Big Bang Bullets II

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,062
5,560
The math is quite simple to demonstrate why an object traveling at a set speed will reach Earth if that speed matches the expansion rate where that object starts from.

The claim that the universe is expanding has all the arguments given in the OP. Each constitutes objective evidence (i.e. facts). Scrutiny, of course, is welcome for each one of those, but that list comes from mainstream science and they follow the SM.

One can argue for some weakness in one or more, but it's important that in a theory that addresses the entire cosmos, then all the facts must fit the model; their must be a convergence and a confluence. Scientists were initially opposed to Lemaitre's theory, but the more they saw the confluence, the more robust the model became. The discovery of the predicted CMBR has been regarded as the nail in the coffin for any opposing theory that existed in the past (e.g. Steady State theory).

Any fact discovered, however, that is in disagreement with the theory invalidates the theory. When Galileo discovered all phases for Venus, he immediately falsified the Ptolemy theory with that fact alone. Of course, others (i.e. Jesuits) had to study those phase changes over the course of Venus orbit in order to verify his discovery. They agreed with Galileo, though some chose not to and even some refused to look through the telescope.

The expansion is the heart of BBT. The exact rate, of course, is a very tough number to nail down and it is further hampered by the fact that it can't be linear over all time given DE at play.
*The claim that the universe is expanding has all the arguments given in the OP.*, the problem here is the redshifts 1.4 or larger. 4D space cannot be seen moving away from Earth faster than c velocity and this is a requirement in the cosmological redshift interpretation for the larger values. Unlike the phases of Venus, these can be clearly seen today, 4D space expanding faster than c velocity for all redshifts 1.4 or larger, cannot be seen. The doctrine of uniformity is assumed to assert this in the model. This should be carefully pointed out to the public when presenting the Big Bang model of origins.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
*The claim that the universe is expanding has all the arguments given in the OP.*, the problem here is the redshifts 1.4 or larger. 4D space cannot be seen moving away from Earth faster than c velocity and this is a requirement in the cosmological redshift interpretation for the larger values. Unlike the phases of Venus, these can be clearly seen today, 4D space expanding faster than c velocity for all redshifts 1.4 or larger, cannot be seen. The doctrine of uniformity is assumed to assert this in the model. This should be carefully pointed out to the public when presenting the Big Bang model of origins.
Just to clarify, is it your view that any comoving space that is moving away from us greater than c (z = 1.4, trusting your value) represents metaphysics, as you think we could never even see things from regions beyond this distance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe and rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,062
5,560
Just to clarify, is it your view that any comoving space that is moving away from us greater than c (z = 1.4, trusting your value) represents metaphysics, as you think we could never even see things from regions beyond this distance?
Helio, did Einstein teach that 4D space expands faster than c velocity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
High Energy Physics - Theory
[Submitted on 27 Jan 2022 (v1), last revised 7 Feb 2022 (this version, v2)]
The Universe as a Quantum Encoder
Jordan Cotler, Andrew Strominger
Quantum mechanical unitarity in our universe is challenged both by the notion of the big bang, in which nothing transforms into something, and the expansion of space, in which something transforms into more something. This motivates the hypothesis that quantum mechanical time evolution is always isometric, in the sense of preserving inner products, but not necessarily unitary. As evidence for this hypothesis we show that in two spacetime dimensions (i) there is net entanglement entropy produced in free field theory by a moving mirror or expanding geometry, (ii) the Lorentzian path integral for a finite elements lattice discretization gives non-unitary isometric time evolution, and (iii) tensor network descriptions of AdS3 induce a non-unitary but isometric time evolution on an embedded two-dimensional de Sitter braneworld. In the last example time evolution is a quantum error-correcting code.
Comments:31+11 pages, 10 figures; v2: typos fixed, references and comments added
Subjects:High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as:arXiv:2201.11658 [hep-th]
(or arXiv:2201.11658v2 [hep-th] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.11658
Focus to learn more

Some look at it from a different angle. The above is not my opinion.

Expansion and contraction are controlled by vector forces, how these vector forces are created are worth investigating.
Condensates found in the core of Black Holes can explain the vector forces required to expand matter and also contract matter.
The dipolar electromagnetic vector forces are a property of condensates by understanding Chiral Supersymmetry and the droplets that form that are able to seed stars.
 
