Question BIG BANG EVIDENCE

[DrRaviSharma]

I would like to add that just as we see the universe using photons in any form (QED) we need to view it in through other probes for example gravitational and weak interactions (themselves an exciting Pandora's box) just to name a few. Let me give a picture of same region seen in visible IR and X-rays appears differently, so will these other views show us non QED or additional to QED (e.g. QCD) picture of the Universe and it might most likely turn out as I also think currently that there is room only for a local (galaxies level or more) big bang.
So let us wait for these aggregate views before we conclude far out BB hypothesis.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSFEB Apollo time frame
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect

 

[Adoni Yannop]

Hello Dr Rav
you said
"In your above chain reality starts after or at Partons, nothing is confirmed above that except redshift conjectured big bag which JWST is proving doubtful. All matter including some of the SM particles are not as long lived as n, p, e. and of course as you say the atomic, bulk matter etc. (we also estimate stellar galactic and large regions lifecycles through astrophysical observations.
But Partons and resonances such as mesons and BSM entities such as double Higgs etc., do form, but for insignificantly small periods."

Under confinement
Transients from Axion Gluon Matter to partonic matter to Quark matter to Neutron matter can be confined.

unconfined that's another issue.

Harry!! There is absolutely no evidence that the speculated Axion Gluon Matter Or Partonic "Condensate" Matter has ever existed or been observed to exist in the lab or in space?? Do you have a picture of 2 solar masses of partonic matter or axion gluon matter??
No and you never will because once a neutron star reaches a neutronium mass over 2.17 solar masses it develops an event horizon that makes the neutronium ball of the neutron star invisible!!
One day, Stellar Black Holes may be discovered between 2.17 Solar Masses And 3.0 Solar Masses!!
Though because of a black hole's event horizon, we'll never be able to measure the density of a black hole's neutronium ball!!): We can reasonably argue that the density of the neutronium ball of a 3 solar mass stellar black hole is slightly greater than the neutronium ball of a 2.0 solar mass neutron star!! And that the maximum density of a neutronium ball of a SMBH is reached as a SMBH approaches its maximum mass at 100 billion solar masses!!
Now, the mechanics that limit a SMBH's mass to about 100 Billion Solar Masses is simple): Gravity is a direct function of mass and the rate at which the matter particles of mass heat up!! See my proofs in other posts!!
Anyway as the Surface Area Of The Cold Neutronium Ball Of A SMBH Increase As It Approaches 100 Billion Solar Masses): The Cold Neutronium Ball Starts cooling surrounding matter causing the surrounding matter to net cool net releasing gaseous GP1 Aether Particles that expand space and release dark energy transforming the overdensity to a void over infinite time!!
This is why we have a Cosmic Web with high GP1 Aether Particle Pressure Voids Pushing Galaxies Apart as net matter cooling expands space while overdensity superclusters contract and heat up until the overdensities can no longer net heat up!!
Smile Often and Have A Great Day!!

 

[Harry Costas]

There is no way that you will ever see Axion Gluon or Partonic matter with Compaction over 10^28
You will need to go into a Black Hole so to speak.

We cannot limit our thoughts, or we fall into the same trap as a forbearers.

I would suggest research Transient Condensates.

 

[Harry Costas]

If the paper below is correct, then most people with the idea that Black Holes having a singularity are up in arms.


[Submitted on 29 Nov 2023]

No space-time singularity in black-hole physics​

Jose Bernabeu (Valencia U. and Valencia U. IFIC)

Massive stellar gravitational collapse is not an endless process. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the existence of a repulsive interaction, two-neutrino mediated, with a coherent weak charge of macroscopic matter proportional to the number of constituents. After gravity, this is the second longest range -- microns -- force and, below nanometers, its magnitude overcomes the attractive gravitation. The layer distribution of pressure inside a compact neutronized uniform sphere, independent of its size, is compared for the two interactions with opposite pressure gradient. Taking as reference the mean square radius, the volume evolution of the pressure, for fixed mass and weak charge, leads to an equilibrium scenario with a characteristic black-hole radius R_B = 1.58 nm. This size scale should be universal, independent of the mass, as long as the mass is nearly proportional to the weak charge.

 

[billslugg]

I don't understand why it is assumed a singularity would be present at the center of a Black Hole. All it needs is a finite dimension and all the "singularity" problems would go away.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Bill
You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Harry Costas]

Food for thought
The more we research the more we find that we know less.

