Big Bang Bullets II

[Harry Costas]

The more I think about it.
A classical black hole with a singularity without dipolar electromagnetic vector fields cannot expel nucleosynthesis and create the universe as we observe.
The Big Bang tells us that the universe is about 14 billion years.
How can a Trillion galaxies form in such a short time.
We observe over 9 super clusters that contain thousands of galaxies each one.
So can someone explain if that is possible to be done within a 14 billion year time.

 

[Catastrophe]

Harry,
In one way, I sympathise with what you are saying. But if you look at these (imho) "silly" numbers they produce for inflation, the "standard model" seems rather unbelievable.

The most important thing to me is not BBT but t = 0. Their inability to understand this (imho) is the cause of all ills, like singularities, infinite whatevers, and the rest. It seems to me that when you have graphs which zoom off to "infinity" when you divide by 'approaching zero', then there is something missing in the theory.

I am not saying that something is w.r.o.n.g. - I am suggesting that something is missing like "Newton" and "Einstein". Newtons theories are fine for most purposes, but we need a new "Einstein" to sort out the t = 0 part.

Just my thinking.

Cat

 

[Helio]

I am not saying that something is w.r.o.n.g. - I am suggesting that something is missing like "Newton" and "Einstein". Newtons theories are fine for most purposes, but we need a new "Einstein" to sort out the t = 0 part.

Just my thinking.

Indeed.
Theory of Everyhing

BBT was never meant to be an all-n-one model.

 

[Harry Costas]

All our observations local and deep field show a clustering.
Where is the expansion?

 

[Catastrophe]

Harry, you ask (as is your right): "So can someone explain if that is possible to be done within a 14 billion year time."

I agree with the principle of asking questions, although I have to admit that I do not understand a lot of your assertions.

I would like to ask, whilst BBT, albeit with a few assumptions, seems to give predictable results - away from t = 0, is this not to be compared with Newton, who gave great working laws which, however, break down approaching c?


Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Predictable results like what?
We know that our galaxy is part of a local group of galaxies with a gravity bound by M87.
We know that with other similar groups of galaxies are moving towards the great attractor.
We know that all of these are moving towards the core of a super cluster.
Note the word in all cluster.

We know from every core within galaxies have a dipolar condensate that expels matter.
Our Milky Way has a condensate that is several million solar masses and a dipolar condensate.
M87 about 10 billion solar masses with a dipolar jet stream spanning about 100,000 lys
Virgo about 100 billion solar masses dipolar jets over 1 miiliom Lyrs.

Let’s look at the facts

 

[Catastrophe]

From #1, "Here is a tweaked and more colorful version of the prior arguments favoring Big Bang Theory. [Comments welcome, of course."

Helio has provided an excellent summary of BBT, and I find this wholly consistent. However, this is based on the scenario inherited from t = 0.

At the moment, this seems to be in a state of flux. The rather (imho) counter intuitive idea of a singularity of "infinite" de da de da de da's - arising from (imho) a very dubious retro extrapolation, is rightly under severe scrutiny.

The scenario inherited from t = 0, is, therefore, open for consideration. This is, of course, a matter of metaphysics, rather than science, which cannot co-exist with the mathematical myth of a real world based on division by zero - with all the consequences of extremely high temperatures which necessitate 10^-30 and shorter time intervals.

Take away the myth of a singularity, and one is suddenly left with the possible (metaphysical, imaginary) option of a non-infinite, non extreme (t = 0) scenario, such as a nexus from another phase, resulting in the BBT so aptly summarised by Helio.

This, of course, opens the door to further difficulties which beg for a solution. However, the field is open to consideration infinitely more pro intuitive than a BB coming out of "nothing" and depending on "everything" extreme.

Thanks to Helio, you have an excellent summary development beyond t = 0, but its inheritance is open to (albeit metaphysical) debate. A supposed minute passage of time is unaccounted for. Maybe, without the encumbrances of a singularity, there is an opportunity to consider (metaphysically) a less unlikely
predecessor.

Embrace the chance to enjoy the metaphysical change which could have preceded the start of this phase of the Universe.

Cat

 

[Helio]

According to a book I’m reading written by a FERMI scientist, the collider can give great confidence just after the first trillionth of a second, so physics becomes more metaphysics closer to t=0

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, is this still following the idea of a singularity predecessor? By this, I mean is it still relying on the same retro-projection?

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, is this still following the idea of a singularity predecessor? By this, I mean is it still relying on the same retro-projection?

So far, the book has avoided the use of “singularity”, though many authors give-in to this powerful idea.

 

[Helio]

He mentions that , so far, only one new particle has been discovered (Higgs boson), contrary to their original expectations. Rules of particle behavior, however, have been advanced by the lab results. [This is a 2019 book, btw.]

But even the rules come into question when t<1E-12 sec., IMO.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, as I think you know, I am no astrophysicist, but a scientist who delights in questioning assumptions. My intentions are entirely constructive, but there may well be (and probably are) many cases where my ideas are questionable.

However, if my questionings result in provoking useful thought, I am happy.

On this basis, I will continue to ask questions in the expectation of being helpful in assisting understanding in areas where assumptions are key.

My chief worry in this area is the hockey stick (a term recently used by Billslugg iirc) graph which arises when division by zero (or "infinitely" small numbers are involved. This is the case here, This means that as you approach zero (as I am sure that you are well aware) the 'y' value increases astronomically (npi) steeply.