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
Condensed Matter > Quantum Gases
[Submitted on 5 Apr 2022]
Exploring vortex formation in rotating Bose-Einstein condensates beyond mean-field regime
Budhaditya Chatterjee
The production of quantized vortices having diverse structures is a remarkable effect of rotating Bose-Einstein condensates. Vortex formation described by the mean-field theory is valid only in the regime of weak interactions. The exploration of the rich and diverse physics of strongly interacting BEC requires a more general approach. This study explores the vortex formation of strongly interacting and rapidly rotating BEC from a general ab initio many-body perspective. We demonstrate that the quantized vortices form various structures that emerge from an intricate interplay between the angular momentum and many-body interaction. We examine the distinct impact of the angular velocity and interaction energy on the vortex formation. Our analysis shows that, while the angular rotation generally augments the vortex formation, the interactions can enhance as well as impede the vortices production.
Comments:4 pages, 3 figures
Subjects:Quantum Gases (cond-mat.quant-gas)
Cite as:arXiv:2204.01978 [cond-mat.quant-gas]
(or arXiv:2204.01978v1 [cond-mat.quant-gas] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.01978
Focus to learn m

The paper talks about a rotating BEC rather than the condensate property explained by Chiral Supersymmetry, but it talks about the formation of the vortex. Interesting
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
Helio, did Einstein teach that 4D space expands faster than c velocity?
Good question. I don't recall if he got very deep into cosmology even after he realized Lemaitre was right, after initially calling Lemaitre's physics an "abomination" ( :)). There were a half-dozen or more that were very active in cosmology using GR, including De Sitter, Wrey, etc.

One problem was in determining any sort of an accurate value for the expansion rate, which would give those > c values. Lemaitre and Hubble had, initially, very fast Ho values (around 600 kps/Mpc, I think). Lemaitre had too little to work with and he knew it, which is why most people think he didn't bother to include his expansion rate in his English translation of his now famous 1927 paper that was the foundation for BBT. Hubble had, during this interval, since produced a lot more distance measurements that refined the expansion rate. Hubble also seems to have been quite jealous of his (don't forget Humason) work, so this human element may, or may not, have played into this story.

Hubble, initially, was not aware that there were two types of Cepheids and thus, two values for distance determinations. He greatly underestimated the distance to Andromeda as a result, which gave him a very high value for the expansion rate. This gave us an age for the universe deemed younger than the age of stars. [I can imagine the fun we would have had back then in any forum threads! :)]

This error was corrected quickly, IIRC. Then much later came the SN Type 1a to greatly improve the expansion rate, as well as, the other techniques you've mentioned. A really solid number doesn't exist due to some conflicts but the probability seems very high that it's between 60 kps/Mpc and 75 kps/Mpc.

However, I can't imagine Einstein would have had any problem with spacetime expanding faster than c. The fixed value of c is always motion through space only.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod and Catastrophe
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
Speed of light is constant.
Relativity plays a part when vector force fields are able to slow it down or bend the EMR.
At EH it may seem that time has stood still and yet the speed of light EMR is constant.
 
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
The furthest Galaxy to date is 13.5 billion years place a few million years to account for the observation and depth of the galaxy.
Google it
 
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
[Submitted on 11 Mar 2022]
Compact stars in the Einstein dark energy model
Zahra Haghani, Tiberiu Harko
We investigate the properties of high density compact objects in a vector type theory, inspired by Einstein's 1919 theory of elementary particles, in which Einstein assumed that elementary particles are held together by gravitational as well as electromagnetic type forces. From a modern perspective, Einstein's theory can be interpreted as a vector type model, with the gravitational action constructed as a linear combination of the Ricci scalar, of the trace of the matter energy-momentum tensor, and of a massive self-interacting vector type field. To obtain the properties of stellar models we consider the field equations for a static, spherically symmetric system, and we investigate numerically their solutions for different equations of state of quark and neutron matter, by assuming that the self-interaction potential of the vector field either vanishes or is quadratic in the vector field potential. We consider quark stars described by the MIT bag model equation of state and in the Color Flavor Locked phase, as well as compact stars consisting of a Bose-Einstein Condensate of neutron matter, with neutrons forming Cooper pairs. Constant density stars, representing a generalization of the Interior Schwarzschild solution of general relativity, are also analyzed. Also, we consider the Douchin-Haensel (SLy) equation of state. The numerical solutions are explicitly obtained in both standard general relativity, and the Einstein dark energy model and an in depth comparison between the astrophysical predictions of these two theories are performed. As a general conclusion of our study, we find that for all the considered equations of state a much larger variety of stellar structures can be obtained in the Einstein dark energy model, including classes of stars that are more massive than their general relativistic counterparts.
Subjects:General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Cite as:arXiv:2203.05764 [gr-qc]
(or arXiv:2203.05764v1 [gr-qc] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.05764
Focus to learn more