Go figure.

[Submitted on 21 Dec 2023]

A seven-Earth-radius helium-burning star inside a 20.5-min detached binary​

Jie Lin, Chengyuan Wu, Heran Xiong, Xiaofeng Wang, Peter Nemeth, Zhanwen Han, Jiangdan Li, Nancy Elias-Rosa, Irene Salmaso, Alexei V. Filippenko, Thomas G. Brink, Yi Yang, Xuefei Chen, Shengyu Yan, Jujia Zhang, Sufen Guo, Yongzhi Cai, Jun Mo, Gaobo Xi, Jialian Liu, Jincheng Guo, Qiqi Xia, Danfeng Xiang, Gaici Li, Zhenwei Li, WeiKang Zheng, Jicheng Zhang, Qichun Liu, Fangzhou Guo, Liyang Chen, Wenxiong Li

Binary evolution theory predicts that the second common envelope (CE) ejection can produce low-mass (0.32-0.36 Msun) subdwarf B (sdB) stars inside ultrashort-orbital-period binary systems, as their helium cores are ignited under nondegenerate conditions. With the orbital decay driven by gravitational-wave (GW) radiation, the minimum orbital periods of detached sdB binaries could be as short as ~20 minutes. However, only four sdB binaries with orbital periods below an hour have been reported so far, while none of them has an orbital period approaching the above theoretical limit. Here we report the discovery of a 20.5-minute-orbital-period ellipsoidal binary, TMTS J052610.43+593445.1, in which the visible star is being tidally deformed by an invisible carbon-oxygen white dwarf (WD) companion. The visible component is inferred to be an sdB star with a mass of ~0.33 Msun, approaching that of helium-ignition limit, although a He-core WD cannot be completely ruled out. In particular, the radius of this low-mass sdB star is only 0.066 Rsun, about seven Earth radii, possibly representing the most compact nondegenerate star ever known. Such a system provides a key clue to map the binary evolution scheme from the second CE ejection to the formation of AM CVn stars having a helium-star donor, and it will also serve as a crucial verification binary of space-borne GW detectors in the future.

 

[Harry Costas]

As part of a cyclic process i can accept and agree with the following paper.
Condensed matter and its properties may explain most or the images and formations that we are able to observe.

[Submitted on 17 Jan 2024]

Elementary Particles and Plasma in the First Hour of the Early Universe​

Cheng Tao Yang

This dissertation aims to deepen the understanding of the primordial composition of the Universe in the temperature range 300 MeV>T>0.02 MeV. I exploit known properties of elementary particles and apply methods of kinetic theory and statistical physics to advance the understanding of the cosmic plasma.
Within the Big Bang model, we begin by considering the Universe being a highly energetic fireball, an ultra-relativistic plasma exhibiting distinct properties. Fundamental particles such as quarks, leptons, and even heavier gauge bosons play a crucial role in the understanding of the early Universe. Our research focuses on the investigation of these fundamental particles as constituents of the dense Universe plasma during the epoch which transits from primordial quark-gluon plasma to the era of normal hadron matter, passing through the decoupling of neutrinos and addressing in detail the electron-positron antimatter plasma.

 

[Harry Costas]

I'm passing this paper along. My opinion should not influence your opinion.


[Submitted on 26 Jan 2024]

The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update​

Nils Schöneberg

We revisit the state of the light element abundances from big bang nucleosynthesis in early 2024 with particular focus on the derived baryon abundance. We find that the largest differences between the final baryon abundances are typically driven by the assumed Deuterium burning rates, characterized in this work by the underlying code. The rates from theoretical ab-initio calculations favor smaller baryon abundances, while experimentally-determined rates prefer higher abundances. Through robust marginalization over a wide range of nuclear rates, the recently released PRyMordial code allows for a conservative estimate of the baryon abundance at Ωbh2=0.02218±0.00055 (using PDG-recommended light element abundances) in ΛCDM and Ωbh2=0.02196±0.00063 when additional ultra-relativistic relics are considered (ΛCDM + Neff). These additional relics themselves are constrained to ΔNeff=−0.10±0.21 by light element abundances alone.

 

[yaduff]

My opinion is not as informative as some scientists

So true!!!

 

[Harry Costas]

I said:
I'm passing this paper along. My opinion should not influence your opinion.

