Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Pre Big Bang State


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#137 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 05:44 AM

It's possible... I won't slam the idea just yet.

 

Yes, I am not a terribly big fan of inflation - the universe is not flat, like we are often told, it is certainly not homogeneous. And of course, alternative models could explain the expansion of space in better ways.

 

The appearance of flat could be because the universe is a lot bigger than what we can see ie infinite, an edge cant be reached, or space may have more dimensions and we are only viewing 3 and time.



#138 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:03 PM

Yes the apparent flatness is actually a result of the universe getting very large. A sphere looses its curvature as it expands.



#139 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 10:46 AM

Yes the apparent flatness is actually a result of the universe getting very large. A sphere looses its curvature as it expands.

 

That would be the obvious answer. But to prove it, you cant just sail around the earth and declare it round. A 3 dimensional space could be described as spherical, but how would a higher dimensional space be described, perhaps spherical from a 3 D point of view and none existent from another point of view, with different reference points.

 

Maybe a bit like a Black hole event horizon viewed from different locations above, below and on the event horizon. One observer will see time slow to a standstill others will see no change and cross the horizon, and the other sees space shrink to nothing inside BH. I think I got that mostly right! The point being space dimensions and shape is relative to the viewpoint of the observer. ie a 3 D creature living in a flat universe might not experience a none flat 4 D world.



#140 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 01:05 PM

If by experimentally prove, then there is already experimental evidence that supports this. For starters, a large universe with a vanishing curvature is related to the weak equivalence principle, extended say to black holes, which seems to approximate the sort of state our universe is in today. The experimental evidence is supported by expansion and the relative model for large densities during the initial stages of the universe.



#141 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 04:25 AM

If by experimentally prove, then there is already experimental evidence that supports this. For starters, a large universe with a vanishing curvature is related to the weak equivalence principle, extended say to black holes, which seems to approximate the sort of state our universe is in today. The experimental evidence is supported by expansion and the relative model for large densities during the initial stages of the universe.

 

:) The obvious curvature of the earth was not accepted as evidence for the earth being round, until some one sailed around the earth and proved it was round. 

 

I dont think that the expansion supports your conclusion. It could be curved in various ways or flat. https://www.space.co...t-now-what.html The evidence suggest flat, but then on a big enough sphere what is flat.?



#142 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 05:50 AM

The internal curvatures of a universe suggests nearly, if not flat. Remember, the flatness is also subject to the dilution of matter and energy in space as it expands. If there was much more matter out there, the flatness could have been debated more clearly. Matter covers only about 1% of all space, so if it is not entirely flat, there may be a small curve when we measure it.



#143 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 05:54 AM

This should interest you... but curious still is the case of the expanding black hole revealing secrets about the flatness problem. It was shown in my essays that you can show mathematically that observers inside a black hole, of sufficient size no less, would observe the interior as not being very dense at all! (in conjunction with the very little matter out there we just spoke about).

 

Black holes also lose curvature when they expand but the gravitational influence of a black hole is often ignored, in the sense that harbors a lot of energy curving space. It is possible to argue that the black hole gravitational energy is approximately the same for the gravitational binding energy of a typical spiral galaxy like our own.



#144 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 06:37 AM

The internal curvatures of a universe suggests nearly, if not flat. Remember, the flatness is also subject to the dilution of matter and energy in space as it expands. If there was much more matter out there, the flatness could have been debated more clearly. Matter covers only about 1% of all space, so if it is not entirely flat, there may be a small curve when we measure it.

 

This should interest you... but curious still is the case of the expanding black hole revealing secrets about the flatness problem. It was shown in my essays that you can show mathematically that observers inside a black hole, of sufficient size no less, would observe the interior as not being very dense at all! (in conjunction with the very little matter out there we just spoke about).

 

Black holes also lose curvature when they expand but the gravitational influence of a black hole is often ignored, in the sense that harbors a lot of energy curving space. It is possible to argue that the black hole gravitational energy is approximately the same for the gravitational binding energy of a typical spiral galaxy like our own.

 

 

The shape of space depends on how many dimensions are considered. The observed expansion of 3 D space has evolved from a possible N dimensions, which gives what shape, after that waffle theories speculating up to 26 dimensions, are possibly going a bit OTT and do not help solve simple problems. 

 

I am aware of a number of gravitational theories, There are many speculative theories on the internal workings of black holes. You will be familiar with white holes and Popolawski. Assuming the black hole exists in 5 or more dimensional space time, within one dimension crushed to a singularity, and a white hole type space exists in 4 dimensional space time >>>> still connected to said singularity? How would that work? Does that idea sound familiar :) 



#145 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 09:53 AM

There appears to be gaps in your knowledge. A singularity is not something in one dimension, it is a pointlike abstraction, that is, it has no internal degrees of freedom.  Nor can physics make sense of such an object.



#146 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 10:18 AM

There appears to be gaps in your knowledge. A singularity is not something in one dimension, it is a pointlike abstraction, that is, it has no internal degrees of freedom.  Nor can physics make sense of such an object.

 

Umm!!!! Not pointing fingers :) There are gaps in every ones knowledge not only mine.  EPR = maybe ER . Where is a dimension connecting separate points in space. The EPR theory came about 1 month before the ER theory.  The conjecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR is more recent, is this not physics making sense of such things.



