Pre Big Bang State

[Dubbelosix]

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.

[Dubbelosix]

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 January 31, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[exchemist]

:) 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. 

[exchemist]

Pythagoras 600 BC was well rounded https://en.wikipedia.org/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 February 3, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

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

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Lemaître'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/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-what-was-the-entropy-of-the-universe-at-the-big-bang-45ce2622ecb7