Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Theory That Aims To Answer Current Big Bang Models Problems

Big-bang dark energy dark matter inflation

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 JasonDoege

JasonDoege

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 December 2019 - 01:34 PM

This theory aims to explain dark energies recently discovered exponential rate increase, the matter/anti-matter imbalance, the nature of dark matter, the cause of inflation, and their relationships.
 
If you are willing to give this theory a quick glance to see if it would be worth your time I would really appreciate it. It's not very long or complicated.
Recent discoveries by many professional agencies have observed that dark energies rate is not only increasing like we thought, the rate of increase is increasing too. (quintessence).
 
This could be because of gravitational time dilation. The rate more space is generated increases because there is less gravity In the area in all 3 dimensions as mass moves further away. And as this happens the amount of space available to do more generating is created, so more speed to create and more area of creation. This seems to be confirmed by recent studies and is a discrepancy the current model fails to account for. But an extreme professional would have to analyze the math behind this theory to see if it holds up.

 

https://www.nasa.gov...new-hubble-data

This means in space that lacks any mass dark energy will peak where time and space are generated at an extremely high rate. At t=0 all of space would have this property.  This would generate infinitesimal areas of space(infinitesimal cubes, because space is flat) with heights and widths slightly smaller than the space between virtual particles have with their partner when they are generated by a fluctuating string. This is because these excited cubes would generate virtual particles that are split randomly on opposite halves of the cubes almost immediately around them as it generated slightly more space than they needed for them to occupy. 

 

This random distribution would leave an asymmetry in the amount of matter/anti-matter produced on opposite randomly aligned halves of the infinitesimal cubes. The dominantly generated particle or anti-particle on each half during a long enough successive flow would annihilate its opposite on that half leaving pockets of cmbr in space, pockets of remaining particles, and pockets of empty fresh space that was generated without a particle in it. This fresh space would also have roughly the same excited state as the original cube and generate on its own but the generation in an already dominated side would not change the amount of matter/anti-matter in the already dominated area, just it's location. This would account for the matter/anti-matter asymmetry problem.

 

Almost all the mass/space-time generated by each original peak would never reach what their neighboring original points generated but their cmbr would. The edges of the original cubes generations would align with their neighbors where a small amount of the close enough matter interacted.

Virtual particles become actual particles the longer they are separated by an external force.

 

The initially generated space would be spreading very quickly but would slow down as the mass was generated this is concurrent with what we know about the big bang. Lots of generated mass/energy, lots of expansion. That slows rapidly, where dark energy slowly takes over again as its accelerations compound relative to the space/time that's still being generated relative to the rate that the mass around the initial cube is being diminishingly generated.

 

This might also explain what dark matter really is, because the diminishing sphere of gravity around galaxies would exponentially diminish the rate of dark energy and in every point of matter that occupied space that rate would be zero. A professional would have to check the math behind this.

I'm not sure the correlation of size of virtual particle to it's likely hood of generation but larger particles that were generated in this fashion with no anti pair near them would have decayed long before now.

 

If you've read this far I really appreciate it. 


Edited by JasonDoege, 22 December 2019 - 04:03 PM.


#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1337 posts

Posted 22 December 2019 - 11:11 AM

The first two links are non informative pop science. The third pop science link actually has a link to the arxiv paper they are apparently waffling on about. 

 

https://arxiv.org/ft.../1811.02590.pdf

 

I am not going to read this paper. However to indicate I did glance at it

"The concordance (CDM) model reproduces the main current cosmological observations1,2,3,4 assuming the validity of general relativity at all scales and epochs, the presence of cold dark matter, and of a cosmological constant, , equivalent to a dark energy with constant density in space and time"

 

The earliest measurements for the cosmological constant were taken by observing super novae, the latest planck measurements use the big bang model and assume a huge amount of dark matter must exist.

 

Dark Matter is used to explain anything astronomers dont understand, random amounts can be added to GR to explain galactic rotation curves. Other theories dont need dark matter and suggest there is another long range effect of gravity. OOPs If dark matter doesnt exist how does that leave the planck measurements. How does that leave the assumptions in this paper.



#3 JasonDoege

JasonDoege

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 22 December 2019 - 02:44 PM

 

Sorry if I used bad sources. you can just google dark energy rate change and it pops up everywhere, the first page being nasa itself
https://www.bing.com...Vfk5YLv&plvar=0

I tweaked the dark matter theory a bit since then but its not a crux to this theory just an addition. if you have thoughts about the rest of the theory id be grateful, especially if its scrutiny.