Sometimes i feel sorry for posting what I read, sometimes I may disagree and yet I feel that I cannot change a persons opinion, but! Rather encourage further research.,
We are the steps of getting to know much much more.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,062
5,560
Good question. I don't recall if he got very deep into cosmology even after he realized Lemaitre was right, after initially calling Lemaitre's physics an "abomination" ( :)). There were a half-dozen or more that were very active in cosmology using GR, including De Sitter, Wrey, etc.

One problem was in determining any sort of an accurate value for the expansion rate, which would give those > c values. Lemaitre and Hubble had, initially, very fast Ho values (around 600 kps/Mpc, I think). Lemaitre had too little to work with and he knew it, which is why most people think he didn't bother to include his expansion rate in his English translation of his now famous 1927 paper that was the foundation for BBT. Hubble had, during this interval, since produced a lot more distance measurements that refined the expansion rate. Hubble also seems to have been quite jealous of his (don't forget Humason) work, so this human element may, or may not, have played into this story.

Hubble, initially, was not aware that there were two types of Cepheids and thus, two values for distance determinations. He greatly underestimated the distance to Andromeda as a result, which gave him a very high value for the expansion rate. This gave us an age for the universe deemed younger than the age of stars. [I can imagine the fun we would have had back then in any forum threads! :)]

This error was corrected quickly, IIRC. Then much later came the SN Type 1a to greatly improve the expansion rate, as well as, the other techniques you've mentioned. A really solid number doesn't exist due to some conflicts but the probability seems very high that it's between 60 kps/Mpc and 75 kps/Mpc.

However, I can't imagine Einstein would have had any problem with spacetime expanding faster than c. The fixed value of c is always motion through space only.
"However, I can't imagine Einstein would have had any problem with spacetime expanding faster than c. The fixed value of c is always motion through space only."

This is an opinion question Helio and my answer is that Einstein would likely look for specific testing and verification to show that nature in 4D space is expanding faster than c velocity. Consider H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc is a bit more than 2 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. The velocity of c ~ 3 x 10^10 cm/s. We are looking at more than 10^28 magnitude change here in expansion speeds in 4D space.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
This is an opinion question Helio and my answer is that Einstein would likely look for specific testing and verification to show that nature in 4D space is expanding faster than c velocity. Consider H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc is a bit more than 2 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. The velocity of c ~ 3 x 10^10 cm/s. We are looking at more than 10^28 magnitude change here in expansion speeds in 4D space.
The expansion rate is based on mega parsecs for this reason.

Einstein seemed to have become highly focused on his theory to unite all the forces, so I don't think he got that interested in Big Bang issues. I'd like to discover otherwise, however, as his input would be interesting.

But you're right about Einstein wanting objective-based information to work with. One author argues that his trip to Mt. Wilson was not really to meet with Hubble but with the physicists who went to be there with him, especially those who spoke German (English was still new to him). His questions were Sun-related since GR evidence is found there. The author notes that Einstein's diary never mentioned Hubble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe and rod
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
Einstein worked on a cyclic universe, bu! When Hubble showed red shift explanation and the expanding univserse, Einstein went to say that he make a great mistake and tended to agree with the expanding universe. I think I got that right.

To understand expanding space and time one needs to understand relativity.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
When Lemaitre learned, at a conference, from an Eddington presentation that he (Eddington) and others had no solution from GR to resolve the redshift dilemma, Lemaitre showed Eddington, his former professor, his paper from 1927.

Once it was translated into English Eddington was quick to respect it and soon De Sitter supported it. Hubble, by this time, had many more redshift data and more distances.

