Your units are wrong, probably based on a misconception on how I invited to remove the constant G. We use in this example, a cgs unit base for Newtons constant. Otherwise, everything is dimensionally sound, been over it several times just to make sure, which is why I am confident. I have shown it to at least one scientist who didn't seem to object.

# Pre-Big Bang Phase And The Implications For Physics

### #35

Posted 07 May 2019 - 08:28 AM

### #36

Posted 07 May 2019 - 08:29 AM

I certainly approve the correction, but you need to follow links provided which shows this correction for the Friedmann expansion phase.

### #37

Posted 07 May 2019 - 09:28 AM

I certainly approve the correction, but you need to follow links provided which shows this correction for the Friedmann expansion phase.

Thanks. it means a lot for me, coming from you.

Greetings,

Richard

### #38

Posted 07 May 2019 - 10:24 AM

Since you have replied in a gentleman fashion, I will take the liberty of showing you the correction. Give me a moment.

### #39

Posted 07 May 2019 - 10:25 AM

The link you can follow that shows a zero point energy correction to a Friedmann equation can be found here:

https://prebigbangst...-Big-Bang-Phase

### #40

Posted 08 May 2019 - 04:52 AM

Sure, the idea of Aeons coalesces well with the predictions we can try and make, but remember I also said that the model of a recurring big bang suffers a comprehensive flaw concerning density. In Penroses model, he suggests the universe gets large enough that it ''forgets'' its own size (because there are no longer clocks in the universe, just pure radiation) and it starts all over again - for his model to succeed it would require that it also forgets what density it also is - we know with good accuracy the past phase of the universe was extremely dense, while this later phase is in all respects, much more diluted, a radiation phase over vast distances (due to the Aeons it takes for these supermassive black holes to finally give up the last of their mass due to Hawking radiation).

Radiation pressure certainly would be one of the first causes I would venture to look for - also notice in Penroses model, we do not require a universe to ''come from'' a quark gluon plasma, all you need is radiation and the right conditions for that radiation phase to transpose into matter. Indeed, there are good reasons to think that in the beginning, there was light, as the Bible states - we think it is a possibility because of the special decay process as a universal law to all matter systems when they interact with antimatter. You could, and this is purely theoretical, imagine a total equality of a creation of matter and antimatter in the most earliest phases and what we call the distant radiation phase was in fact a result of this collision, but then we would have to seek a CPT violation to explain why the radiation transposed more into matter than antimatter.

Remember our conversations on the issue of gravitational binding - as I said, and I still stand by this, the cosmological constant really is a constant and it is the gradual expansion which increases due to a weakening of the gravitational binding, but this requires a whole new refreshing look at a new type of cosmology where we might have to ignore inflation altogether. Let me explain, for instance, it was a while back, you don't need inflation to explain a synthesis of matter, it was originally proposed to try and explain the homogeneity of the distribution of light and matter in the universe. Barrow and possibly Narlikar had shown that a slow expanding universe, which slowly synthesized particles as it grew, would answer the homogeneity problem without inflation.

That would mean inflation no longer would be required to explain nucleosynthesis, instead, we would require a purely gravitational explanation, quantized no less and it was distributed evenly as it grew in size. The apparent acceleration would not be due to a changing cosmological constant but instead it would only appear to change. The real factor that has been largely ignored is the weakening of gravity as it grows. So if the constant of dark energy is indeed, constant, then the intensity of that constant would only appear to change, but is really due to a weakening of the binding energy as it grew.

I don't hold much confidence in early models, because for these early models, which include inflation and other various parameters, to be just right, to me seems very unlikely. How many times has classical physics been reconstructed to make sense of the curvature of spacetime? To think we had it right on the first go, would be very egocentric - but you can't blame physicists for being gung-ho concerning these matters, when they have spent most of their life on them. But as Hawking once said, the best science comes from falsification, not the models which get it right first time, and even then, who is to say the theory is right. All we need is a model, which makes testable predictions that can help shed light on different aspects of the universe that we have so insidiously attempted to explain with archaic models which for some reason, took the stage and hasn't budged for new models to take hold. Even Hawking entertained that the universe could very well spinning, its only that it can only be currently spinning at a very slow speed (dark flow). That doesn't rule out of course that the spinning nature cannot exponentially decrease and in fact was shown again by Hoyle and Narlikar that a rotary property of a universe does indeed exponentially decay as linear expansion takes over, so dark flow in conclusion, could be the last evidence of this ''primordial spin'' ... something I myself has called a residue but possibly an important feature we need to look more into.

I will let you get back to your thread after this post.

However and since rhertz has noticed your thread , and via discussing the CBR, he inadvertently revived an interest in various no big bang theories I had. You also suggested a cold start to the universe, which I tend to agree with.

I only raised Penroses ideas because he accepts additional big bangs. It is interesting from his multiple big bang scenarios occurring when g tends to 0 and inflation takes of again. Away from galaxies in the depths of space g has tended to zero and dark energy drives the expansion of the universe. What is wrong with little bangs a particle at a time?