Edited by JasonDoege, 22 December 2019 - 03:41 PM.


#4 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1337 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 05:29 AM

Sorry if I used bad sources. you can just google dark energy rate change and it pops up everywhere, the first page being nasa itself
https://www.bing.com...Vfk5YLv&plvar=0

I tweaked the dark matter theory a bit since then but its not a crux to this theory just an addition. if you have thoughts about the rest of the theory id be grateful, especially if its scrutiny.

 

There are occasionally people on this forum, that might critic the paper.

 

However if you look at the end of the paper I posted for you from your earlier links there is no conclusion. This is ongoing work as far as I see and not yet a theory. They do post lots of links to supporting papers. Dark matter supports the theory and likely does not exist according to many. The paper at first glance looks like it is built on a House of cards.

 

Dark matter is required to keep GR alive at the long range to explain galactic rotation curves, and the big bang model referenced in the links. 

 

Dark matter according to various credible theoretical physicists is not real, and therefore a new theory of gravity is required. Every test to detect what dark matter is has failed to date! Dark matter seems like some sort of religious belief that GR must be correct at all distances. GR fails inside of Black holes with infinities, why not at longer distances. Is it not more likely that an additional long range force is involved in gravity. My favourite is emergent gravity at the moment, but there are many others.

 

As for Dark energy and the expansion of space as has been mentioned before on this forum and others, it is likely due to zero point energy and some form of Ricci flow (which also supports emergent gravity). The cosmological constant problem between highly accurate quantum mechanics and relativity might also be solved by Ricci flow. 

 

PS if you put arxiv in your google/bing/whatever search you normally get better hits than the usual pop science hits you get. Then look at the references, if there aren't any or if a paper is only referencing there own work it is likely a bit dodgy, but can be interesting reading. 



#5 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 04 January 2020 - 05:55 PM

The elephant in the room is that just possibly the big bang models themselves are wrong, that is the big bang did not happen as advertised. 

 

The actual evidence that 'supports' the big bang models also equally (or better) support a static (by dynamic) universe. The two primary bits of evidence for the big bang is the redshift / distance relationship and the CMBR, both of which can be explain in a non-expanding universe.

 

If fact what would be notable and astonishing would be a universe without redshift distance and background radiation, expanding or not.



#6 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1337 posts

Posted 05 January 2020 - 03:37 AM

 The two primary bits of evidence for the big bang is the redshift / distance relationship and the CMBR, both of which can be explain in a non-expanding universe.

 

 

What else can cause the overwhelming majority of red shifted galaxies we have other than an expanding universe? 



#7 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 05 January 2020 - 08:46 AM

What else can cause the overwhelming majority of red shifted galaxies we have other than an expanding universe? 

 

Gravitational shift or otherwise called Einstein shift of light fits the redshift / distance relationship far better (IMO) the observed 'loose' relationship of redshift / distance. The reason why redshift is not a perfect fit is because the Universe is not perfectly homogenous and isotropic, and objects (typically galaxies) have different  mass and mass distribution. So the redshift/distance relationship is far from even and uniform. (fitting exactly what we observe). 

 

The LCDM or FLRW models require new and speculative physics to explain the redshift, such as comoving space or some new form of Doppler neither of which actually fit the observations (thus the great cosmology crisis). So gravitational shift, which is a real thing and based on solid science (you can observe gravitational shift in a high rise building!!) fits the bill very well.

 

As for CMBR, what would be astonishing (and impossible) would be a universe full of background matter (at a temperature, so black body radiators) NOT having cosmic background radiation.

 

I like virtually everyone else has lived my life fully buying into the BB models, so for me it came as a big shock to decide that actually the evidence does not really support that model (or models) very well at all. To the point where I can only now conclude that the BB models (all of them) are wrong.

 

This means Einstein's biggest mistake was in thinking he made his biggest mistake, he was right with General relativity, the universe is static but dynamically active.



#8 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1337 posts

Posted 05 January 2020 - 09:51 AM

Gravitational shift or otherwise called Einstein shift of light fits the redshift / distance relationship far better (IMO) the observed 'loose' relationship of redshift / distance. The reason why redshift is not a perfect fit is because the Universe is not perfectly homogenous and isotropic, and objects (typically galaxies) have different  mass and mass distribution. So the redshift/distance relationship is far from even and uniform. (fitting exactly what we observe). 

