Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hot Big Bang Cold Little Bang


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 03:28 AM

Theoretical 

 

The Hot Big Bang occurred according to theory 13.9 Billion years ago, and the laws of thermodynamics forbid any new energy to be created.

The CBR is cited as evidence for a hot big bang, and is a relic to particle creation during the inflationary stage of the universe.

Particle creation was likely initiated during the theoretical inflationary stage of the universe, via separating virtual particle pairs, resulting in a Hot Big Bang

 

Fact

 
Particles spontaneously appear out of a vacuum at a very slow rate. 

 

Theoretical

 

Steady State theory, introduced by Fred Hoyle.

 

Questions for discussion

 

Could spontaneous particle creation be due to a localized inflationary effect in space between a pair of virtual particles.? ie a small scale inflationary stage followed by a Cold little bang.

Is it possible that some if not all of the CBR is due to continuous spontaneous particle creation? How would the CBR appear any different if it was a relic of continuous cold particle creation instead of an instantaneous theoretical hot big bang, lasting fractions of a second. ?

Could a continual process of particle creation lasting Aeons in a zero or near zero gravity environment be lumped into one big bang and appear to give the same results ref CBR.  ?  If not why not ??

Fred Hoyle was not the first to think of steady state theory https://www.ibtimes....-theory-1437818

 

Steady State theory was replaced by Inflationary theory, WHY and WHAT does inflationary theory give that an expanding universe in Steady state theory does not give. 

 

Could some Dark Matter effects in empty space be a result of spontaneous particle creation? https://en.wikipedia...ational_lensing

 

Could the age of galaxies be related to the amount of dark matter around them? 


Edited by Flummoxed, 09 May 2019 - 03:29 AM.

  • hazelm likes this

#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 10:20 AM


 

 

Could spontaneous particle creation be due to a localized inflationary effect in space between a pair of virtual particles.? ie a small scale inflationary stage followed by a Cold little bang.

Is it possible that some if not all of the CBR is due to continuous spontaneous particle creation? How would the CBR appear any different if it was a relic of continuous cold particle creation instead of an instantaneous theoretical hot big bang, lasting fractions of a second. ?

Could a continual process of particle creation lasting Aeons in a zero or near zero gravity environment be lumped into one big bang and appear to give the same results ref CBR.  ?  If not why not ??

 

 

I am very bored so, will make a stab at my own questions. 

 

If inflation of space lasting pico seconds can theoretically produce all the matter in the universe. Then inflation of a very small volume of space can produce a pair of real particles with random none stable properties, that will decay to become stable particles.

 

The CBR is claimed as evidence against steady state theory. If the CBR is due to particle creation, then it is equally valid to claim continual particle creation over Aeons produced the CBR. The CBR is not definite evidence for a big bang from an inflationary universe, which violates the currently understood laws of physics.

 

If you break a long slow process down into the smallest elements it can be modelled as an instantaneous event.

 

Could dark matter effects be a result of misunderstanding how gravity works? Or is it evidence for ongoing particle creation in space?



#3 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 11:00 AM

I can see what you are arguing... in fact, going back to previous discussions, I explained that Penroses late phase is not as dense at the true observed past phase is a problem, so would I be right in thinking you have taken this to explore a proposal where we had a hot universe to lead to some later phase by including Penroses scale invariance?

 

Well why not? Except for one driving reason why a cold big bang is even considered - its because [we do not know] a hot big bang as a [fact] as you have said in the OP - In fact, there are quite a few problems with the universe as far as some of our best models can try and eliminate - such as supermassive cold voids in the background.

 

I don't want to ''condition'' you or anyone,but make it clear that a cold big bang makes sense with thermodynamics and certainly that part is a [fact] whereas a hot big bang with a low entropy is classically forbidden.



#4 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 03:35 AM

I can see what you are arguing... in fact, going back to previous discussions, I explained that Penroses late phase is not as dense at the true observed past phase is a problem, so would I be right in thinking you have taken this to explore a proposal where we had a hot universe to lead to some later phase by including Penroses scale invariance?

 

Well why not? Except for one driving reason why a cold big bang is even considered - its because [we do not know] a hot big bang as a [fact] as you have said in the OP - In fact, there are quite a few problems with the universe as far as some of our best models can try and eliminate - such as supermassive cold voids in the background.

 

I don't want to ''condition'' you or anyone,but make it clear that a cold big bang makes sense with thermodynamics and certainly that part is a [fact] whereas a hot big bang with a low entropy is classically forbidden.

