Argument by analogy

[Helio]

I recall two mechanisms for the benefits of inflation.
1) Starting out smaller allows information to be moved brfore it gets too big.
2) Expanding more allows bumps to even out more.

1) Inflation theory itself occurs around t=1E-35 sec. so what I read is that it separates any two regions (points) so quickly that they don't have the ability to establish equilibrium (not that they would). If it were two hot rocks, then as you say, being close together would help even the temperature. But quantum fluctuations, apparently, are just the opposite. Putting a guy and a gal on Halmark closer together is how every show gets things right. But imagine two 2-year olds in a tantrum state; the farther apart the better. [Cat: Analogy rating...??? (1 to 10)[

2) Yes. If photons can stretch why not bumps, too, I guess.

 

[billslugg]

Inflation expanded so quickly the hot spots could not even out. Yet, we needed to invoke inflation to explain why the CMBR is now so even. I'm confused!

 

[Helio]

Inflation expanded so quickly the hot spots could not even out. Yet, we needed to invoke inflation to explain why the CMBR is now so even. I'm confused!

This paper may explain it a little, hopefully more with your background.

Prior to Inflation, as I see it, the distances were so close that a general thermal equilibrium would have existed. The exponential rate of expansion would hold that equilibrium, and perhaps smooth it even further since it would have on-going quantum fluctuations.

I'm guessing that if the expansion rate was weak, like today, the quantum fluctuation density would be greater than what is observed.

The paper does explain how the accelerated rate for expansion produced a flatter universe.

 

[billslugg]

So the accelerated rate of expansion, greater than c, "baked in" a certain amount of anisotropy so that what little was left after equilibration was able to satisfy what we see today.

Quantum fluctuations occurred
Thermal equilibration took them almost all away.
Inflation gave them back.

Now to read the paper. Takeaways:
1) Inflation solves the flatness, horizon and magnetic monopole problem.
2) It provides an explanation for the initial conditions that created galaxies.
3) The "Horizon Problem" is what we talked about where the different areas are not in communication with each other.

Magnetic monopoles confound me. In electricity school they told us you could have one of those. All magnetic field lines being continuous loops by definition.

 

[Gibsense]

The thread has been inactive for a while so maybe I can say a few things that have been discussed previously, some only briefly -

• Once an analogy successfully communicates and clarifies a concept, its primary purpose is fulfilled. Analogies help the listener grasp the intended argument by comparing complex or unfamiliar ideas to something familiar, making them easier to understand. They can also make explanations more relatable and memorable. If the analogy is properly understood, it can accurately convey the concept to the recipient. Although the main goal is achieved once communicated and agreed upon, an analogy can still highlight areas that might warrant further exploration.

• While Einstein's theory of relativity is demonstrably correct, the idea of spacetime as a homogeneous entity might be misleading. I prefer to consider 3D space and time as a process within a 4D embedding space. It is consistent with relativity and more revealing

• What limits the number of dimensions in reality? I see no reason to assume there's a limitation, though there might be something, of course, that I'm unaware of.

• What limits the number of processes that can be time-like? Anything (ignoring perception)?

• Why does science insist extra dimensions need to be curled up? Our perception is limited to 3 plus the time process; why then would we expect to perceive more (except by their effect if any)

• As the CMB can be perceived as an anchor why do we continue to state that there is no such thing as 'stationary'? (As Bill points out) and consequently, an absolute velocity which can still be consistent with relativity (but perhaps not so much with spacetime).

• As Cat points out words and their meaning are crucial to logical thought. I have been humbled by the effect of AI's use of more meaningful composition and better words. No wonder my staff sometimes got things wrong!

 

[Catastrophe]

The thread has been inactive for a while so maybe I can say a few things that have been discussed previously, some only briefly -

• Once an analogy successfully communicates and clarifies a concept, its primary purpose is fulfilled. Analogies help the listener grasp the intended argument by comparing complex or unfamiliar ideas to something familiar, making them easier to understand. They can also make explanations more relatable and memorable. If the analogy is properly understood, it can accurately convey the concept to the recipient. Although the main goal is achieved once communicated and agreed upon, an analogy can still highlight areas that might warrant further exploration.

Agreed. Analogy must never be mistaken for equivalence.

