Big Bang Cosmology And Law Of Conservation Of Energy- Is There A Contradiction?

[Vmedvil2]

I am just telling you when you look at the equations it misses all the Quantum Effects that are needed when approximated the BB singularity, you lose things like Hawking radiation and virtual particles along with entangelement of particles and the exact pathways of the particles, it is like a giant blob you don't get the finer details, The FLRW does the same-thing it doesn't describe the actual universe like a String Field but rather an ideal universe. It is all idealized to be smooth instead of rigid like the universe actually is. I dislike views when it is an ideal fluid like many of Einstein's solution but rather more rigid as in the Schwarzchild metric or Kerr Metric, but String Theory keeps this rigidity this is why I use String Theory instead of the standard model for questions like this, the FLWM and LCDM are not exact enough to properly explain something like the BB singularity in early states as ideal forms of the universe, the Universe is not ideal actually far from it in reality very rigid.

Edited July 27, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

Its not designeed to handle singularities the LCDM metric is the global metric over the volume of the observable universe. Its purpose has nothing to do with singularities except to determine the proper distance to said objects. BH's are simply specks of dust on cosmological scales, they are insignificant so is their overall effect over the commoving volume of our observable universe.

 

 You really need to understand what a theory is designed to describe before discounting it for reasons its not designed to describe. For example the cosmological principle itself of homogeneity and isotropy only applies at scales in excess of 100 Mpc. I Megaparsec is 326156377.69443 ly. It makes absolutely no sense to expect it to describe a BH when its designed to describe in units of 100 Mpc....

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

Its not designeed to handle singularities the LCDM metric is the global metric over the volume of the observable universe. Its purpose has nothing to do with singularities except to determine the proper distance to said objects. BH's are simply specks of dust on cosmological scales, they are insignificant so is their overall effect over the commoving volume of our observable universe.

 

 You really need to understand what a theory is designed to describe before discounting it for reasons its not designed to describe. For example the cosmological principle itself of homogeneity and isotropy only applies at scales in excess of 100 Mpc. I Megaparsec is 326156377.69443 ly. It makes absolutely no sense to expect it to describe a BH when its designed to describe in units of 100 Mpc....

 

That is my point, it missing details smaller than 100 Mpc, it obviously is missing the smaller details, where as String Theory does that and is still accurate to the Planck Length. It fails to accurately explain the time period of the BB singularity thus is invalid in describing the complexities of the interactions during that time, only far after the period of initial energy-mass in the universe.

Edited July 27, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

That doesn't mean its invalid for the purpose its designed to handle. Remember the LCDM purpose is to describe how our universe evolves not how particles or BH's form.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[Philip2018]

I am really thank everyone who replied with these inspiring ideas, i am not a theoretical physicist and can't argue any theories that have been used to point some light on how the reality can be precisely explained and understood, what i can argue is that i can see that there is no final theory that can give an explanation for such matter, while what we have is actually maybe classified as hypotheses that yet doesn't have a large consensus over scientists.

 

Since all of you was kind enough to consider replying to my question i would like to share with you how a non specialist like me view the case, i am an electrical engineer who studied and practice classical physics, laws of conservation of energy have been actually tested and used in actual applications have constantly produced correct and accurate results, regardless which system we look too (engine, boiler, even the planet) we see that energy is conserved but changing between forms and have not yet been demonstrated that energy really can be destroyed or created. i might comprehend that Big Bang maybe considered an state of matter and energy different that what we see now for some reason but still can't see how we can over come the demonstrated fact of energy conservation. 

 

If the energy is really conserved overtime regardless of the state of matter and it is constant over time, so this leads me to think that energy and matter as well are eternal and space-time actually as one of there characteristic since no time and no space without matter or energy which makes for me the idea of pre Big Bang is actually not logically possible, and this is the reason why i was searching if there is a logical argument that can challenge such view, and accordingly the idea of having an eternal state of energy and matter (regardless of the shape and consist of that energy and matter is or wither before of after the Big Bang) seems more consistent and profound for me then the hypotheses of multi universe.

 

Sorry if my view might seems to physicists ignorant maybe of many details but i maybe not worth discussing  but again i thank everyone for in lighting me so far with comment.

[Shustaire]

Well there is some slight curvature whih is true, however one should understand curvature means curvature of the worldline of photons. It is the tendency of light paths to converge or diverge due to mass distributions. As far as the answer of conservation of energy, there is no disagreement in the reply it is unclear whether or not the universe is conserved or not.

