of least reseitance. The Galactic model is very similar to the atomic model which is very similar to the pre history fibers of the infinte fields.