 

 

Doesnt that leave you with an Horizon problem, unless you are stating galaxies further away have higher mass than those closer to us. 

Gravitational red shift alone does not explain why most distant galaxies are more red shifted than those closer to us. An additional expansion of space is required. 

 

I would agree space is dynamic, and not completely uniform. The expansion of space between galaxies does not need to be constant, except in idealized mathematical models.

 

 

 

The LCDM or FLRW models require new and speculative physics to explain the redshift, such as comoving space or some new form of Doppler neither of which actually fit the observations (thus the great cosmology crisis). So gravitational shift, which is a real thing and based on solid science (you can observe gravitational shift in a high rise building!!) fits the bill very well.

 

 

 

Any model requiring dark matter(imaginary none existent matter) to make it work is likely on dodgy grounds this includes GR.

The fact that the LCDM model requires dark matter, and Rotational curves of galaxies require dark matter, suggests there is glaring hole in both the big bang model and in GR. 

Yes Gravitational shift is real thing based on solid science. Are you saying the estimates of solar masses and luminosities should be changed so that you achieve a static universe. ie via changing what the stars are burning to make your figures agree?

 

Various Inflationary models of Big Bang attempt to address the slight none homogeneity of the CMBR. They also claim great success, A nobel prize was handed out Alan Guth, and also maybe Linde ?

 

 

 

 

I like virtually everyone else has lived my life fully buying into the BB models, so for me it came as a big shock to decide that actually the evidence does not really support that model (or models) very well at all. To the point where I can only now conclude that the BB models (all of them) are wrong.

 

This means Einstein's biggest mistake was in thinking he made his biggest mistake, he was right with General relativity, the universe is static but dynamically active.

 

I was originally taught the BB started with a singularity with infinite mass, and never believed it. Later I learned about an inflationary period preceding the original BB, and suspect it "might" be possible in an idealized world. However I would also suspect multiple Big Bangs might have occurred, giving rise to the none homogenious nature of the CMBR.

 

I like part of Penroses Cyclic universe ideas, but definitely not his or any ones ideas on multiverses. That aside I do buy some of the ideas coming out of string theory, and emergent gravity, emergent time etc. A underlying membrane connecting all of space is amusing. Space and time emerge from it at increasingly faster rates in the absence of gravity, eventually separating virtual particle pairs, resulting in a big bang, from unstable particles caused by an inflation of space.

 

The lumped BB models do exclude continual particle creation as described by Hoyle, but again does inflation have to happen everywhere all at once, or can it happen on a smaller scale creating galaxies between galaxies.

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE UNIVERSE IS DYNAMICALLY ACTIVE ? I am not buying static Andromedas coming this way


Edited by Flummoxed, 05 January 2020 - 09:52 AM.


#9 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 05 January 2020 - 11:05 AM

Doesnt that leave you with an Horizon problem, unless you are stating galaxies further away have higher mass than those closer to us. 

Gravitational red shift alone does not explain why most distant galaxies are more red shifted than those closer to us. An additional expansion of space is required. 

 

I would agree space is dynamic, and not completely uniform. The expansion of space between galaxies does not need to be constant, except in idealized mathematical models.

 

 

 

Any model requiring dark matter(imaginary none existent matter) to make it work is likely on dodgy grounds this includes GR.

The fact that the LCDM model requires dark matter, and Rotational curves of galaxies require dark matter, suggests there is glaring hole in both the big bang model and in GR. 

Yes Gravitational shift is real thing based on solid science. Are you saying the estimates of solar masses and luminosities should be changed so that you achieve a static universe. ie via changing what the stars are burning to make your figures agree?

 

Various Inflationary models of Big Bang attempt to address the slight none homogeneity of the CMBR. They also claim great success, A nobel prize was handed out Alan Guth, and also maybe Linde ?

 

 

 

I was originally taught the BB started with a singularity with infinite mass, and never believed it. Later I learned about an inflationary period preceding the original BB, and suspect it "might" be possible in an idealized world. However I would also suspect multiple Big Bangs might have occurred, giving rise to the none homogenious nature of the CMBR.

 

I like part of Penroses Cyclic universe ideas, but definitely not his or any ones ideas on multiverses. That aside I do buy some of the ideas coming out of string theory, and emergent gravity, emergent time etc. A underlying membrane connecting all of space is amusing. Space and time emerge from it at increasingly faster rates in the absence of gravity, eventually separating virtual particle pairs, resulting in a big bang, from unstable particles caused by an inflation of space.

 

The lumped BB models do exclude continual particle creation as described by Hoyle, but again does inflation have to happen everywhere all at once, or can it happen on a smaller scale creating galaxies between galaxies.

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE UNIVERSE IS DYNAMICALLY ACTIVE ? I am not buying static Andromedas coming this way

 

No, there is no horizon problem, it's just in general terms with a generally uniform distribution of matter there is a relationship with distance and redshift, an effect that is exactly described with Gravitational shift (not just redshift either, just shift). Variations in mass density (RSD, relative space density) is just another factor that makes the fit not close. As Hubble and everyone else has observed, it's not a good fit.

 

Gravitation shift is a redshift / distance, further away = more shifted (in general), shift from expansion required unknown physics (as it is neither Doppler shift or Gravitational shift).

 

IF the expansion of 'space' is not constant, or constant at any particular location that is a massive problem for Big Bang models, that means the cosmological constant is not actually constant, so on that basis how can you make any claims about a particular BB start time?

 

Any model requiring dark matter(imaginary none existent matter) to make it work is likely on dodgy grounds this includes GR.

 

 

I don't think GR requires dark matter, I also think DM is imaginary and none existent. GR is just correct, things are relative.

 

 

Yes Gravitational shift is real thing based on solid science. Are you saying the estimates of solar masses and luminosities should be changed so that you achieve a static universe. ie via changing what the stars are burning to make your figures agree?

 

The  figures don't agree now, with the various BB models, that's the problem the data does not support the conclusion, that is the cosmological crisis. 

 

If the redshift is not the result of an expanding universe, then there is no evidence that the universe is expanding, if it is not expanding (and I don't think the evidence supports that it is) then the only alternative is that it is not expanding. (Static, ie not expanding, but Dynamic, ie, stuff still happens, just not expansion).

 

 

Various Inflationary models of Big Bang attempt to address the slight none homogeneity of the CMBR. They also claim great success, A nobel prize was handed out Alan Guth, and also maybe Linde ?

 

That's the overall problem with big bang cosmology, it's all an attempt to justify observations into a model or a suite of models, the other consideration might just be that the overall Big Bang model is incorrect.

 

I feel that once you stop presupposing a big bang you loose confirmation bias and observations begin to make sense, redshift / distance? Sure that's just gravitational shift we know how that works, CMBR? Sure we know that so far all we can see of the CMB is 'foreground' dust, the reason why it is at a very uniform 2.7k is because thermodynamics and it's just dust (background matter) at a uniform temperature. 

 

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE UNIVERSE IS DYNAMICALLY ACTIVE ? I am not buying static Andromedas coming this way

 

I also like some of Penrose's idea, but only in respect the idea of space and time being 'defined' by matter, a universe with only energy/light there is no 'ruler' and therefore no measure of space or time.

 

By 'dynamically active' and 'static' I mean static in that it is not expanding, by dynamic I mean things more around, interact and stuff happens it's dynamic and active, just not expanding.

 

I think that galaxies are 'island universes' and that there are 'continuous' 'big bangs' that continually cycle matter and energy  (in black holes), but that is starting to get into another 'alternative' model of space and time that I have. (a non-geometrical model of relativity).

 

The 'di Sitter' effect/gravitational shift gives us a redshift with distance relationship, it also gives us a blue shift with closeness as well (those objects are in our gravitational 'well').

 

So is Andromedas actually coming this way or is it just close enough and sharing gravity with us such that it is blue shifted? (or a bit of both?)

 

Thanks so much for your reply and considered thoughts.. This is what science is all about..



#10 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1337 posts

Posted 05 January 2020 - 02:07 PM

Do you think Hoyles Quasi Steady State universe is plausible, Hubble was the guy who first noticed the red shift of different galaxies.

https://en.wikipedia...ady-state_model https://en.wikipedia...ki/Edwin_Hubble

 

Do you have a citation or reference to a paper or theoretical physicist for what you are referring to.

 

GR does require dark matter or an additional gravitational force to explain the rotation curves of velocities.

 

The Cosmological constant is known not to be constant, why should it not be, except in idealized mathematical model?

 

How do you explain the temperature of the CMBR and the age of the observable universe, without BB ??

 

The Cosmological constant is known not to be constant





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Big-bang, dark energy, dark matter, inflation