 

[yaduff]

I said:
I'm passing this paper along. My opinion should not influence your opinion.

I disagree, Because then what is the point of a discussion? If you opinion should not influence mine?

 

[Catastrophe]

Harry, you started this thread on a very interesting subject. I am not criticising this in any way. I certainly am not criticising you in any way. You have every right to post such a question.

What I do have reservations about is the idea of a BB start, which is in total opposition to the "Law of Conservation of Mass(/Energy). There never was a real "singularity". There are alternatives which do not tax sanity.

It is my honest belief that we (meaning all of us) are trapped into believing that words have some meaningful connection with reality. As time goes by, it becomes more and more evident that all perceived "reality" is simply relative to the observer. And there are countless types of observer. How do you compare our reality with that of a bat? Are realities of people with different degrees of sight, colour blindness, or hearing, deafness . . . identical? Are not our "shared realities" directly depending means and qualities of perceptions?


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

On the question of this fictional "singularity". The ideas of big bang and singularity derive from extrapolation back to "zero" of any form of expansion. We know (or believe) that expansion has not been uniform. Note, in particular, the postulated ultra massive "inflation" as well as the following expansion which was not linear, but something similar to parabolic.

Even neglecting inflation, can anyone please suggest an equation for a straight line which accurately describes a parabola?

Clearly, one is straight and the other curved. A parabola cannot be represented by a straight line.
Thus any attempt to extrapolate backwards to zero (t=0) is purely arbitrary, and does not have to pass through zero. This is backed up by the fact that, close to zero, gravity takes over and galaxies move together (as with Milky Way and Andromeda).cf Local Group.

As already suggested, this means that a nexus is to be expected rather than an abrupt halt at t=0 and the curve may continue before "t=0"with something more like a black hole developing into a big bang, and a big bang developing into a black hole, in cycles. Meaning no singularity.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I was very pleased to find the extract below, in Cosmology's Century, by P J E Peebles, Princeton University Press, 2020:

In the big bang model, a straightforward explanation of its evolution back in time ends up with a singularity; a manifest failure of standard general relativity. The usual hopeful thought is that there is a better theory that eliminates the singularity; the cosmological inflation picture . . . is the most common line of discussion in this direction. But to be considered in ths chapter is the study of cosmic evolution after inflation, or whatever happened in the very early Universe: how we arrived at the big bang model, developed nonempirical assessments of it, and made a start on empirical tests..

My emphasis.


Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Catastrophe​

I agree with what you say.
I feel like sometimes give a balance opinion and not influence others with mine.

I know the Big Bang Theory, in my opinion does not have evidence supporting the theory.

As for a Singularity, it cannot form. Dipolar magnetic vector fields expel matter away from the core.
The jets created can be observed throughout the universe.
Eg M87
Hourglass images supernova

 

[Harry Costas]

Research allows us to think on a different level.
It is most important to keep moving forward.
It's a mistake to think that I'm trying to influence people to how I think.

Just keep on reading.

[Submitted on 13 Mar 2024]

The neutron decay anomaly, neutron stars and dark matter​

Mar Bastero-Gil, Teresa Huertas-Roldan, Daniel Santos

The discrepancies in different measurements of the lifetime of isolated neutrons could be resolved by considering an extra neutron decay channel into dark matter, with a branching ratio of the order of O(1\%). Although the decay channel into a dark fermion χ plus visible matter has been already experimentally excluded, a dark decay with either a scalar or dark photon remains still a possibility. In particular, a model with a fermion mass mχ≈1 GeV and a scalar mϕ≈O(MeV) could provide not only the required branching ratio to explain the anomaly but also a good dark matter (DM) candidate with the right thermal abundance today. Although the interaction DM-neutron will affect the formation of neutron stars, the combined effect of the dark matter self-interactions mediated by the light scalar and an effective repulsive interaction with the neutrons induced by the scalar-Higgs coupling would allow heavy enough neutron stars. The combined constraints from neutron lifetime, dark matter abundance, neutron star and Higgs physics, and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, restrict the light scalar mass to the range 2me<mϕ<2me+0.0375 MeV.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

While we are talking about neutron decay, which is (mainly) into an electron plus a proton , and now includes an anti-neutrino, I have to say that the quantum theory of matter seems to have a hard time with "elementary" particles staying "elementary". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay for the various descriptions of how free neutron decay works, in various theories.

