Question BIG BANG EVIDENCE

[Harry Costas]

strophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics
[Submitted on 22 Apr 2022]
How the Big Bang Ends up Inside a Black Hole
Enrique Gaztanaga

The standard model of cosmology assumes that our Universe began 14 Gyrs (billion years) ago from a singular Big Bang creation. This can explain a vast range of different astrophysical data from a handful of free cosmological parameters. However, we have no direct evidence or fundamental understanding of some key assumptions: Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Here we review the idea that cosmic expansion originates instead from gravitational collapse and bounce. The collapse generates a Black Hole (BH) of mass M≃5×1022M⊙ that formed 25~Gyrs ago. As there is no pressure support, the cold collapse can continue inside in free fall until it reaches atomic nuclear saturation (GeV), when is halted by Quantum Mechanics, as two particles cannot occupy the same quantum state. The collapse then bounces like a core-collapse supernovae, producing the Big Bang expansion. Cosmic acceleration results from the BH event horizon. During collapse, perturbations exit the horizon to re-enter during expansion, giving rise to the observed universe without the need for Inflation or Dark Energy. Using Ockham's razor, this makes the BH Universe (BHU) model more compelling than the standard singular Big Bang creation.

Comments:	22 pages, published as a Review paper in Universe
Subjects:	Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as:	arXiv:2204.11608 [astro-ph.CO]
	(or arXiv:2204.11608v1 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)
	https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.11608 Focus to learn more
Journal reference:	Universe, 8, 257 (2022)
Related DOI:	https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8050257 Focus to learn more

To look at the various explanations is getting us closer to understanding.
Understanding Black Hole nucleosynthesis,

 

[Harry Costas]

rophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics
[Submitted on 20 Apr 2022 (v1), last revised 28 Apr 2022 (this version, v2)]
Biocosmology: Towards the birth of a new science
Marina Cortês, Stuart A. Kauffman, Andrew R. Liddle, Lee Smolin

Cosmologists wish to explain how our Universe, in all its complexity, could ever have come about. For that, we assess the number of states in our Universe now. This plays the role of entropy in thermodynamics of the Universe, and reveals the magnitude of the problem of initial conditions to be solved. The usual budgeting accounts for gravity, thermal motions, and finally the vacuum energy whose entropy, given by the Bekenstein bound, dominates the entropy budget today. There is however one number which we have not accounted for: the number of states in our complex biosphere. What is the entropy of life and is it sizeable enough to need to be accounted for at the Big Bang? Building on emerging ideas within theoretical biology, we show that the configuration space of living systems, unlike that of their fundamental physics counterparts, can grow rapidly in response to emerging biological complexity. A model for this expansion is provided through combinatorial innovation by the Theory of the Adjacent Possible (TAP) and its corresponding TAP equation, whose solutions we investigate, confirming the possibility of rapid state-pace growth. While the results of this work remain far from being firmly established, the evidence we provide is many-fold and strong. The implications are far-reaching, and open a variety of lines for future investigation, a new scientific field we term biocosmology. In particular the relationship between the information content in life and the information content in the Universe may need to be rebuilt from scratch.

Comments:	35 pages, 1 figure, minor updates to conclusions, reference addition. See also companion paper arXiv:2204.09379
Subjects:	Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); Other Quantitative Biology (q-biT)
Cite as:	arXiv:2204.09378 [astro-ph.CO]
	(or arXiv:2204.09378v2 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)

What do we know?
Where do we get the info from?
If the majority say what it is, do we take that as the most logical theory?
Or do we press forward against the main stream.
A log will easily flow down stream.
Impossible to float upstream.

 

[Harry Costas]

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

To have open discussion is very healthy.
In some circles, if you speak against the BBT they stop you ,
And vice versa

 

[Catastrophe]

Is this spam?

 

[Harry Costas]

No its not
It’s the start of information

 

[Harry Costas]

My opinion is not as informative as some scientists.

 

[Harry Costas]

Astrophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics
[Submitted on 13 Nov 2017 (v1), last revised 17 Nov 2017 (this version, v2)]
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, the CMB, and the Origin of Matter and Space-Time
Grant.J.Mathews, Mayukh Gangopadhyay, Nishanth Sasankan, Kiyotomo Ichiki, Toshitaka Kajino

We summarize some applications of big bang nucleosythesis (BBN) and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to constrain the first moments of the creation of matter in the universe. We review the basic elements of BBN and how it constraints physics of the radiation-dominated epoch. In particular, how the existence of higher dimensions impacts the cosmic expansion through the projection of curvature from the higher dimension in the "dark radiation" term. We summarize current constraints from BBN and the CMB on this brane-world dark radiation term. At the same time, the existence of extra dimensions during the earlier inflation impacts the tensor to scalar ratio and the running spectral index as measured in the CMB. We summarize how the constraints on inflation shift when embedded in higher dimensions. Finally, one expects that the universe was born out of a complicated multiverse landscape near the Planck time. In these moments the energy scale of superstrings was obtainable during the early moments of chaotic inflation. We summarize the quest for cosmological evidence of the birth of space-time out of the string theory landscape. We will explore the possibility that a superstring excitations may have made itself known via a coupling to the field of inflation. This may have left an imprint of "dips" in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. The identification of this particle as a superstring is possible because there may be evidence for different oscillator states of the same superstring that appear on different scales on the sky. It will be shown that from this imprint one can deduce the mass, number of oscillations, and coupling constant for the superstring. Although the evidence is marginal, this may constitute the first observation of a superstring in Nature.

Comments:	Submitted to the proceedings of the Workshop on the Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies, Daejeon, S. Korea, June 27-30, 2017, AIP conf. Ser., in press
Subjects:	Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)
Cite as:	arXiv:1711.04873 [astro-ph.CO]
	(or arXiv:1711.04873v2 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)
	https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.04873 Focus to learn more
Related DOI:	https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5030818 Focus to learn more

This not spam, this is me sharing info that i read.
Whether i agree with the papers i post is not the issue.
Through reading you will gain more info and in time, you will keep on resolving.

 

[Harry Costas]

strophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics
[Submitted on 3 Aug 2016 (v1), last revised 6 Aug 2016 (this version, v2)]
A Direct Probe of the Evolutionary History of the Primordial Universe
Xingang Chen, Mohammad Hossein Namjoo, Yi Wang

Since Hubble and Lamaitre's discovery of the expanding universe using galaxies till the recent discovery of the accelerating universe using standard candles, direct measurements of the evolution of the scale factor of the universe a(t) have played central roles in establishing the standard model of cosmology. In this letter, we show that such a measurement may be extended to the primordial universe using massive fields as standard clocks, providing a direct evidence for the scenario responsible for the Big Bang. This is a short and non-technical introduction to the idea of classical and quantum primordial standard clocks.

Comments:	10 pages; a short and non-technical introduction to primordial standard clocks, to appear in Science China
Subjects:	Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as:	arXiv:1608.01299 [astro-ph.CO]
	(or arXiv:1608.01299v2 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)
	https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1608.01299 Focus to learn more
Journal reference:	Sci China-Phys Mech Astron, 59(10): 101021 (2016)
Related DOI:	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-016-0278-8

Sometimes we learn from a theory that you object to,
Such is life.
Understanding quantum mechanics to explain Nucleosynthesis is quite fascinating.

 

[Catastrophe]

You might like to look at all the evidence, which is already summarised very professionally by Helio here:

Big Bang Bullets II | Space.com Forums

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Yes i have seen and read the evidence.
Not one can be supported.
If you wish to list one,
If the evidence is supported then the BBT would not be a theory.

 

[Harry Costas]

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
[Submitted on 13 Apr 2015 (v1), last revised 24 Apr 2015 (this version, v2)]
Implications of a Primordial Magnetic Field for Magnetic Monopoles, Axions, and Dirac Neutrinos
Andrew J. Long, Tanmay Vachaspati

We explore some particle physics implications of the growing evidence for a helical primordial magnetic field (PMF). From the interactions of magnetic monopoles and the PMF, we derive an upper bound on the monopole number density, n(t0)<1×10−20 cm−3, which is a "primordial" analog of the Parker bound for the survival of galactic magnetic fields. Our bound is weaker than existing constraints, but it is derived under independent assumptions. We also show how improved measurements of the PMF at different redshifts can lead to further constraints on magnetic monopoles. Axions interact with the PMF due to the φE⋅B interaction. Including the effects of the cosmological plasma, we find that the helicity of the PMF is a source for the axion field. Although the magnitude of the source is small for the PMF, it could potentially be of interest in astrophysical environments. Finally we apply constraints on the neutrino magnetic dipole moment that arise from requiring successful big bang nucleosynthesis in the presence of a PMF, and using the suggested strength ∼10−14 G and coherence length ∼10 Mpc we find μν≲10−16μB.

Comments:	v2: 12 pages, 2 figures, added discussion of axion-photon resonant conversion and CMB constraints
Subjects:	High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as:	arXiv:1504.03319 [hep-ph]
	(or arXiv:1504.03319v2 [hep-ph] for this version)
	https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.03319 Focus to learn more
Journal reference:	Phys. Rev. D 91, 103522 (2015)
Related DOI:	https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.103522

Although we look at the process of BB nucleosynthesis, it does not give evidence to the BBT solidifying the BBT.
The complexity to explain trillions of galaxies in a short period of 13.7 to 14 billion years is beyond maths.

 

[Catastrophe]

Harry, I really do appreciate your good intentions, but (unless there are loads of contra responses - which I would welcome) I do believe that the concise summary posted by Helio is much more acceptable to most viewers. May I, therefore, very politely. suggest that you might, please, consider responding, via your references, to specific points? I do believe that (unless there are loads of contra responses - which I would welcome) most would prefer that to repeated lists (in content) - often in isolation in new threads.