#147 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 06:06 PM

Its ok, everyone has gaps in their knowledge. Anyway, moving on, I am starting the think about late cosmology implications and how it differs from the pre big bang phase we are getting accustomed to.

 


When a universe gets large enough, all black holes will eventually evaporate and in the final phase, the thermal degree's of freedom between photons decreases and eventually expansion will lead to a universe with only fluctuations in the ground state (again).

Now we have a solution that seems very obvious, fluctuations are scale invariant and as shown, a large universe will lead to a cold, ground-state-dominated fluctuation of fields - and the third law will imply it will remain this temperature because to get cooler, it needs to expand, but space is filled with all ground state fields so it evens the process out. But this isn't the true surprising fact.

The surprising conclusion is that this would have to use a similar process found in Penroses Cyclic universe theory (and we will see why soon) - the large cold-dominated universe with only fluctuations existing in the ground state, is symmetrical in the physics concerning our speculated pre big bang phase, which too, was a cold-dominated region of space - the only real differences here is that we described the pre-big bang phase as a liquid phase: Has the superlate cosmology we have been speculating on, become a fluid?

Because the physics uses only fluctuations, the scale invariance implies that it doesn't matter how large it get's, the effects of the grand scale of fluctuations remains in the ground state and I suspect that it could easily be seen as a type of fluid. It's just not very dense, which a pre-big bang phase from our early universe would imply. This is also a question I have wondered concerning Penroses theory - in his theory, the universe might forget it's true ''scale'' but it doesn't explain why we measure a large difference in the nucleation of each big bang, one from a dense state in our past in contrast to a less dense, diluted sea of ground state oscillators?

I cannot totally say for sure that the conditions are similar enough that it would generate a new big bang - each time, getting larger and larger because each phase of the transition would lead to more energy than what was contained in the universe before it. It is also possible, if this large universe stage is in any way describable as a fluid state, it certainly is similar to a parse cold photon gas, as noticed before, but not a condensation (fluid) as the state would need to be for our universe's pre-phase.


The extrapolations derived come in the following way:

 

1. The early pre big bang phase, was a supercool and possibly superdense fluid.

 

2. Late cosmology will lead to a universe getting larger, and therefore cooler. In this big picture, the photons are sparse enough to be argued to be in a gas or vapor phase. However the pre big bang is said to be in a liquid ''condensed'' state.

 

3. If the pre big bang is not as dense as unified models predict for the mainstream view of big bang, then being scale independent, would signify a ''return'' to a particular state which could lead to cyclic models.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 31 January 2019 - 07:44 AM.


#148 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 04:12 AM

:) The obvious curvature of the earth was not accepted as evidence for the earth being round, until some one sailed around the earth and proved it was round. 

 

 

Actually this is a canard. Eratosthenes knew it was round and had even measured the circumference around 300BC. So educated people knew perfectly well it was round, for a thousand years before Magellan. 



#149 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 03 February 2019 - 05:04 AM

Actually this is a canard. Eratosthenes knew it was round and had even measured the circumference around 300BC. So educated people knew perfectly well it was round, for a thousand years before Magellan. 

 

Pythagoras 600 BC was well rounded https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Flat_Earth but the flat earth believers just keep going 



#150 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 03 February 2019 - 09:12 AM

Pythagoras 600 BC was well rounded https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Flat_Earth but the flat earth believers just keep going 

Even earlier than I had realised, then.

 

But I'm not surprised: the Greeks were sailors and any sailor knows a ship appears to go "down" as it goes over the horizon, with the mast tops disappearing last. Or, conversely, that to get an early sight of land, you need to climb the mast, to see "over" the horizon. So it would be quite obvious to any mariner, even in antiquity, that the surface of the sea is curved, not flat.


Edited by exchemist, 03 February 2019 - 09:13 AM.


#151 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 05:01 AM

Even earlier than I had realised, then.

 

But I'm not surprised: the Greeks were sailors and any sailor knows a ship appears to go "down" as it goes over the horizon, with the mast tops disappearing last. Or, conversely, that to get an early sight of land, you need to climb the mast, to see "over" the horizon. So it would be quite obvious to any mariner, even in antiquity, that the surface of the sea is curved, not flat.

 

Yes, Its pretty obvious when standing on the beach gazing out over all those fluctuations in the ocean just how rounded the world is :)

 

Stones circles dating 4000BC pre dating the pyramids were tracking the movements of the stars in the sky. I wonder if they thought the world was round?

 

When gazing out into space we see a horizon at the edge of the visible universe, where the galaxies are red shifted out of sight. I wonder if that is similar in any way infinite with out a beginning.



#152 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2042 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 06:17 AM

Apparently wiki also has a page on the cold big bang: 

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Cold_Big_Bang

 

From the article, David Layzer speculated the same thing that I speculated, a cold state near absolute temperatures.

 

''In 1966, David Layzer proposed a variant on LemaƮtre's cosmology in which the initial state of the universe was near absolute zero. Layzer argued that, rather than in an initial high entropy state, the primordial universe was in a very low entropy state near absolute zero''

 

There are no mentions here for  a pre big bang phase described as the liquid state -  which is interesting because this is a natural assumption. Also, Layzer appears to be motivated by the same reasons I was taken by the Motz-Kraft model, in that it makes sense of low entropy in a low temperature state. 

 

https://medium.com/s...ng-45ce2622ecb7