• While Einstein's theory of relativity is demonstrably correct, the idea of spacetime as a homogeneous entity might be misleading. I prefer to consider 3D space and time as a process within a 4D embedding space. It is consistent with relativity and more revealing

I like this too. We do perceive space and time very differently. That is important - to us, at least.

• What limits the number of dimensions in reality? I see no reason to assume there's a limitation, though there might be something, of course, that I'm unaware of.

I think the only limitation is the modes of perception (vide relativity).

• What limits the number of processes that can be time-like? Anything (ignoring perception)?

• Why does science insist extra dimensions need to be curled up? Our perception is limited to 3 plus the time process; why then would we expect to perceive more (except by their effect if any)

Not science, I think, but the mathematics science uses (always correctly??). Are extra dimensions observed or assumed? See the Flatlander analogy.

• As the CMB can be perceived as an anchor why do we continue to state that there is no such thing as 'stationary'? (As Bill points out) and consequently, an absolute velocity which can still be consistent with relativity (but perhaps not so much with spacetime).

But stationary relative to what? You? the aeroplane you might be in? Your location on Earth? Position of Earth orbit in the Solar System? Position of SS in our galaxy? Position of Milky way in our observable universe? . . . . . .

• As Cat points out words and their meaning are crucial to logical thought. I

I believe so.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

But stationary relative to what? You? the aeroplane you might be in? Your location on Earth? Position of Earth orbit in the Solar System? Position of SS in our galaxy? Position of Milky way in our observable universe? . . . . . .

This statement is in response to the suggestion that 'stationary' exists -

To answer: The CMB light wavelengths received vary in one direction as compared to the opposite. This suggests that we are moving as compared to the CMB (A 'just is' and all that was once, which can be justified as an Anchor).
The amount of movement can be determined and I think is defined as the Hubble Flow which is the motion of galaxies relative to the CMB, which is considered the rest frame of the universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

the CMB, which is considered the rest frame of the universe.

Considered by whom?


Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Considered by whom?

I sought advice with this response: "

A well-known reference is the 1992 paper by George F. Smoot and colleagues, which examines the measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The study highlights how the dipole anisotropy—a slight variation in the CMB temperature—reveals Earth's movement relative to this "rest frame." This motion suggests the existence of a specific frame where the CMB appears isotropic, or uniform in all directions, considered as the universe's rest frame.

"Cosmology" by Steven Weinberg, provides an in-depth look at how the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) serves as a cosmic rest frame for measuring the motion of galaxies and other large-scale structures.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, I have seen this suggestion too, but how can radiation be static? Also the wavelength is shifted to microwave. Ever listened to static radio or watched static tv?

Perhaps they interpret 'ever present' or 'all directions' as static? Or light as static radiation / static photons? And static light radiation which takes 8 minutes to reach us from the Sun?

Wiki includes: both (Radiation)

In physics, radiation is the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space or a material medium. This includes:.
‎Ionizing radiation · ‎Electromagnetic radiation · ‎Particle radiation · ‎Neutron radiation

Radiation travels at the speed of light, which is about
300,000,000300 comma 000 comma 000
meters per second (
m/sm / s
). This is the speed of all electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, and x-rays.

I rest my case.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

CMBR is not static, it is composed of radio waves at several millimeters of wavelength coming at us from all directions at the speed of light. There is a slight anisotropy in the wavelength, showing that we are moving relative to the background.

 

[Catastrophe]

CMBR is not static, it is composed of radio waves at several millimeters of wavelength coming at us from all directions at the speed of light. There is a slight anisotropy in the wavelength, showing that we are moving relative to the background.

Absolutely correct.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense, I have seen this suggestion too, but how can radiation be static? Also the wavelength is shifted to microwave. Ever listened to static radio or watched static tv?

Perhaps they interpret 'ever present' or 'all directions' as static? Or light as static radiation / static photons? And static light radiation which takes 8 minutes to reach us from the Sun?

I think a big misunderstanding here. No radiation is perceived as static. The CMB is assumed to be at rest. We measure whether or not we are at rest by observing the radiation from it in all directions. If we too are at rest then all directions observed would be the same wavelength but if we are moving then some would be longer or shorter than others. If we move toward something the light from it is blue shifted. The converse is true

So we can tell if, with respect to another object whether we approach or not. If we observe many directions we can detect how we might be moving if that radiation is from the CBM. That's my take anyway.