Many none standard theories exist, I only tend to take away the bits I currently find plausible.

If the expansion of the universe is driven by radiation caused by zero point energy or virtual particle separation and recombination resulting in CBR and the occasional particle becoming real, it is not evidence for an unbelievably large big bang happening at an instant in time, never to happen again. That constant CBR could be evidence of an ongoing process.

You have raised the apparent matter antimatter problem on a number of occasions. I do not see this as a problem, when looking at the fundamental particles we have charge parity. There is NO supporting evidence for antimatter to balance matter. Why not form a model based on what we actually observe charge parity.

At the quantum level particles can appear from nothing, could this be analogous to the inflationary stage of the universe producing unstable matter, which gives of lots of radiation as it reaches a stable state. The CBR in the big bang model is claimed to be from a an instant in time 13.9 billion years ago. Why is it not more realistic to think of this occurring continuously over an eternity, continually driving the expansion of the universe, with small inflationary stages happening at the quantum level in space.

Hey Ho, amusing thoughts.

### #41

Posted 09 May 2019 - 11:10 AM

If the expansion of the universe is driven by radiation caused by zero point energy or virtual particle separation and recombination resulting in CBR and the occasional particle becoming real, it is not evidence for an unbelievably large big bang happening at an instant in time, never to happen again. That constant CBR could be evidence of an ongoing process.

It is a real problem because even parity should be reserved from our oldest models that created these theories: What has been noticed to make something like this not happen, requires Lorentz violations. This is the leading answer right now, it may not explain why it is this way, be we at least understand it this way. CPT violations are actually identical to special relativity violation of Lorentz invariance.

- Flummoxed likes this

### #42

Posted 09 May 2019 - 11:13 AM

[math]\frac{1}{60 \cdot 90} \frac{1}{\zeta(3)} = \frac{1}{5400} \frac{1}{\zeta(3)} = \frac{1}{6491.10728}[/math]

[math]\frac{3072}{60 \cdot 90} \frac{1}{\zeta(3)} = \frac{3702}{5400} \frac{1}{\zeta(3)} = \frac{3702}{6491.10728} = 0.473262861[/math]

Likewise we find the same solution when plugging in [math]\pi^4[/math]

[math] \frac{299240.728}{6491.10728} = 46.1001051[/math]

Let's try a new route, let's leave out a factor of [math]\pi^2[/math].... so that we would have instead

[math]\frac{30319.4247}{6491.10728} = 4.67091721[/math]

Again, nothing has been discovered from this ''number crunching'' but it has to be done in case we can find anything (obviously) interesting about it, other than what has been uncovered from the original assertions concerning the prime numbers. Which then leads to the question about leaving [math]3072[/math] as the main coefficient to [math]\frac{\zeta(4)}{\zeta(3)}[/math] since the function are also related to prime factorization. I'll work all that out later, had enough number crunching for now Besides... I have Sherwoods link to read now.

Dubbel I have a Question for you what is the meaning of Pi^2 I have run into equations as well where I have received a value of Pi^2, so what is the physical meaning of Pi^2.

**Edited by VictorMedvil, 09 May 2019 - 11:14 AM.**

### #43

Posted 10 May 2019 - 03:39 AM

It is a real problem because even parity should be reserved from our oldest models that created these theories: What has been noticed to make something like this not happen, requires Lorentz violations. This is the leading answer right now, it may not explain why it is this way, be we at least understand it this way. CPT violations are actually identical to special relativity violation of Lorentz invariance.

Thanks for that, I have started another thread as I am in risk of hijacking your thread, with some old ideas I have.

### #44

Posted 14 May 2019 - 10:32 AM

Dubbel I have a Question for you what is the meaning of Pi^2 I have run into equations as well where I have received a value of Pi^2, so what is the physical meaning of Pi^2.

It comes from the zeta function... interpretation? I'd have to look at it, but I imagine the core explanation can be found from those functions.

### #45

Posted 23 May 2019 - 04:15 AM

It comes from the zeta function... interpretation? I'd have to look at it, but I imagine the core explanation can be found from those functions.

Alright I will look into the Zeta Function but yes I have received Pi^2 several times working with gravitational equations, which personally makes me think that you are on the right track. I received it as the spin of a gravitational wave as a Spin value which I took to mean a Spin 2 Boson or with a symmetry of pi^2, but I always wondered if that means something different.

**Edited by VictorMedvil, 23 May 2019 - 04:20 AM.**

### #46

Posted 23 May 2019 - 07:20 AM

So the Pre-Big Bang Phase is not a romantic dinner?

### #47

Posted 23 May 2019 - 07:39 AM

So the Pre-Big Bang Phase is not a romantic dinner?

LOL, not in this case, though for many couples I am sure that would fit the description of a evening.

**Edited by VictorMedvil, 23 May 2019 - 07:40 AM.**