My issue is that I would not call a quark a "fundamental particle" if it is believed to be able to convert from one type to another by emitting a neutrino or antineutrino. So, I wonder what quarks are "made of" in the next level of supposed "fundamental" pieces.

Quantum theory seems to be just "peeling an onion" of increasingly minute pieces as we make ever more powerful "atom smashers" and try to explain the tracks that we find in their sensors.

 

[Classical Motion]

If the neutron/proton ratio in a nucleus is 1 to 1, there is no decay. Decay only happens when this ratio is off.

When you smash something soft, it disintegrates. When you smash something hard you get chunks.

Quirks are just charge fragments, not components. There are only two particles. The only composite particle is the neutron.

Electrons have an anti-inertia property and protons have an inertia property.......one is soft and large, one is hard and small.

Neutrons are made in the sun, they start out as regular dipoles, but the electron is accelerated into and around the proton, taking a co-planar position around the proton. They are co-planar but rotate in opposite directions. They are small, but wobble much more than electrons and protons.

These neutrons are necessary for any nucleus that can be ionized. He and larger. A nucleus has the structure of a necklace or a bracelet. If an electron is ejected from a non-neutron nucleus, the nucleus will dissolve. NO ionization without neutrons.

Look at my icon. That is an atom of H. This is the lightest atom. Science calls this a molecule. The H2 molecule. But this is the first and lightest nucleus. The so called H1 atom.......is NOT an atom. It's a dipole. And a dipole does NOT have a nucleus. But "H2"....has a nucleus. And it is an atom.....NOT a molecule.

The small circles are protons and the large circles are electrons. The large common circle represents a magnetic dipole, which is fully enclosed thru the center of each particle. This M flux is converged thru each particle. And acts like a string or a chain for a bracelet. The chain is strong going thru the proton, but weak going thru the electron. Because the electron has a much larger area and the density is weak. If something pulls an electron out of my icon, the nucleus will fall apart.

If there is a neutron between each proton.....then when the electron is ejected, the neutron keeps the M flux converged, and the nucleus stays together.

A neutron is just a tad larger than a proton. If you put two of them....between the protons of my icon......you get a He atom. The electrons sit on top and around the neutrons. In stable atoms, all electrons have neutrons inside of them. And hold the string together when the electron leaves.

Neutrons are like landing pads and parking spaces for electrons.

The standard model and CERN is a joke. There are only two particles. AND the particles have the same structure. And have the same length and the same amount of stuff or material. But one is left handed and one is right handed giving them different personalities. One has inertia and one does not.

All the rest are dissolving fragments. And have no meaning.

 

[Harry Costas]

Electrons form groups

Partonic matter, electrons forming pardons, that lead to the formation of quarks.
The ultimate condensate Axion Gluon Matter- Neutrino Gluon Matter, found in extreme cores, release partonic matter that evolves to Quarks and Neutrons and Protons. The process is called Nucleosynthesis.


[Submitted on 11 Apr 2023]

Thermodynamics of a rotating hadron resonance gas with van der Waals interaction​

Kshitish Kumar Pradhan, Bhagyarathi Sahoo, Dushmanta Sahu, Raghunath Sahoo

Studying the thermodynamics of the systems produced in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions is crucial in understanding the QCD phase diagram. Recently, a new avenue has opened regarding the implications of large initial angular momentum and subsequent vorticity in the medium evolution in high-energy collisions. This adds a new type of chemical potential into the partonic and hadronic systems, called the rotational chemical potential. We study the thermodynamics of an interacting hadronic matter under rotation, formed in an ultra-relativistic collision. We introduce attractive and repulsive interactions through the van der Waals equation of state. Thermodynamic properties like the pressure (P), energy density (ε), entropy density (s), trace anomaly ((ε−3P)/T4), specific heat (cv) and squared speed of sound (c2s) are studied as functions of temperature (T) for zero and finite rotation chemical potential. The charge fluctuations, which can be quantified by their respective susceptibilities, are also studied. The rotational (spin) density corresponding to the rotational chemical potential is explored. In addition, we explore the possible liquid-gas phase transition in the hadron gas with van der Waals interaction in the T -- ω phase space.

The research is at its initial steps.

