Question BIG BANG EVIDENCE

[Harry Costas]

I grew up in the mindset that the Big Bang Theory was it. So, we defended the theory through thick and thin.
We developed tunnel vision.

[Submitted on 18 May 2024]

Entanglement production through a cosmological bounce​

Viqar Husain, Irfan Javed, Sanjeev Seahra, Nomaan X

In quantum gravity, it is expected that the Big Bang singularity is resolved and the universe undergoes a bounce. We find that for generic initial data, matter-gravity entanglement entropy rises rapidly during the bounce, declines, and then approaches a steady-state value following the bounce. These observations suggest that matter-gravity entanglement is a feature of the macroscopic universe and that there is no Second Law of entanglement entropy.

 

[billslugg]

Every argument challenging BB is along the lines of one or the other:
- You weren't there so you don't know
- If I can't understand it, thus it can't possibly be true
- BB is only an assumption
- BB is only a theory
- As an anonymous source on the internet, surely my version, which is contrary to the entire scientific community over the last 120 years, is better.

And no one ever gives a convincing alternative. If you have one, I'd like to hear it. And remember, BB theory starts at 10^-43 s, so any talk of the singularity or "dividing by zero" is outside the scope of the BB theory. Prior to that we don't know and never will.

 

[Atlan0001]

Every argument challenging BB is along the lines of one or the other:
- You weren't there so you don't know
- If I can't understand it, thus it can't possibly be true
- BB is only an assumption
- BB is only a theory
- As an anonymous source on the internet, surely my version, which is contrary to the entire scientific community over the last 120 years, is better.

And no one ever gives a convincing alternative. If you have one, I'd like to hear it. And remember, BB theory starts at 10^-43 s, so any talk of the singularity or "dividing by zero" is outside the scope of the BB theory. Prior to that we don't know and never will.

That the BB has disappeared from the universe, ceased to exist, Bill, is the "120 years" long incorrect assumption. It didn't go away. It doesn't go away. It is a Planck level constant of Horizon which the Hubble and JWST scopes are looking deeply up and out to and, at one and the same time resolving the light, deeply down and into. It never goes away.

 

[billslugg]

It must be noted that I am "assuming" the universe existed prior to my birth 71 years ago. I further assume it does not go away while I'm sleeping and when I wake up I assume it is the same universe that I went to sleep in.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill,
The cosmological community is fixated on the BBT. When you go to college and get a degree in it, you must spend 4-to-8 years "learning" to tell the professors what they expect you to know. There is rarely an opportunity to actually question professors. That has to come after you graduate, and typically requires somebody to fund your research so you can pay for computer time and don't starve in the process of trying to find some alternatives.

So, the BBT is and has been getting the funding for some time now, and asking for an alternative that has the same level of analysis under it is just a way of avoiding a realistic discussion of alternatives.

That said, there are definitely some red flags associated with the BBT.
The most obvious is that it relies on several things that have not been shown to exist, to the extent that it needs 20 times the energy + mass that we do understand to work out mathematically, and all that extra stuff has to do things that the other 5% we really understand cannot do. People in any other field will tell you that is a huge red flag for an improper model.

Additional red flags keep coming up in discrepancies between BBT predictions and new observations. But, the model is so full of unconstrained tuning parameters that it can just be adjusted with new assumptions about unexplained physical phenomena.

And the cop out at 10-43 second is a new feature, just to avoid talking about a singularity. The premise of the BBT is that the universe started from essentially nothing at essentially a single point. Which is just the ultimate extrapolation of the Hubble "constant" backward in time. Refusing to discuss the first 10-43 second is only a rhetorical tactic. Something must have happened, and it is the lynch pin for the whole concept.

So, yes it absolutely is "just a theory". And it absolutely depends on a lot of assumptions. Any attempt to claim that "we know it all, already" is going to be met with derision, because it is a gross overstatement of the current state of knowledge.

But, there are a lot of people, the vast majority of whom have never solved Einstein's field equations for themselves, who are eager to show off on the Internet with their knowledge of the BBT's "story". They state what they say as fact, and they should be stating it only as model predictions.

And, when I have tried to have discussions or ask hard questions, there is always some excuse to avoid them. Rules of forums, "lies we tell children", "go get a degree first", "you are insulting me", "show me a theory that is better, first, before we will discuss it".