 

Currently Penroses ideas are beyond the scope of the OP.

 

I am stating the observed CBR is evidence for particle creation, during an inflationary stage of the universe.  

 

What I am suggesting is this CBR would appear exactly the same in the universe today, regardless of whether particle creation happened at an instant in time, via a theoretical  Big Bang, preceded by an inflationary phase, or evolved slowly via an ongoing process over a much longer period of time. 

 

ie a localized inflation at the quantum level between a pair of virtual particles, may be an ongoing process in outer space, resulting in a bit more CBR, every time there is a particle created. 

 

Some of the dark matter effect might be an observable effect of this process, especially where it appears away from galaxies, ie with no gravitational fields, and dark energy rules. 

 

Claims that dark matter and everything else in the universe was created at an instant in time, are theoretical. Einstein played with the static universe model long before Hoyle picked up on it. Hoyles model was apparently discarded because he could not explain the CBR. What I think is agreed is that the CBR is an after effect of partical creation.

 

Which is most plausible, an ongoing very slow process, which can be observed in the lab. Or some theoretical big bang.  



#5 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 12:09 PM

The basic idea of the Big Bang is that the universe was a lot hotter and denser than it is today and the CBR is claimed as concrete evidence for this. Here is a little simple explanation of this point of view https://sites.ualber.../lecture31.html explaining the basic premise and then giving the results.

 

At 300 000  years after the big bang the CBR is thought to appear at around 3000K when electrons and ions combined giving off radiation.

 

Allowing for red shift what temperature is the outer edge of the visible universe at, does this exclude any other explanation, other than the big bang :). ???

 

Edit how hot are the stars at the outer edge of the visible universe. How long did it take for spiral galaxies and black holes to form, and what are they doing at the outer edge of the visible universe. ???

 

How is red shift and distance of distant galaxies calibrated ??? 


Edited by Flummoxed, 11 May 2019 - 12:15 PM.


#6 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 12 May 2019 - 09:15 PM

The basic idea of the Big Bang is that the universe was a lot hotter and denser than it is today and the CBR is claimed as concrete evidence for this. Here is a little simple explanation of this point of view https://sites.ualber.../lecture31.html explaining the basic premise and then giving the results.

 

At 300 000  years after the big bang the CBR is thought to appear at around 3000K when electrons and ions combined giving off radiation.

 

Allowing for red shift what temperature is the outer edge of the visible universe at, does this exclude any other explanation, other than the big bang :). ???

 

Edit how hot are the stars at the outer edge of the visible universe. How long did it take for spiral galaxies and black holes to form, and what are they doing at the outer edge of the visible universe. ???

 

How is red shift and distance of distant galaxies calibrated ??? 

 

The fields of astrophysics and cosmology at a career level (academia) are far from my understanding, as I only know something as an amateur

and, even so, at narrowed topics.

 

But, discussing the subject of CBR I was searching for academic literature that explained in depth "observable" versus "visible" universe

(46.5 Gyl vs 13.5 Gyl radius), when I found this link containing huge amounts of information of a book/course under construction, from a

professional at the Virginia University (Astronomy Faculty), with some chapters (lectures) still under construction by 2013.

 

It is almost an Enciclopedy about astronomy at star, galaxy and universe level, and (from my point of view) touch almost any subject.

 

This is the link of Chapter 16 (Cosmological Framework), where I think you'll find many answers:

 

http://people.virgin...Lecture_16.html

 

Once you learn how to use the site, you will be able to navigate around its 16 chapters (there are 20, but the last four are not written yet).

 

May I suggest that you save it as entire html pages? Because I'm afraid it could be deleted at any time.

It seems that is material for a graduate course at Astronomy, and the author is the professor himself.

 

I hope this can be useful for you.


  • Flummoxed likes this

#7 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 13 May 2019 - 02:48 AM

http://people.virgin...Lecture_16.html

 

 

I hope this can be useful for you.

 

I will get stuck in tonight. Thanks for the link. 

 

I do have a couple of burning question however, which you might have an answer too, I was re reading your thread last night when the internet packed up, so this question might be premature. 

 

If the CBR was due to Protons/ions and electrons recombining to form Hydrogen, after an inflationary stage. Why is there NOT a very clear spike in the CBR showing this? Hydrogen is Hydrogen and it is what we use to measure the red/blue shift of distant stars. Why is red shift applied to the measured CBR, when no confirmation of its origins can be made? It is approximately the same in all directions, and appears like random noise, there appears to be no way of separating distant measurements of CBR from local ones. The CBR detectors have no way to discriminate local from distant, so why apply a red shift to it, other than to show what the temperature of space might be 14billion light years ago according to BigBang theory. The CBR could just as easily have come from other the visible horizon a billion billion years ago.?