Hubble never chose to claim that expansion was the explanation, though the hints from him were there. He stated he preferred theorists make such claims.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
If the BB did occur
Where is the question.
When is the question.
How is the question
What made it do it
Why and so on.
To trigger an event, what and why
 
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
“However, our setup in this paper is generally for the Neumann-Rosochatius System, which is also solvable, since we intend to generalize our results from the Neumann System to the Neumann-Rosochatius System and to several types of deformed Neumann-Rosochatius Systems. In the second part of this paper, which is independent of any string configurations in AdS5×S5 and concerns String Cosmology in D=10 dimensions. I will seriously argue that there was no Big Bang; I truly believe that the Universe has been there forever!”

We must continually question theories, rather than accepting face value.

The idea that you cannot create matter nor destroy matter, means that matter has been around for ever.
Most of the matter over 90% is found in compact condensates. The study of these condensates may give us greater understanding of how things work.
 
Feb 7, 2022
46
22
35
The BBT has always bothered me in that it relies on the assumptions that nearly all of what matter exists we cannot see (dark matter) and that all matter, seen and unseen, is affected more by a force that we cannot measure or understand (dark energy/inflation) than by all the forces that we know anything about. Those are usually red flags that indicate that we are missing something big. Yes, we can sometimes discover new things by inferring them from theoretical calculations that "need something more to work". Our understanding of energy, today, came from noting the failures of the phlogiston theory of heat as a substance. But, when you search for the postulated matter and energy and do not find them, you SHOULD be very uncomfortable with the theory that requires them. The current level of scientific smugness with respect to the BBT seems unwarranted to me. I wonder if we have really properly solved the General Relativity equations. I do occasionally see papers that claim to explain things like galactic orbit speeds by redoing frame dragging calculations, thus removing the need for dark matter. And I once read an article that claimed the universe would appear to be expanding to an observer falling into a large black hole. I also wonder about how we understand time as a dimension. I have not seen anything in this discussion, about putting Humpty-Dumpty back together again in a contraction period of a cyclic universe, that considers what the time dimension might do during Contraction - the capital C indicating the opposite of inflation, rather than gravitational collapse. Could the Contraction reverse time, and thus decrease entropy? BBT proponents seem to think of contraction in a very limited, small c way. Which seems inconsistent with thinking of Inflation as the imaginative solution to the otherwise unanswerable question about how so much mass as we see in the universe could possibly once have been in a small space that would have been a black hole from which it should not have been able to expand into what we THINK we see now. My strong suspicion is that we are missing something extremely important in our perception of what we are seeing and measuring in our very restricted physical and mental view of the cosmos.

I am excited that the Webb Telescope will add some important information in the very near future. I remember when the Hubble Telescope was expected to see "back in time to the first stars", but has consistently found that the galaxies were in existence as far back as it can see, so galaxies had to have formed earlier than then expected. I wonder if Webb will show us the same, again. If so, I will have even more doubts about the BBT. But, Webb might find what we predict, for a change. The great thing is that we should know more in a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absolute zero
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
The BBT has always bothered me in that it relies on the assumptions that nearly all of what matter exists we cannot see (dark matter) and that all matter, seen and unseen, is affected more by a force that we cannot measure or understand (dark energy/inflation) than by all the forces that we know anything about.
The BBT came from simply applying GR to explain the redshifts of galaxies, so it wasn't reliant upon DM. The physics, however, to explain what we observe does require it. But we can "see" DM indirectly. Direct observations are always nicer but we can do well if we have clear indirect evidence. Black holes can never be "seen", by definition, but we can observe the regions around them that define them.

The purpose of the OP is to demonstrate the strong objective evidence favoring the BBT. Most people, IMO, have no idea just how robust the evidence supporting BBT really is.

But, when you search for the postulated matter and energy and do not find them, you SHOULD be very uncomfortable with the theory that requires them.
This is true for gravity, which Newton admitted he didn't know what it is but he did a nice job giving us a universal law on its behavior. How things behave is the essence of physics even if we never quite reach the essence of what something is.

The current level of scientific smugness with respect to the BBT seems unwarranted to me.
Do you see any problems with any item in the OP list of bullets?

BBT proponents seem to think of contraction in a very limited, small c way.
There is strong evidence that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating in this expansion. Contraction from rewinding the clock produced the prediction for things like the CMBR, but a real contracting universe at some point likely won't produce any hard science.