Those are also red flags to those of us who have had to deal with projections that ultimately get tested in the real world.

So, less hubris and more honest discussion is what is called for.

 

[Harry Costas]

Is there an alternative to the Big Bang Theory.
It's not rocket science.
It comes from understanding of how matter compacts and recycles.
Understanding compact matter and its dipolar vector fields.
You can lead a horse to water, but! you cannot make the horse drink.

[Submitted on 21 May 2024]

Is Planckian discreteness observable in cosmology?​

Gabriel R. Bengochea, Gabriel Leon, Alejandro Perez

A Planck scale inflationary era -- in a quantum gravity theory predicting discreteness of quantum geometry at the fundamental scale -- produces the scale invariant spectrum of inhomogeneities with very small tensor-to-scalar ratio of perturbations and a hot big bang leading to a natural dark matter genesis scenario. Here we evoke the possibility that some of the major puzzles in cosmology would have an explanation rooted in quantum gravity.

 

[billslugg]

I am strongly attracted to the quantum theory of gravity, but only in tiny, discrete amounts.

 

[Harry Costas]

Most of the matter in the universe is in compact form.
Condensates and their transients.
Most of the matter in our solar system is found in the core of the Sun.

Look at M87
The jets expelled from the core goes for more than 100,000 years .
The Jet vector field generated comes from the core.
It takes more than discrete amounts.
Compaction of matter is no new thing.
We look at Neutron Stars and take reading of Quark Cores.

oops got to go for now

 

[Catastrophe]

Every argument challenging BB is along the lines of one or the other:
- You weren't there so you don't know
- If I can't understand it, thus it can't possibly be true
- BB is only an assumption
- BB is only a theory
- As an anonymous source on the internet, surely my version, which is contrary to the entire scientific community over the last 120 years, is better.

And no one ever gives a convincing alternative. If you have one, I'd like to hear it. And remember, BB theory starts at 10^-43 s, so any talk of the singularity or "dividing by zero" is outside the scope of the BB theory. Prior to that we don't know and never will.

billslugg,

I do respect your position on the BB, but there is much more to the question than you suggest. I believe that the idea arose from Lemaitre, but we cannot discuss the possible source of his idea, because of his profession, so I will leave that aside, and get onto more interesting matters.

As we know, the name was coined by Hoyle, and that may part of the trouble. As a species, we have had a scientific background scarcely worth mentioning - for just a few score years. We leapt to adopt this ridiculous name, perhaps thinking that it was like a puny firework that we thought we understood. IMHO we are, comparatively speaking, still approaching 'flat earth' levels, in that this worked reasonably for hundreds of years, until we attempted a westerly route to the Asian 'indies'.

The idea contradicted all sanity at the time, causing the abandonment of ideas including "you can't make something out of nothing", especially when endowing this beginning with infinite temperatures and infinite density.

I would say that some ideas of cyclic systems are nearly as ridiculous (cheers from certain quarters ), but with the caveat that, in exchange for initial infinite temperatures and densities, one might just think about a reversal of entropy in a contraction phase.

Unlike some, I am not saying that we actually know anything about the early Universe. Scientific opinion would require examination which is not open to us. Even the most ardent adherents have to separate t = 0 and fall back on metaphysics. As I quoted recently, invocation of infinities usually (if not always) indicates that there is something very wrong with the model.
The regression towards t = 0 requires these 'infinite' properties, so BBT must be involved.

In olden times we just invented explanations for what we did not understand. I am just suggesting that, as honest scientists, we admit our circumstances and seriously discuss serious alternatives. Correcting failed hypotheses can still lead us forward.

We know so much more now, that we can give up magic wands, replacing them with ideas such as analogy with the Moebius Strip and Klein Bottle.
We can only progress by opening our minds. Progress will be more successful by modifying less than perfect notions, rather than clinging on to the fixed ideas of former times. All success to real science.


Cat

 

[billslugg]

"you can't make something out of nothing",

But we did. The matter and energy of the universe are exactly balanced by gravitational potential energy of the expansion. If it were to collapse, which it can't*, it would simply disappear.

*The universe is expanding and much of it is now receding at faster than c, never to come back. Even if it did collapse, it would not be able to since there is too much energy resisting collapse. Same reason it didn't immediately form a black hole, too much energy pushing out.

 

[Atlan0001]

"you can't make something out of nothing",

But we did. The matter and energy of the universe are exactly balanced by gravitational potential energy of the expansion. If it were to collapse, which it can't*, it would simply disappear.

*The universe is expanding and much of it is now receding at faster than c, never to come back. Even if it did collapse, it would not be able to since there is too much energy resisting collapse. Same reason it didn't immediately form a black hole, too much energy pushing out.

Uh, Bill, It does collapse -- like a waterfall over the edge -- always . . . inversely to the far outside/deep inside "superposition" 'Mirror Horizon'! Our thinking about where it would contract and collapse is wrong, is back***ward, unless we look to Quantum Mechanics, the Q (QM)-Verse, for the model and actual picture.

All those super-massive black holes at the distant cliff edge before the superposition collapsed cosmological constant (/\) P/BB 'Mirror Horizon' (13.8 billion years in the past / 13.8 billion years in the future (at exactly the same time and constant of distance)) also tell the story.

 

[billslugg]

The problem with a future collapsing universe is it can't happen. We know this because we can see galaxies receding faster and faster towards a cosmic horizon. The rate of expansion is increasing, not decreasing as it would if there was a Big Crunch going to happen. At the edge of the visible universe, space is expanding faster than c. Galaxies are being lost every day and matter is not being created any more. It is a dire situation. At some point in the far future everything will disappear.

 

[Harry Costas]

Expansion of Matter
Where is the evidence?

 

[Harry Costas]

Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
But! we can look at their properties and explain expansion and contraction.
We can observe expansion of matter.

We can observe contraction of matter.

As for an expanding universe, that's impossible.
The universe is infinite, and infinity cannot expand into infinity so to speak.

 

[Catastrophe]

Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably’ soon, study finds​

A form of dark energy may cause the accelerating expansion of the universe to come to an end


Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably soon,’ study finds | The Independent


Cat


​

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Catastrophe​

I have read

Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably soon,’ study finds | The Independent​

In my opinion, they are wrong.

My advice is research Transient Condensates and the properties.
Expansion and contraction are controlled by Condensates.

 

[Harry Costas]

Right or wrong I post papers. Even though my opinion differes.
Who know maybe I'm on a wrong path thinking.

[Submitted on 20 May 2024]

Expanding Microscopic Black Holes​

Samuel Kováčik

Two interesting hypotheses about black holes have been proposed. The older one states that microscopic black holes can be accountable for the observed dark matter density. The newer one states that black holes are coupled to the expansion of the universe. Here, we combine those ideas and investigate the behaviour of expanding microscopic black holes. We observe two temperatures at which the radiation balances the expansion. While one of the balance points might be important in the analysis of primordial scenarios, the other would lead to a strong diffuse gamma radiation background, which is contradicted by the lack of observations. This establishes another indirect evidence disfavouring the hypothesis of cosmological coupling of black holes.

 

[Catastrophe]

Harry, I just posted it out of current topical interest.

At least it shows that everyone is not content with old hypotheses.

Cat

In the new study, scientists applied this theory to model how long it might take the universe to slow down, stop, begin contracting, and eventually reach a single point if dark energy is a quintessence.

The model, built using actual data describing features of the known universe, suggests if the idea of quintessence is true, then the universe could already be slowing its accelerated expansion, and could slow all the way to a standstill in approximately 65 million years.

It suggests that after about 14 billion years of the universe expanding since its formation, it may even start a slow phase of contraction “surprisingly soon,” maybe “less than 100 million years from now.”

 

[Harry Costas]

Catastrophe is a Greek Word.
Smile
I understand
65 million years to slow down, no way. The universe will keep doing its thing.

 

[Catastrophe]

Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably soon,’ study finds | The Independent

Universe could stop expanding, contract and collapse on itself ‘remarkably’ soon, study finds

A form of dark energy may cause the accelerating expansion of the universe to come to an end

In the new study, scientists applied this theory to model how long it might take the universe to slow down, stop, begin contracting, and eventually reach a single point if dark energy is a quintessence.

The model, built using actual data describing features of the known universe, suggests if the idea of quintessence is true, then the universe could already be slowing its accelerated expansion, and could slow all the way to a standstill in approximately 65 million years.

It suggests that after about 14 billion years of the universe expanding since its formation, it may even start a slow phase of contraction “surprisingly soon,” maybe “less than 100 million years from now.”




