Jump to content
Science Forums

Taking Some Quotes Of Work


Recommended Posts

I want to share some quotes from work that  I have written over the last 10+ years. Not all my quotes will have an explanation below it, will be in non-bolded font.

 

 

 

 

''Our universe is causal right up to the big bang.''

 

 

I actually made this as a statement of mockery. Some physicists argue that aspects of quantum mechanics may imply a non-causality. Ignoring that speculation, I believe the universe shows on the macroscopic scale that causality rules on the over-all classical structure of a universe. The question of a big bang happening roughly 14 billion years ago, is often modelled as a single event with no proposition of a before, because many consider this as the birth of time itself. The problem with this nucleation model of the universe, is that it happened as a spontaneous fluke of nature. Statistically, this is impossible with the evidence now of over eighty fine tuning parameters of the universe.

 

 

 

'​'The idea that a universe expands and there is no increase in metric energy, was always an unfounded assumption by Friedmann. If the universe expands, this must mean new spacetime is appearing between galaxies and since no region of space is empty in the Newtonian definition of a vacuum, then this must mean the energy of a vacuum must increase and is even more significant when the process is irreversible in curved spacetime.''

 

 

Friedmann used a fluid equation, also known as an equation of state which was adiabatic in nature. That means, as the fluid expands, there is no increase in energy, either internally or from any outside influence. If we take field theory and the existence of zero point fields seriously, there is no region of spacetime without a fluctuation - if spacetime is expanding, this must correspond to new vacuum energy. See Sean Carrols 'preposterous universe' blog on non-conservation of energy in the universe. He makes it clear the universe lacks a definition of time and so using Noethers theorem to describe a conservation in the energy, is currently impossible, but argues there is actually a change in energy due to a change in the metric.

 

 

 

​''The universe may have had a pre-big bang phase. The Gibbs-Duhem equation integrated naturally into the Friedmann equation yields a possible pre-big bang phase, which may have consisted of an all-matter liquid condensed stage. It is possible this pre-big bang phase was a supercool region - which underwent some collapse leading to a vapor radiation phase. This cool to hot phase can only be seen in a reasonable picture of expansion, to reach a supercool phase again, unless the universe is slowing down.''

 

 

 

I say ''slowing down''  because I don't believe the universe is in fact accelerating at all. I think any kind of global picture based on light reaching us from billions of light years across does not actually tell us any accurate details about the current expansion. The only thing we can extrapolate is that Hubble's law says the further you look into space, the faster things appear to be moving. That should in fact indicate the early universe is accelerating - and it would seem then, it is slowing down in the local frame of measurement.

 

 

 

 ''A rotation term on a Friedmann equation is not just a new spin on things, it should be a part of nature itself.''

 

 

 

This was to argue that rotation is a part of the full Poincare Group, which is the natural, expected form of spacetime symmetries allowed in nature.

 

 

'​'It's hard to say the universe has any kind of feature during the initial stages, without any precursor or anyone around to observe it. We would be forced to find a quantum universe with a wave function dictating an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions it could have chosen from. Physicists have asked, ''How did our universe choose the one we observe today out of an infinite amount of possibilities?'' It seems that this kind of situation may be impossible to accept... may it be that our universe has a back-story we are unaware of?''

 

 

 

A similar question to the observer problem is, how can the universe have an energy at the big bang if no one was there to measure it? Observer-measurement problems like this are still a problem in science that needs clear definition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...