 

[Catastrophe]

It is shifted to microwave!

It "is there" like the Sun "is there", but it does not mean they are static.

Please re-read #35 and #36.
Radiation does not sit still. It is not static. How did it get here? Does it stop here?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

CMBR is not static, it is composed of radio waves at several millimeters of wavelength coming at us from all directions at the speed of light. There is a slight anisotropy in the wavelength, showing that we are moving relative to the background.

The CMB is everywhere in the same way as people suggest the BB is everywhere. If that does not qualify for "stationary" I don't know what does. Therefore the CMB is a static reference point.
The radiation from it though is received with anisotropy, which is bluer in one overall direction compared to other directions. This show we are moving compared to 'stationary' with respect to the universe as a whole

Anisotropy is a way of saying that something isn't the same in all directions. In the context of the CMBR, it means that there are slight differences in temperature or wavelength depending on where you look and can show how you are moving.

The Doppler shift in the CMB radiation, known as the CMB dipole, shows that we are moving relative to this "stationary" CMB. This is why we observe a blue shift in the direction we're
moving towards and a red shift in the opposite direction.

The CMB radiation itself is not entirely static because the universe is continually expanding and cooling

 

[Catastrophe]

Do not confuse adjective and noun:

adjective

1. 1.
   lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in an undesirable or uninteresting way.
   "demand has grown in what was a fairly static market"
   
   Similar: unchanged, fixed, stable, steady, unchanging, changeless, invariable, constant, consistent, uniform,
   
   Opposite:
   variable, concerned with bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium.

noun

1. crackling or hissing noises on a telephone, radio, or other telecommunication system.
   "the phone was full of static that sounded dista

 

[Catastrophe]

Do not confuse adjective and noun:

adjective

1. 1.
   lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in an undesirable or uninteresting way.
   "demand has grown in what was a fairly static market"
   
   Similar: unchanged, fixed, stable, steady, unchanging, changeless, invariable, constant, consistent, uniform,
   
   
   Opposite:
   variable
   
   Physics
   concerned with bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium.
   acting as weight but not moving.
   • relating to statics.
   
   

noun

1. crackling or hissing noises on a telephone, radio, or other telecommunication system.
   "the phone was full of static that sounded distant"
   

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Do not confuse adjective and noun:

Haha 'static' yes didn't think of that - radiation v not moving

 

[Catastrophe]

The CMB radiation itself is not entirely static

Keep going . . . . . . you are getting there.

The CMB radiation is not static. It is radiation.


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Apologies for the repetition, but you seem to have missed this:

It is shifted to microwave!

It "is there" like the Sun "is there", but it does not mean they are static.


Radiation does not sit still. It is not static. How did it get here? Does it stop here?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Google Search

Radiate Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

RADIATE meaning: 1 : to go out in a direct line from a central point or area; 2 : to move in a specified direction from a source

www.britannica.com

Radiation Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

RADIATION meaning: 1 : a type of dangerous and powerful energy that is produced by radioactive substances and nuclear reactions; 2 : the use of controlled amounts of radiation for the treatment of diseases (such as cancer)

www.britannica.com

 

[Gibsense]

The CMB is not static. It if radiation.

Lol. Background radiation at microwave energy from the CMB can be viewed from different directions. Some is slightly bluer (shorter wavelength. That shows we are moving in that direction. If all radiation were equal in all directions we would be stationary. That is all I am saying.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, we must, as always, watch the semantics.

A background can be construed as static, but we are discussing cosmic microwave radiation, which is not static.

Can a background be static when it is composed of radiation moving at the speed of light?

If we discussed the cosmic background radiation, would this ease matters between us?

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

Is it safe to assume that we are always moving, and that what we see is always moving? If that is true then a static condition could not exist, whether we can measure it or not. Position and intensity and frequency would always be changing. Just like radio static.



A fixed state of change. A static of change.

 

[billslugg]

Actually, in radio terms, "static" is a noisy stuff we hear in between stations. It is perfect noise, that it, the energy is evenly spread across the spectrum. This is very similar to a perfect black body radiator, which shows a perfect black body spectrum, which is what CMBR is.

In mechanical terms, "static" means "not moving", which we consider the CMBR to be. This anisotropy is due to our movement relative to it.

EM waves always move, thus are never mechanically not moving, thus never "static".