Would you please consider this?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

I will consider all.
But! I disagree with your thinking.

The question is:
How do I share the papers that I read?

 

[Catastrophe]

What you could do is save up the items and list them, maybe with some brief comment, instead of taking up a whole page with each item. This displaces any item already there, and means that you effectively treat the subject, such as Astronomy, selfishly, as your very own. It effectively says: "I don't care about what anyone else here might want to read, they will just see post after post about what you like to read.

You might like to compare the number of views Helio received with his BB thread summarising the subject very effectively, with your incessant posts, with few if any comment about what you think and why you like them. If you really feel strongly about one item, why not tell us why?

You obviously feel very strongly about this area of knowledge. Please share your knowledge in an interactive way and participate with us in making these threads more diverse and interesting, so that when we see your name pop up, we will be pleased, anticipating an interesting discussion with you, as someone who brings interactive interest, instead of bald references which just supplant whatever else anyone else has interest in.

Believe me, Harry, I am only asking you to, please, share your enthusiasm with us, and participate more with subjects which I am sure you know well.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

I do believe you and I do mean well.
I have limited time and my work is very time consuming.
That is why I list papers and allow people to form their own opinions.
I will try and list comments

 

[Harry Costas]

Search | arXiv e-print repository

arxiv.org

This paper although notes various theories as to the universe functions and also point to the Big Bang Theory

 

[Harry Costas]

We can talk all we like about the BBT and yet we can not explain as far as we can observe 14 billion years over trillions of galaxies in various stages of evolving.
Let say the BBT states an origin of 14 billion years.
CMB readings may be given as evidence for both the BBT and also for infinity and beyond.

 

[Catastrophe]

Hi Harry,
I understand the CMB/BBT connection, but how do you link this with "infinity and beyond"?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

CMB it is what it is.
Link to the BBT is not evidence.
The universe is infinite.
Since matter or energy cannot be created and infinity is what it is then CMB is the evidence

 

[Catastrophe]

Why do you bring infinity into it? The CMB is good evidence of BB theory, which can be dated back to approx. 13.8 billion ya. I do not believe that science can support the idea of a singularity. Any ideas of division by zero (in GR), giving infinite density and temperatures is unsupportable.

No one knows what happened at t = 0 (where the singularity would be). There are ideas (and only ideas) about what might have occurred. One idea (and it is just imaginary) is that, at t = 0), there may have been a nexus, perhaps associated with cyclic process similar to a final 'black hole leading to a big bang, continuing a cyclic process. Some might call this infinite, but infinity is a mathematical term, which has no correspondence with reality. But no one knows what happened. Any idea of a singularity is definitely 'out'.

Cat

 

[DMH]

strophysics > Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics
[Submitted on 22 Apr 2022]
How the Big Bang Ends up Inside a Black Hole
Enrique Gaztanaga

Comments:	22 pages, published as a Review paper in Universe
Subjects:	Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as:	arXiv:2204.11608 [astro-ph.CO]
	(or arXiv:2204.11608v1 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)
	https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.11608 Focus to learn more
Journal reference:	Universe, 8, 257 (2022)
Related DOI:	https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8050257 Focus to learn more

To look at the various explanations is getting us closer to understanding.
Understanding Black Hole nucleosynthesis,

In order to have a black hole, you have to have a star that has collapsed. A black hole would not have been able to come before a star that the Big Bang came from because there wouldn't have been enough dark matter in the universe to create pressure on the trillions of trillions of stars in the Universe that in turn create gravity.

A Big Bang inside of a black hole is not even possible. In order for black hole to exist Einstein gravity must exist. Einstein's gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang so there is no possibility of the Big bang coming from a black hole.

 

[Catastrophe]

DMH,
You are in an area completely outside our ability to scientifically investigate here, just like a singularity, and I do not believe such a pronouncement is valid.
How can you say what can or cannot happen in a black hole?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

How can we know what is in a Condensate that mimics a Black Hole.
We can look at Neutron matter a condensate that has compaction 10 to the 17.
We also research Quark stars.
Oscillating Magnetized Color Superconducting Quark Stars

Astrophysics

arxiv.org

Although we cannnot see inside a black hole, we study the effects surrounding.

arXiv:2202.11096 [pdf, other]

astro-ph.HE hep-ph
Radio Signals from Axion Star-Neutron Star Binaries.

The research is out there, we have the tools to estimate and treat it like a black box.
In this case we cannot shake the box, but the box shakes for us and with the tools we have we can try to formulate the internal properties of condensates that mimic Black Hole Properties.

 

[Catastrophe]

Harry, "How can you say what can or cannot happen in a black hole? "

What provable phenomena have you measured?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

I can only refer you to do a bit of research.
I can refer you to several hundred papers.
If you so wish.