 

Perhaps I will find the answers on the link above. 



#8 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 13 May 2019 - 01:28 PM

Having some fun with some contrary ideas.

 

The CMBR is approx. the same in all directions 2.75K, If space is expanding applying red shift to the CMBR is the CORRECT thing to do, BUT if space is not expanding and the CMBR has always been at 2.75K. Applying red shift to ascertain the universe is 13.9 billion years old is WRONG

 

Red shift and blue shift in the CMBR indicates that we are moving through space at around 370km/s in the direction of the constellation of LEO. http://aether.lbl.go...w/projects/u2/ 

 

Red and Blue shift of galaxies indicate galaxies are moving apart or towards one another.

 

If we are moving through space with reference to the CMBR then it follows other constellations and galaxies can be moving through space also relative to each other. Andromeda and the Milky way are getting closer for example. Since they are moving at different rates through the CMBR they will observe different effects in the CMBR.

 

If the Big Bang did not take place as indicated and space is not expanding, as per current inflationary theory. Galaxies must be moving THROUGH space, rather than space expanding between them. Applying a red shift to distant CMBR measurements to calculate the universe is 13.9billion years old is INCORRECT. If space is not expanding then the measured CMBR might still be a relic of particle creation. 

 

Edit Could the CBR be regarded as a kind of aether ? It has equal properties in all directions unless we are moving through it, something the Michelson Morley experiment did not pick up on. :) Could a blue shifted CBR have more gravitational attraction than a none shifted CBR. Could a photon be attracted in the direction of blue shift in the CBR :) . MADNESS !!  


Edited by Flummoxed, 14 May 2019 - 03:01 AM.


#9 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 10:37 AM

You're good at weighing theoretical physics with alternative scenario's. The real problem with science is that scientists do not like to look at alternative theories in case it makes their previous work invalid. But physics has got so complicated, there will be only one man in history who can call an avenue his ''biggest blunder.'' We will have to accept as educated individuals, that the case of big bang, being a hot phase, is certainly not disputed under the cold model, it's just that we must invite classical phase transitions to explain the radiation phase as a radiation vapor - the key idea is that cool systems must be condensed - and fits in nicely with a dense past. There is no contradiction, just added physics, such as exploring the pre big bang phase.



#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:05 AM

But I need to make clear, this cold big bang model was originally suggested as far back as the days when the primordial atom was being investigated by George Lemetrie, (sorry if I spelled his name wrong) - the reason why because it was evidence with many giants at the time, a hot big bang as an origin theory violates the third law of thermodynamics - I wasn't aware during my writings on such a pre-big bang phase outside of the work of Motz and Kraft in the 60's. It was in fact their work that led me to take variations in the Friedmann model to introduce non-classical settings, bringing it more in the realms of particle physics. The goal of this is a bit shrouded with mystery to me, because like all physics, its like a jig saw and we try and put those pieces together in the most consistent way.



#11 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:07 AM

You're good at weighing theoretical physics with alternative scenario's. The real problem with science is that scientists do not like to look at alternative theories in case it makes their previous work invalid. But physics has got so complicated, there will be only one man in history who can call an avenue his ''biggest blunder.'' We will have to accept as educated individuals, that the case of big bang, being a hot phase, is certainly not disputed under the cold model, it's just that we must invite classical phase transitions to explain the radiation phase as a radiation vapor - the key idea is that cool systems must be condensed - and fits in nicely with a dense past. There is no contradiction, just added physics, such as exploring the pre big bang phase.

 

Hello again, I was getting bored with talking to myself on this thread. 

 

Thanks for that.

 

I don't think what I have suggested above is overly implausible. The concept of a blue shift in the CBR as we move through it, is intriguing. ie the blue shifted space in front of a moving galaxy would have a higher energy level in the direction the object is moving, and might create an additional attractive force, or act as a pilot wave for a photon.  Dark energy might suck not push :) Photons might be sucked through space by a pilot wave created by blue shift in the CBR.



#12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:13 AM

But I need to make clear, this cold big bang model was originally suggested as far back as the days when the primordial atom was being investigated by George Lemetrie, (sorry if I spelled his name wrong) - the reason why because it was evidence with many giants at the time, a hot big bang as an origin theory violates the third law of thermodynamics - I wasn't aware during my writings on such a pre-big bang phase outside of the work of Motz and Kraft in the 60's. It was in fact their work that led me to take variations in the Friedmann model to introduce non-classical settings, bringing it more in the realms of particle physics. The goal of this is a bit shrouded with mystery to me, because like all physics, its like a jig saw and we try and put those pieces together in the most consistent way.

 

 

Currently I am just kicking around some ideas, in a feable attempt to provoke a discussion, ref the possibility of no Big Bang either hot or cold preceded by an inflationary phase.

 

My wife is demanding to be fed, so I need to go light the bbq


Edited by Flummoxed, 14 May 2019 - 11:14 AM.


#13 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:33 AM

mmm bbq... thanks for giving me the munchies :P



#14 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:36 AM

mmm bbq... thanks for giving me the munchies :P

 

 

Hello again, I was getting bored with talking to myself on this thread. 

 

Thanks for that.

 

I don't think what I have suggested above is overly implausible. The concept of a blue shift in the CBR as we move through it, is intriguing. ie the blue shifted space in front of a moving galaxy would have a higher energy level in the direction the object is moving, and might create an additional attractive force, or act as a pilot wave for a photon.  Dark energy might suck not push :) Photons might be sucked through space by a pilot wave created by blue shift in the CBR.

 

 

Certainly not implausible. It is true, not all galactic systems are red shifted, but there are many more systems redshifted than there are blue shifted. These are due to gravitational interactions, as you might expect, between galaxies, such as our own, with andromeda. But by the time that galaxy come colliding with our own, it is a curious coincidence that our sun will be going supergiant by this time. So the end of the world is neigh in that sense, unless we get bombarded by an unseen comet sending us back to the ice age. That to me, is a more current threat.



#15 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 15 May 2019 - 03:11 AM

 

 

Certainly not implausible. It is true, not all galactic systems are red shifted, but there are many more systems redshifted than there are blue shifted. These are due to gravitational interactions, as you might expect, between galaxies, such as our own, with andromeda. But by the time that galaxy come colliding with our own, it is a curious coincidence that our sun will be going supergiant by this time. So the end of the world is neigh in that sense, unless we get bombarded by an unseen comet sending us back to the ice age. That to me, is a more current threat.

 

There would have a lot been more galaxies a long time ago, colliding and growing. Today its a case of last rat standing, survival of those that are going in about the same direction, or are very big and can consume anything in its path, not unlike Andromeda is going to do to the Milky Way. :)

 

"Certainly not implausible"   I kind of need to know why it must be implausible. :)  



#16 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 15 May 2019 - 01:46 PM

 

 

"Certainly not implausible"   I kind of need to know why it must be implausible. :)

 

 

It's difficult to find implausibility when you are stating facts. That's a good thing.



#17 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:40 AM

It's difficult to find implausibility when you are stating facts. That's a good thing.

 

 

 

I probably posted this on the wrong thread, so I will post it again here 

 

 

Amusingly

 

Dark energy/matter can be ascribed to anything not PROPERLY understood. Perhaps the expansion of the universe and gravity should both be ascribed to dark energy, and whilst we are at it, ascribe particle creation to dark energy as well.

 

Further Amusement

 

Hawking reckons particle creation can happen around a blackhole due to virtual particle separation. Zero point energy at neat absolute zero has similarities with Black Body radiation, and particles can randomly appear from a vacuum. Theoretical Hawking radiation produces particles that would likely decay to photons if the particles were not stable.  These would have very little energy, but over the space of a few billion years the radiation produced could raise the temperature of the universe, and would appear like the CBR. The radiation of the CBR could drive the expansion of the universe, due to increasing radiation pressure.

 

The mechanism behind gravity could be as simple as Cahills Quantum foam inflow, or more complicated Verlindes Entropic Gravity based on entanglement. Particle creation at near absolute zero would possibly form a stable condensate, which could form particles, in the early universe. Once the radiation temperature becomes too high, particle creation from condensates would be mostly stopped. Once particles are created they would form gas nebulae and stars and produce the heavier elements.

 

Just how dodgy is the BB theory, it seems claims ref CBR might have been over stretched. Giving the universe a cold beginning could result in the same CBR, and not violate any laws of physics. The heavier elements would quite happily appear from super novae.

 

Does any one know of any current theories that look at a cold start to the universe not involving any kind of Big Bang theory Hot or Cold.