Rightly or wrongly, this signals to me that the theory which produced the graph is either inappropriate at low 't' levels, or that different considerations are 'kicking in' at lotw 't' values, approaching t = 0. Vide, especially, Newton vs Einstein.

If, and, as you know, this is in the area of metaphysics, this is the case here, then it may signal that the singularity concept is the cause of the J-curve. If this is so, and again, I accept that we are talking metaphysics, the J-curve results from the 'singularity' assumption, then this should be seriously questioned. Checking falsification is an occupation that I approve of.

Cat

Note: This crosses with your #136. Mine (#137) took me a while to compose.

 

[Helio]

I find your assessments helpful to the areas where the ice is thinnest.

Recall that paper that seemed to zoom through the singularity and into earlier time — mathematically. But physics is more than math. The math fails to explain what was happening in the earliest soup of plasma when something ate all those antiparticles.

New discoveries are needed fir this puzzle, and others as well.

 

[Catastrophe]

"According to a book I’m reading written by a FERMI scientist"

Sounds interesting. May we have details please.

Cat

 

[Helio]

“At the Edge of Time: Exploring the Mysteries of Our Universe’s First Seconds” Dan Hopper

[I had to look it up because I only remembered the author’s name, and I’m out of town babysitting. ]

 

[Catastrophe]

Thanks . Have you seen this one (just Googling):

What Einstein Got Wrong by Dan Hooper - Goodreads
https://www.goodreads.com › book › show

But Einstein was not infallible. He rejected the possibility of black holes, and he was reluctant to accept the concept of an expanding universe or that gravity ...
Rating: 4.1 · ‎93 votes

• 
  What Einstein Got Wrong by Dan Hooper - Goodreads
  https://www.goodreads.com › book › show › 3835081...
  
  
  What Einstein Got Wrong book. Read 15 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Description from Website:He was the quintessential genius...
  

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Do I have to find and read that book to follow this?

One of the things that puzzles me is how the quantum scientists looking at the debris from atom smashing experiments have decided they can produce a time line for the infant universe.

I think I understand how they try to equate the zoology of particles at any moment with the energy level they calculate by compressing the whole universe into a specific volume. They do that by looking at how much energy they used to smash the atoms that gave debris with those particle types.

But, how do they put a time frame on the changes to that volume? After all, they aren't thinking about the subatomic particles going through space, they are instead thinking about something making space bigger and that inflation dragging the particles farther apart, lowering the energy density. So, what is the assumed mechanism that translates energy density and particle types into "inflation" rate? Why does it have to be so fast at very early times?

 

[Catastrophe]

According to a book I’m reading written by a FERMI scientist, the collider can give great confidence just after the first trillionth of a second, so physics becomes more metaphysics closer to t=0

Helio, could you please give is a run down on the book when you have finished reading it?

 

[Helio]

I suspect it’s not unlike using the ideal gas law. Stars behave pretty well with this law, helping to match the fusion requirements, though we can see the Sun’s core.

They use collider data to take us toa time after the first trillionth of a second. I assume the H-L expansion rate gets fairly close as well.

Once BBT was being taken as serious, great minds introduced a couple of problems. One was that early quantum fluctuations would produce much more anisotropy -more cooler and hotter regions. Thus was born Inflation Theory where the universe increased in size by the 75th power in less than a nanosecond, producing an almost perfect isotropy. But just enough anisotropy for stars to eventually form.

 

[Helio]

Helio, could you please give is a run down on the book when you have finished reading it?

Yep

 

[Catastrophe]

"Why does it have to be so fast at very early times?"

My question too. Why so unbelievably fast. My suggestion avoids this.

Cat

 

[Helio]

"Why does it have to be so fast at very early times?"

My question too. Why so unbelievably fast. My suggestion avoids this.

Cat

I found this video of Alan Guth explaining Inflation in a way no website (e.g. Wiki) has explained.

Apparently, when the universe was super tiny, there was uniformity of temperatures, etc. [Perhaps quantum fluctuations were not as problematic in this atom-sized (or smaller) universe.] GR and the states of matter in the first Planck units of time gave us repulsive gravity that caused expansion. I'm guessing that very soon after this that the expansion reached a point where quantum fluctuations would exceed the 1 part per 100,000 we see in the CMBR. Thus repulsive gravity expansion would have, somehow, prevented that same uniformity (ie isotropy) that we now see in the CMBR.

Inflation, however, is the means to lock that earlier isotropy into place, and get it beyond some sort of lumpy-making phase.

Perhaps someone else can better explain it because it is counter-intuitive. One would think that a very slow expansion would produce uniformity, but that age of the universe must have been too sensitive to quantum fluctuations.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Perhaps someone else can better explain it because it is counter-intuitive. "

As Judge Judy would say:

If it doesn't make sense, it is wrong.

Same as I said in the Gravity thread. I don't like it.
So the depression gets moved along with the spacetime?
I thought gravity prevented that? What about approaching galaxies?

Cat

 

[Helio]

I would never hope Judge Judy judges science questions. Even a lot of provable math doesn't make a lot of sense (e.g. adv. calculus, Reimman space)

 

[Unclear Engineer]

OK, I watched that video, and, frankly, it doesn't seem to make any sense with respect to conservation of anything. He keeps saying that the universe has zero net energy, that the original amount of "matter" in the universe was less than a gram, that energy is added by inflation, then that energy of gravity is added by inflation, that inflation has a "half-life", etc.

These are all just declarative statements - no explanation, much less proof.

To paraphrase the Jerry McGuire line: "Show me the theory. SHOW ME the THEORY!"