Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 94 (2784)
01-25-2002 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
01-25-2002 6:20 PM


TC & Joz,
Regarding the expansion period of the universe. So far as I'm aware, the speed of light has remained the same relative to the universe, it's the universe that expanded, much, much faster than light. This is called inflation & happened very quickly in the first seconds of the universe.
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0398cosmos/0398linde.html
There are no parts I can really quote, but it's interesting stuff.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 6:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 1:54 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 94 (2813)
01-26-2002 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 1:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Regarding the expansion period of the universe. So far as I'm aware, the speed of light has remained the same relative to the universe, it's the universe that expanded, much, much faster than light. This is called inflation & happened very quickly in the first seconds of the universe."
--I am aware of this theory and have read up a little on its implications being according to theory a happening taken place in the first 10-35 to 10-33. 'However, whether inflation is correct or not, it cannot be the case that every initial configuration would hae led to a universe similar to the one we observe, Indeed, even if inflation solves the fine-tuning problem we are still left with the singularity problem, the frustration of not being able to describe the initial state of the universe.' God Time & Stephen Hawking - An exploration into origins, David Walkinson pages 97-98.
"There are no parts I can really quote, but it's interesting stuff."
--I find it interesting also, as it seems to emphesize quite a bit on the theological implications of the inflation theories.

The singularity problem is done away with. The vacuum fluctuations interact with a scalar field to produce inflation, or not. It depends where the vacuum fluctuation occurs, & the value of the scalar fields at that point.
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0398cosmos/0398linde.html
"One just considers all possible kinds and values of scalar fields in the early universe and then checks to see if any of them leads to inflation. Those places where inflation does not occur remain small. Those domains where inflation takes place become exponentially large and dominate the total volume of the universe. Because the scalar fields can take arbitrary values in the early universe, I called this scenario chaotic inflation.
In many ways, chaotic inflation is so simple that it is hard to understand why the idea was not discovered sooner. I think the reason was purely psychological. The glorious successes of the big bang theory hypnotized cosmologists. We assumed that the entire universe was created at the same moment, that initially it was hot and that the scalar field from the beginning resided close to the minimum of its potential energy. Once we began relaxing these assumptions, we immediately found that inflation is not an exotic phenomenon invoked by theorists for solving their problems. It is a general regime that occurs in a wide class of theories of elementary particles.
That a rapid stretching of the universe can simultaneously resolve many difficult cosmological problems may seem too good to be true. Indeed, if all inhomogeneities were stretched away, how did galaxies form? The answer is that while removing previously existing inhomogeneities, inflation at the same time made new ones.
These inhomogeneities arise from quantum effects. According to quantum mechanics, empty space is not entirely empty. The vacuum is filled with small quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations can be regarded as waves, or undulations in physical fields. The waves have all possible wavelengths and move in all directions. We cannot detect these waves, because they live only briefly and are microscopic.
In the inflationary universe the vacuum structure becomes even more complicated. Inflation rapidly stretches the waves. Once their wavelengths become sufficiently large, the undulations begin to "feel" the curvature of the universe. At this moment, they stop moving because of the viscosity of the scalar field (recall that the equations describing the field contain a friction term)."
Check the date of the Hawking quote, I think you'll find this theory supercedes the last.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 1:54 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 6:55 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 94 (3191)
01-31-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 6:55 PM


TC,
Regarding the lack of singularity problem. "Universes can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of Nothing. This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus, it takes no net energy to create a new universe."
http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/bigbang.htm
So, in summary, universe begats universe. Vacuum fluctuation react with scalar fields which may/may not lead to inflation. The mass & energy of a universe being born of a quantum bubble, with a net energy of zero.
This also postulates a timeless universe.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 6:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2002 11:22 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 43 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 5:30 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 94 (3305)
02-02-2002 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
02-01-2002 11:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I am aware of this postulate, I read a basic model out of David Walkinson's God Time & Stephen Hawking. This sertainly seems plausable, as if an equal amount of anti-matter and matter coming out of nothing, but I think the problem consists of the cause of such a thing happening.

Why?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2002 11:22 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:17 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 17 of 94 (3362)
02-03-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why?"
--Because this tells you how you could bring matter out of nothing, but what is going to cause this to happen? Did nothing all-of-a-sodden feel like it wanted some company and brought about some anti-matter and some matter?

The cause of matter creation is simply the uncertainty principle at work in vacuum quantum fluctuations.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)
In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.
The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.
As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.
The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.
The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)
Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?
Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Added by edit:
--What causes this Quantum fluctuation of nothing, because would it not be logical to say that if it had no cause, that it could happen anywhere, and possibly happing all the time, with no vigilance in time.

There is no cause , it is the uncertainty of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum that creates matter. If the conditions are right, BANG!
An important prediction of this theory is that the total energy in the known universe is zero. This is mathematically shown here, http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/zpepaper.txt
There need be no beginning of time.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:17 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-03-2002 11:56 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 23 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-13-2002 4:35 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024