[Submitted on 8 Jan 2024]

Measuring jet quenching with a Bayesian inference analysis of hadron and jet data by JETSCAPE​

R. Ehlers, A. Angerami, R. Arora, S. A. Bass, S. Cao, Y. Chen, L. Du, H. Elfner, W. Fan, R. J. Fries, C. Gale, Y. He, U. Heinz, B. V. Jacak, P. M. Jacobs, S. Jeon, Y. Ji, L. Kasper, M. Kordell II, A. Kumar, R. Kunnawalkam-Elayavalli, J. Latessa, S. Lee, Y.-J. Lee, D. Liyanage, M. Luzum, S. Mak, A. Majumder, A. Mankolli, C. Martin, H. Mehryar, T. Mengel, J. Mulligan, C. Nattrass, J.-F. Paquet, C. Parker, J. H. Putschke, H. Roch, G. Roland, B. Schenke, L. Schwiebert, A. Sengupta, C. Shen, C. Sirimanna, D. Soeder, R. A. Soltz, I. Soudi, M. Strickland, Y. Tachibana, J. Velkovska, G. Vujanovic, X.-N. Wang, W. Zhao (JETSCAPE Collaboration)

The JETSCAPE Collaboration reports the first multi-messenger study of the QGP jet transport parameter q^ using Bayesian inference, incorporating all available hadron and jet inclusive yield and jet substructure data from RHIC and the LHC. The theoretical model utilizes virtuality-dependent in-medium partonic energy loss coupled to a detailed dynamical model of QGP evolution. Tension is observed when constraining q^ for different kinematic cuts of the inclusive hadron data. The addition of substructure data is shown to improve the constraint on q^, without inducing tension with the constraint due to inclusive observables. These studies provide new insight into the mechanisms of jet interactions in matter, and point to next steps in the field for comprehensive understanding of jet quenching as a probe of the QGP.

 

[Atlan0001]

Relooking at this article, the line is too straight and astronomy, and cosmology, has us, and everything else in and of the universe, likely far too far away from the pointy end (P/BB) of that scoping in the illustration. I do believe I've pointed it out before that both ends circle, curve, to right here, right now . . . and there, then:

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

www.livescience.com

 

[Harry Costas]

There is seriously something wrong with how scientists interpret expansion and contraction of the universe.

Is our galaxy Milkyway expanding, No
Is our local group of galaxies with M87 as the gravity sink expanding, No
Is our supercluster expanding, No

Using a supernova as evidence to the expansion of the universe is not evidence, but! an interpretation.

There are trillions of galaxies out there that are gravity bound, either contracting or been attracted to a larger attracter.

There are over 10 million superclusters.

They cluster because of gravity sink.

Space cannot expand.

The matter withing space follow the laws of physics.
Largest Super cluster Laniakea 100,000 galaxies
The Largest object, The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall, 10 billion L yrs. across and billions of galaxies.

The universe is infinite, they have had infinite time to do their thing.

 

[Harry Costas]

Evidence is Evidence
A theory is not evidence.
The Big Bang theory is not evidence.

So! why has this theory lasted for decades?

 

[Harry Costas]

So! the plot thickens

[Submitted on 15 May 2024]

Was there a Big Bang?​

D. E. Afanasev, M. O. Katanaev

New one parameter family of exact solutions in General Relativity with a scalar field is found. The metric is of Liouville type which admits complete separation of variables in the geodesic Hamilton--Jacobi equation. This solution exists for the exponential potential for a scalar field and is invariant with respect to global Lorentz transformations. It describes, in particular, a black hole formation as well as a naked singularity. Solutions corresponding to the naked singularity describe accelerating expansion of the homogeneous and isotropic Universe, and can be smoothly continued along geodesics to infinite past without Big Bang.

 

[Harry Costas]

Bounce or no Bounce
That is the question
To be or not to be

[Submitted on 15 May 2024]

Cosmological Singularity and Power-Law Solutions in Modified Gravity​

Saurya Das, S. Shajidul Haque, Seturumane Tema

A bouncing Universe avoids the big-bang singularity. Using the time-like and null Raychaudhhuri equations, we explore whether the bounce near the big-bang, within a broad spectrum of modified theories of gravity, allows for cosmologically relevant power-law solutions under reasonable physical conditions. Our study shows that certain modified theories of gravity, such as Stelle gravity, do not demonstrate singularity resolution under any reasonable conditions, while others including f(R) gravity and Brans-Dicke theory can demonstrate singularity resolution under suitable conditions. For these theories, we show that the accelerating solution is slightly favoured over ekypyrosis.