Disproof of Spacetime and General Relativity (ospublishers.com)

Conclusions​

Four-dimensional spacetime is a mathematical illusion that is hereby disproven. No theory can be valid if it is based on a false assumption. Therefore, Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is also hereby disproven. We are left with the inescapable conclusion that Newton’s universal law of gravitation is the only viable explanation for gravity.

I am not saying that I support this, but it is good to see that everyone is not immersed in a century old sleep.

What I am concerned about is the idea that FTL travel of galaxies occurs at greater distances, as a consequence of expansion and the so-called Hubble Law - recession velocity proportional to distance.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

The problem with a future collapsing universe is it can't happen. We know this because we can see galaxies receding faster and faster towards a cosmic horizon. The rate of expansion is increasing, not decreasing as it would if there was a Big Crunch going to happen. At the edge of the visible universe, space is expanding faster than c. Galaxies are being lost every day and matter is not being created any more. It is a dire situation. At some point in the far future everything will disappear.

It, the Big (little) Crunch/Big (little) Bang, always "happened," is "happening," and will always "happen," at and in a quantum entangled spontaneously concurrent instant (t=0) REALTIME 'Final Frontier' canvas!:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_connection#/media/File:parallel_transport_sphere.svg

Chaos theory's 1-dimensional "String" has point but no line.
Chaos theory's 2-dimensional "Sierpinski Carpet" has line but no surface plane.
Chaos theory's 3-dimensional "Menger Sponge" has surface plane but no volume.
Chaos theory's 4-dimensional....

 

[Harry Costas]

Lost me at the OK Corral

 

[Harry Costas]

billslugg said:
"The problem with a future collapsing universe is it can't happen. We know this because we can see galaxies receding faster and faster towards a cosmic horizon. The rate of expansion is increasing, not decreasing as it would if there was a Big Crunch going to happen. At the edge of the visible universe, space is expanding faster than c. Galaxies are being lost every day and matter is not being created any more. It is a dire situation. At some point in the far future everything will disappear."

The passage makes notes that are not correct.
Show me the evidence
or else it is here say or there say.

 

[Harry Costas]

This paper is dated wrong, regardless of the date.
Regardless info reading

[Submitted on 28 Mar 2024]

Measuring the baryon fraction using galaxy clustering​

Alex Krolewski, Will J. Percival

The amplitude of the baryon signature in galaxy clustering depends on the cosmological baryon fraction. We consider two ways to isolate this signal in galaxy redshift surveys. First, we extend standard template-based Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) models to include the amplitude of the baryonic signature by splitting the transfer function into baryon and cold dark matter components with freely varying proportions. Second, we include the amplitude of the split as an extra parameter in Effective Field Theory (EFT) models of the full galaxy clustering signal. We find similar results from both approaches. For the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) data we find fb≡Ωb/Ωm=0.173±0.027 for template fits post-reconstruction, fb=0.153±0.029 for template fits pre-reconstruction, and fb=0.154±0.022 for EFT fits, with an estimated systematic error of 0.013 for all three methods. Using reconstruction only produces a marginal improvement for these measurements. Although significantly weaker than constraints on fb from the Cosmic Microwave Background, these measurements rely on very simple physics and, in particular, are independent of the sound horizon. In a companion paper we show how they can be used, together with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis measurements of the physical baryon density and geometrical measurements of the matter density from the Alcock-Paczynski effect, to constrain the Hubble parameter. While the constraints on H0 based on density measurements from BOSS are relatively weak, measurements from DESI and Euclid will lead to errors on H0 that are competitive with those from local distance ladder measurements.

 

[Harry Costas]

Imagine making a statement, in the first microsecond,,,,,,,,,,,Bang


[Submitted on 20 Mar 2024]

Exploring the Big Bang with femtoscopy​

Mate Csanad

Exploring the fundamental constituents of the matter around us and in the Universe, as well as their interactions, is among the premier goals of physics. Investigating ultrarelativistic collisions in particle accelerators has delivered answers to these questions many times in the past decades. In this paper we focus on the research aimed at recreating the matter that filled the Universe in the first microsecond after the Big Bang -- but this time in collisions of heavy ions. In particular we discuss the technique called femtoscopy, which provides us a tool to understand the space-time structure of particle creation in heavy-ion collisions. We utilize Levy-stable distributions to investigate this structure and explore its dependence on particle momentum and collision energy.