 

 Still one must find LCDM impressive as it only requires 6 parameters to describe how our universe evolves over time. From its elegance one can easily give the temperature at any scale factor as well as the proper distance to objects. It greatly simplifies the extremely tedious GR calculations and allows a quick yet accurate set of calculations.

 

 The confusion here is that no one is separating the problems of LCDM from the detail thatthose problems arise from our understanding of particle physics to explain DM and DE and leptogenesis. (at least not yet, there is hope on Higg's to solve these issues but the jury is still out). These aren't problems directly due to LCDM but due to other physics models under particle physics per se. LCDM is adaptive enough to be able to compensate by fine tuning. Hence current measurements studies of standard candles and the CMB, each dataset fine tunes the LCDM parameters.

 

LCDM has never had the tools to define any particle species, it was never its purpose that is in the hands of the SM models of particle physics which LCDM does nothing to describe. It will never be used for that purpose. For good reasons. (its not a particle physics model for one lol) nor does it attempt to be a GUT. Its not its goal, which is to describe how our universe evolves on large scales.

 

Considering LCDM uses the scale factor [math]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}[/math] which is identical to [math]H^2=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}[/math] this should be apparent that LCDM isn't a quantum scale theory. Nor a theory of particle physics but one that describes ratio of change of a commoving volume of our observable universe.

 

It doesn't compete with GR,String theory, QFT as those models have different goals than LCDM (LCDM employs GR and can employ QFT but does not describe either

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[hazelm]

A wonderfully detailed thread from which I learned a bit.  I had never thought of another universe being involved in the Big Bang.  I had thought of part of a universe breaking away but not with the sharing of energy or who knows what else.  Seems a simple solution.  Maybe too simple, as in "too good to be true"?   

 

Now, If I may steal sixty seconds off-topic: I wish I'd known all of you many years ago.  Just think of the vocabulary I'd have today.  All those ten-syllable words I could have used!  

 

Again, thanks to Philip for the question  and all who followed with the  great education.

[Shustaire]

I prefer to state the fields that reside in spacetime, is not nothing. I prefer to keep the disntintion clear that spacetime is just the geometry vooid of any particles ( including VP). The Schwartzchild vacuum is an example (also referred to as Einstein vacuum in some papers). You can still have field potential in this environment which can lead to the probability of particle production.

 In cosmology the common quasi or VP particles used in different inflation models is inflaton, soliton, curvaton, Hawking, Unruh and Parker radiation. All of these apply the potential (sometimes described as pressure with scalar formula), and the kinetic energy term. Under the FLRW metric various variations of the scalar model formula ( though all very similar).

 

here is the scalar formula that equates w which is a dimensionless ratio between energy density and pressure.

 

[math] w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/math] which for scalar fields equates to [math] w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)}[/math]

 

Every inflationary model I've encountered uses a variation of the latter.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

I prefer to state the fields that reside in spacetime, is not nothing. I prefer to keep the disntintion clear that spacetime is just the geometry vooid of any particles ( including VP). The Schwartzchild vacuum is an example (also referred to as Einstein vacuum in some papers). You can still have field potential in this environment which can lead to the probability of particle production.

 In cosmology the common quasi or VP particles used in different inflation models is inflaton, soliton, curvaton, Hawking, Unruh and Parker radiation. All of these apply the potential (sometimes described as pressure with scalar formula), and the kinetic energy term. Under the FLRW metric various variations of the scalar model formula ( though all very similar).

 

here is the scalar formula that equates w which is a dimensionless ratio between energy density and pressure.

 

[math] w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/math] which for scalar fields equates to [math] w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)}[/math]

 

Every inflationary model I've encountered uses a variation of the latter.

 

I am stealing that dimensionless ratio, thanks shustaire.

[Vmedvil2]

What really needs to happen is a study of Particle creation and the Higgs field when it comes to generating particles during the time of the BB, Even if a Quantum Fluctuation caused the matter of the universe being only a single universe, then the Higgs Field needs to be revised because currently under QM/QFT, it says to generate Mass, Tachyon Condensation must happen and in order for Tachyon Condensation to happen, there must be something pushing the Energy into a Electroweak debinding state. It is more of a matter of QFT/QM the generation of the initial energy of the universe and whether energy was truly conserved during this time, Large Scale theories like LCDM or even the Freidmann equation cannot explain being based on GR,there needs to be a theory of QM/QFT that explains the genesis of particles during a time of Strong-electroweak coupling which during the time of the BB was still a single force until well into the inflationary epoch. We are missing many particle theories of the early universe because particle interaction was never observed before the forces unbound maybe there was a interaction that allowed particles arising from no source when they were still bound into a "Super Force", otherwise with current rules of particle genesis and the Higgs Field, energy would be required to already be there or come from another source to generate the first particles, which would require a energy flow from some source other than our universe.