Which seems inconsistent with thinking of Inflation as the imaginative solution to the otherwise unanswerable question about how so much mass as we see in the universe could possibly once have been in a small space that would have been a black hole from which it should not have been able to expand into what we THINK we see now.
Initially, all was energy. Expansion took place allowing matter to emerge as this energy cooled. BBT doesn't begin as a singularity, though it is easy to extrapolate to that point. BBT limits itself to the point physics is able to keep all the wheels on its wagon. The equations fail extremely close to t=0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
"Expansion took place allowing matter to emerge as this energy cooled. BBT doesn't begin as a singularity, though it is easy to extrapolate to that point. BBT limits itself to the point physics is able to keep all the wheels on its wagon. The equations fail extremely close to t=0."

I agree with Helio, especially as I do not have to caveat the pure imagination around (very, very close to) t = 0. It is very easy to extrapolate elephants back to small, pink, flying ones, but it does not prove their existence any more that an imaginative figment proves that nonsense someone christened a singularity.

The only point where we may disagree, being what 'happened' at t = 0, comes to mind. I say there is nothing known at this 'point' (for want of a better word) and my guess is probably as good as anyone else's. Two options for t = 0 (there may be many more) are the mathematical fiction (singularity) and some form of continuity (nexus) which simply postulates continuity (from a former phase) in place of some 'appearing out of nothing'. One 'nexus' might imply some form of cyclic universe. However, 'cyclic' contains some unfortunate elements (repetition) which I do not support.

On consideration, and aware that any suggestion I might make is just as imaginary (even if more believable) as a singularity, I am limiting my suggestion to replacing singularity with nexus. This simply suggests that the Universe existed as a phase of its existence 'before' t = 0.

One analogy, and it is only illustrative imagination, is the idea that the precedent phase might have been comparable to a black hole in that (and this is imaginary) the 'preceding' t < 0 phase ended in a nexus which then opened into the next 'big bang'. There is no evidence for or against such an idea, just as there is no evidence to support a 'singularity'.

Cat :)

In this general context, I agree with Helio (post #3):

"But the BBT doesn't need to establish a beginning with t=0 any more than, say, Newton needed to explain gravity. Newton's gravity work was wonderful physics describing something he admitted he didn't know what it was."
 
Last edited:
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
The idea that the universe is expanding and accelerating supported by evidence.
Give me one evidence that is evidence supported.
Where did the matter come from?
What is the driving force?
What causes the acceleration?
If there is a trillion galaxies within our view sphere of a diameter of 26.8 billion light years.
And the BB says that our universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Our star is close to 12 billion years old.
All these questions lift up red flags, and are begging answers.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Let me continue from post #96:
*"In this general context, I agree with Helio (post #3):"

"But the BBT doesn't need to establish a beginning with t=0 any more than, say, Newton needed to explain gravity. Newton's gravity work was wonderful physics describing something he admitted he didn't know what it was."*

Very apt, I think. Jus as Newton knew nothing about the nature of gravity, he could use mathematics to explain the motions of the planets to a very high degree of accuracy.

We are beginning to know, or think about, or dream, possible scenarios, even bad dreams like singularities, and we will make progress. But. I think, some things are unknowable. We will reach a stage where we will where we can make positive, reliable, predictions, as Newton did, but we will not have understood many of the mysteries of the nexus, the alternate phases, the workings of the Universe . . . . . . . . .


Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
We are beginning to know, or think about, or dream, possible scenarios, even bad dreams like singularities, and we will make progress. But. I think, some things are unknowable. We will reach a stage where we will where we can make positive, reliable, predictions, as Newton did, but we will not have understood many of the mysteries of the nexus, the alternate phases, the workings of the Universe . . . . . . . . .
Yes. Science has changed over time. Before Newton, though no clear line exists, science had to include purpose for the phenomena they were addressing. This is known as teleology. Newton simply quantified a phenomena he admitted he didn't understand in the least, at least the "essence" of what gravity truly is. [ We're still looking for gravitons or something.]

Imagine if he had elected to what until he did understand what gravity actually is rather than how it behaves. Engineering school might have been just a two year program for us. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Apr 13, 2021
254
22
685
Many love the BBT and give their best to make sure that the BB to explain the possible origins of the universe.
We can explain expansion and contraction small and monster large , by understanding what forces take place.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS