Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hot Big Bang Cold Little Bang


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#18 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 07:39 AM


 

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.

 

Cold starts happen even with a big bang. This is still the general idea. As for current theories, I have no idea, but I have been able to trace the idea back to George Lemaitre https://en.wikipedia...i/Cold_Big_Bang

 

I wasn't motivated by Lemaitre, but I had been inspired to continue to idea from Motz and Kraft who suggested a cold beginning.



#19 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1082 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 07:53 AM

Flummoxed, before you get too far ahead of me - which will not take long - I have a question about this statement in your OP: 

 

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

 

Q:  If you are saying that there was an inflationary period before the Hot Big Bang wherein we had virtual particles separating and resulting in a Hot Big Bang (to be sure I am grasping the thought),  then did we still have another inflationary period after that Hot Big Bang which is when real particles came into existence?

 

 

"Virtual" particles is another matter but that's for me to find out about.   For now,  I'll stick with the above question.   Thank you.



#20 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 07:58 AM

I was able to find this from 2011 in which the fluctuation problems are dealt with. The wiki article says the cold big bang was eventually dropped, but it seems the reasons for it were a bit hasty.

 

http://www.vixra.org...1202.0009v1.pdf

 

His work was eventually published at researchgate.



#21 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 08:01 AM

And in fact I have taken a look at the one provided in researchgate, it is full of lovely equations and the idea has been taken much further, a much better read.


  • Flummoxed likes this

#22 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 08:05 AM

Cold starts happen even with a big bang. This is still the general idea. As for current theories, I have no idea, but I have been able to trace the idea back to George Lemaitre https://en.wikipedia...i/Cold_Big_Bang

 

I wasn't motivated by Lemaitre, but I had been inspired to continue to idea from Motz and Kraft who suggested a cold beginning.

 

Lemaitre leaves me cold, I do not believe in his God or his religion, or his hot condensed state in a universe that only came into existence 14 billion years ago via a miracle that disobeys the laws of physics.

 

 

Flummoxed, before you get too far ahead of me - which will not take long - I have a question about this statement in your OP: 

 

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

 

Q:  If you are saying that there was an inflationary period before the Hot Big Bang wherein we had virtual particles separating and resulting in a Hot Big Bang (to be sure I am grasping the thought),  then did we still have another inflationary period after that Hot Big Bang which is when real particles came into existence?

 

 

"Virtual" particles is another matter but that's for me to find out about.   For now,  I'll stick with the above question.   Thank you.

 

Current theory is, the inflationary stage of the universe came before the hot big bang. What ever happened during the inflationary stage resulted in lots of heat and matter being created resulting in a big hot explosion. The expansion of the universe continued, but at a much slower rate.

 

Speculation follows

 

Real particles came into existence at likely unstable levels, at the end of the inflationary period, releasing energy as radiation/heat. The inflation was slowed due to gravitational effects. There atre different versions of inflationary cosmology, some would allow inflation to be none linear happening at different times in space. The standard model is for one inflation and one hot big bang period.


  • hazelm likes this

#23 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 08:06 AM

And in fact I have taken a look at the one provided in researchgate, it is full of lovely equations and the idea has been taken much further, a much better read.

 

I, will take a look now, thanks for the link. 

---------------------------------------------------------

OK had a look,

 

Links 3 and 4 look interesting.

 

Es muito boa que eu falo un poco Portuguese 

 

https://www.research...a_Relativistica

 

But then I found the English versions 

 

http://www.ptep-onli...11/PP-25-14.PDF

 

http://www.ptep-onli...11/PP-27-09.PDF

 

These pdf's will shut me up for a while. Thanks again for the ref.


Edited by Flummoxed, 20 May 2019 - 08:19 AM.


#24 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:11 AM

The History of the CBR and how it established the Big Bang Model. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.01907.pdf

"

The discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson, reported in Refs. [1, 2], has been a ’game changer’ in cosmology. Before this discovery, despite the observation of the expansion of the Universe, see [3], the steady state model of cosmology still had a respectable group of followers. However, if the ’excess antenna temperature’ measured by Penzias and Wilson isotropically in all directions [1] was correctly interpreted by the preceding paper in the same issue of the Astrophysical Journal [2], the Universe was clearly adiabatically expanding and cooling as postulated by Lemaˆıtre [4]‡ using a solution of Einstein’s field equation found previously by Friedman [6]. In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were rewarded with the Physics Nobel Prize for their discovery.

"

 

WHY could the universe not also be warming, with the CBR driving the expansion ?   



#25 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:28 AM

Not sure what you mean, the universe is certainly getting cooler as it expands, it is analogous to how a large black hole is cooler than a small one.

 

From the perspective of a cold beginning, there is absolutely no reason why a sudden collapse would not have heated up appropriately, and fast enough, that it could explain the CMBR. This whole ''the background radiation'' proves a hot big bang, is not disputed in my eyes. We are questioning what came before it.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 20 May 2019 - 09:28 AM.


#26 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:44 AM

Not sure what you mean, the universe is certainly getting cooler as it expands, it is analogous to how a large black hole is cooler than a small one.

 

From the perspective of a cold beginning, there is absolutely no reason why a sudden collapse would not have heated up appropriately, and fast enough, that it could explain the CMBR. This whole ''the background radiation'' proves a hot big bang, is not disputed in my eyes. We are questioning what came before it.

 

 

Not necessarily, It could be viewed as self regulating, ie as more CBR is produced it drives the expansion of the universe and regulates its own temperature. 

 

From the perspective of a cold slow beginning, there is no reason, why it couldn't still be happening, and self cooling through the expansion of the universe.  

 

As you are well aware there are problems with Baryogenesis and matter antimatter symmetry in Big Bang cosmology, and it requires "Dark Matter" to make it work. 

Dark Matter might just be a desperate attempt to keep the model afloat.  



#27 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:57 AM

Not necessarily, It could be viewed as self regulating, ie as more CBR is produced it drives the expansion of the universe and regulates its own temperature.

 

As it expands more space appears, and assuming no matter is being created, the universe will get cooler. There is no self-regulation, the only possible future for a universe that expands like our own, will result in a future horizon dominated by zero point fluctuations and sparse radiation, too sparse to even contribute to a universes temperature.



#28 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 10:14 AM

As it expands more space appears, and assuming no matter is being created, the universe will get cooler. There is no self-regulation, the only possible future for a universe that expands like our own, will result in a future horizon dominated by zero point fluctuations and sparse radiation, too sparse to even contribute to a universes temperature.

 

Big Bang violates the laws of thermodynamics, via creating all of matter in the universe in a fraction of second.

 

Assuming that new matter is being created very slowly, resulting in more CBR, the universe will self regulate its temperature through expansion.

Under this scenario If the universe wasn't expanding the CBR would get a lot hotter than it is today.

 

If particles are continually being created in the coldest regions of the universe, then maybe Hoyle was right.   



#29 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 11:47 AM

Yes big bang under standard model, does indeed violate the thermodynamics - a hot big bang with a low entropy for instance, is in violation of how we understand the thermodynamics laws - I noticed this even before I knew of the original arguments, which used the exact same statements. You cannot have a hot big bang with a low entropy. You can only begin with a cold system with a low entropy and something happened causing it become highly erratic, heated up very fast, meaning only then, it would fit in with a big bang with a high entropy state.

 

Then there is a short non-conserved phase, in which particle creation had to happen and not just happen, but happen in irreversible ways. This is something my semi-classical Friedmann equation attempts to solve. A short non-conserved phase, does not mean though particles, or mass-non-conservation is happening today.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 20 May 2019 - 06:24 PM.


#30 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1082 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 12:10 PM

Lemaitre leaves me cold, I do not believe in his God or his religion, or his hot condensed state in a universe that only came into existence 14 billion years ago via a miracle that disobeys the laws of physics.

 

 

 

Current theory is, the inflationary stage of the universe came before the hot big bang. What ever happened during the inflationary stage resulted in lots of heat and matter being created resulting in a big hot explosion. The expansion of the universe continued, but at a much slower rate.

 

Speculation follows

 

Real particles came into existence at likely unstable levels, at the end of the inflationary period, releasing energy as radiation/heat. The inflation was slowed due to gravitational effects. There atre different versions of inflationary cosmology, some would allow inflation to be none linear happening at different times in space. The standard model is for one inflation and one hot big bang period.

Thank you.  I am back on track.  Appreciate your answer.



#31 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 03:32 PM

Thank you.  I am back on track.  Appreciate your answer.

 

de nada,

 

Hazel be aware, I am speculating playing with ideas. Hand waving

 

Hoyles steady state model or something similar, might be more plausible than the Big Bang if for instance the CBR is evidence of ongoing particle creation. 

https://en.wikipedia...dy-state_model 

 

Any way an inflation stage all over the universe, causing baryogenesis, (based on Dark Matter) or MAYBE something similar to Hawking radiation whereby virtual particles are driven apart, becoming baryons(quarks) (No imaginary Dark matter required) which form all the matter in the universe giving off radiation in the process, forming the CBR.

 

If particle creation is a low level on going process then Hoyles Steady State model or a variation becomes interesting, and appears quite plausible, especially if the radiation pressure caused by the CBR is driving the expansion of the universe. Either way both Big Bang and Hoyles ideas require particle creation, likely both by inflation, both would result in CBR. One happens in a flash of a second, and never happens again. The other happens continuously as a fact of how the universe works. 

 

In the Hot Big Bang instance, all matter and radiation were produced in a smaller region of space, and expanded outwards cooling down as it goes, dark energy drives the expansion of the universe. 

 

OR 

 

Perhaps under continuous particle creation, all matter created in the universe gives of CBR, which would heat space, but due to the expansion MAYBE driven by the CBR space stays cold at around 2.75Kelvin. 


  • Dubbelosix and hazelm like this

#32 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:29 PM

OR 

 

Perhaps under continuous particle creation, all matter created in the universe gives of CBR, which would heat space, but due to the expansion MAYBE driven by the CBR space stays cold at around 2.75Kelvin. 

 

 

This sounds a bit better, the particle creation could be continuous for either a short or elongated phase: The elongated phase means that particle creation happened as the universe expands, under certain restrictions. A cold pre big bang phase, does not violate the idea of a hot big bang, but if particle creation happened as it expanded, the it will leads to a homogeneous distribution of matter, perhaps even leaving the cold voids, simply because the universe is not perfectly homogeneous. As I said, the error in each direction we look, is in 1 part in 10, 000, however, large cold voids are not predicted under the hot big bang model. So it does remain interesting, that scientists are ignoring these deficiencies in the standard model - while making ad hoc statements about how a cold beginning could not lead to a hot radiation phase. It seems, that a large group of scientists became biased far too quickly based on the CMBR.



#33 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3093 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:31 PM

In the sense of self-regulation, that you proposed, could be true, so long as its final stage regulates a thermodynamics that satisfies a final stage satisfied through near absolute temperatures, satisfying equally the third law.



#34 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 21 May 2019 - 03:30 AM

In the sense of self-regulation, that you proposed, could be true, so long as its final stage regulates a thermodynamics that satisfies a final stage satisfied through near absolute temperatures, satisfying equally the third law.

 

Black Body radiation gives a neat curve fit to measured cosmic Background temperature, with the assumption a hot big bang took place, and the temperature of the universe is cooling as per that model. It looks a bit like an exponential curve. I need to get my maths books out, but turning the idea on its head something like

 

T = 2.75 f((1-e-x)) would produce a curve that maxes out at 2.75K, for a transparent space, that would give a rising temperature due to particle creation as a function of x, perhaps !! . 

 

Evidence (not proof :) apparently), for the idea is the CMB which is a relic of particle creation. Which also drives the expansion of the universe. Further evidence could be claimed for a continual particle production, in that the age of galaxies might be considerably different than predicted in the Big Bang, ie bright radio sources from quasars could be evidence of newer galaxies. The stars in the outer arms of galaxies are hotter than the inner stars, they could be made from newer material, Nebulae is evidence for newer galaxies forming etc etc.

 

soddit The idea is growing on me.  


Edited by Flummoxed, 21 May 2019 - 03:31 AM.