Edited July 28, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

Indeed to understand the BB and our universe thermodynamic history does indeed require further study into both particle physics and the Higg's field. The vaalue of the Higg's field still allows for the supersymmetric model however we still haven't found any supersymmetric particles. That may be due to requiring higher energies in the partiicle accelerators or may be that supersymmetry is invalid. Myself I hope it simply due to not having sufficient energy as suprsymmetry can address problems that the extended SM model has problems with.

 

 Keep in mind, there is three classifications of universe beginning. Universe from nothing ( ie this is the original universe), universe from a previous universe via bounce or cyclic models. LQC is of the bounce category. The problem with the cyclic and bounce is its turtles all the way down. You have no way of knowing how or when the first universe started.

[Shustaire]

I am stealing that dimensionless ratio, thanks shustaire.

 

Your welcome DM and ordinary matter follow the fluid relation [math] w=0[/math] radiation such as photons, massless gauge bosons, neutrinos follow [math]w=\frac{1}{3}[/math] while the cosmological constant (DE) has [math] \Lambda =w=-1[/math] which has the same statistical mechanics dynamics of an incompressible fluid.

 

Under GR pressure is described by the i component of the stress tensor in other words momentum in the i'th direction in the stress tensor it is the [math] T^{0i}[/math] components, while scalar fields energy momentum terms is the [math]T^{00}[/math] components.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Shustaire & Vmedvil, please quit it with your childish mythologies of reality.

 

Space time & matter energy are inseparable, the universe is a euphemism for reality, a matter energy continuum as well, now whether or not the reverse universe, reality just is no zeroes. As for gravity what goes in flows back out, there is no parameter about some horizon & the pendulum goes on & on. There's luxon metric, scale or value amount is a relative. You can qualify a distance but you can never quantify that distance. Everything has a local motion. QM & the BB are flat out intentional lies & we all know better.

[Shustaire]

Shustaire & Vmedvil, please quit it with your childish mythologies of reality.

 

Space time & matter energy are inseparable, the universe is a euphemism for reality, a matter energy continuum as well, now whether or not the reverse universe, reality just is no zeroes. As for gravity what goes in flows back out, there is no parameter about some horizon & the pendulum goes on & on. There's luxon metric, scale or value amount is a relative. You can qualify a distance but you can never quantify that distance. Everything has a local motion. QM & the BB are flat out intentional lies & we all know better.

 

Poly your disbelief of physics in terms of the SM model is out of place on this thread. You can keep your illusions to yourself as you haven't disproven the SM model with personal model. We will discuss the SM model as much as we please. A time reversal universe is simply one class of cyclic and quite frankly a commonly accepted view of highly unlikely as it was based on properties of anti matter that were incorrectly understood at the time of their proposal. I am assuming your referring to time reversal

Edited July 28, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Poly your disbelief of physics in terms of the SM model is out of place on this thread. You can keep your illusions to yourself as you haven't disproven the SM model with personal model. We will discuss the SM model as much as we please. A time reversal universe is simply one class of cyclic and quite frankly a commonly accepted view of highly unlikely as it was based on properties of anti matter that were incorrectly understood at the time of their proposal. I am assuming your referring to time reversal

QM, WWI, WWII & the BB were made up by the Vatican & Robber Barons in 1919 to coverup Einstein's last works.

 

You khazites are about to become extinct like the dinosuars. piss off jews russians & germans the Irish, Sicilian & Scotch are taking over!

Edited July 28, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

uh huh yep right ....that is a spew of nonsense, the SM model developed through research done by all ethical groups in our history. The old cover-up argument is garbage and a good examination on the nationalities of every theory under the SM model would tell you multiple countries are represented throughout the history of development of the SM model.

 

The SM model isn't all Einstein for one thing.

 

Its kind of amusing though as your favourite topic Koch snowflakes already has its applications in the SM model

Edited July 28, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Thinking about the technological singularity, the dangers going into it, the fall of capitalism, the words of Nostradamus: "The rich would die many times over.”