<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Pressure is one of the terms in the stress-energy tensor of general relativity that determines the curvature of the Universe. It is a significant factor in the very early universe, but a small factor now. It appears in a cosmological model when the universe, on a large scale is treated as a perfect fluid.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0825</p><p>See also chapter 15 part 2 of <em>Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity</em> by Steven Weinberg. The pressure term is thought to be driven by relativistic particles, such as photons, largely from the cosmic background radiation.</p><p>The effect of gas that has not yet been detected would be to increase the estimate of mass in the universe as well as to slightly increase pressure and would probably result in a tendency to slow expansion rather than to increase it.</p><p>The rotation rates of stars within galaxies and the forces holding galaxies together against the centripetal force that results are not related to pressure. The pressures involved, from things similar to solar wind, are simply not strong enough to have a significant effect, and they would tend to be in the wrong direction in any case. The dominant force is gravity, and there does not appear to be enough mass present to provide sufficient gravity -- hence the "dark matter" place holder. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pressure would only effect the contents of the Universe, not the Universe itself. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Pressure is one of the terms in the stress-energy tensor of general relativity that determines the curvature of the Universe. It is a significant factor in the very early universe, but a small factor now. It appears in a cosmological model when the universe, on a large scale is treated as a perfect fluid.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0825</p><p>See also chapter 15 part 2 of <em>Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity</em> by Steven Weinberg. The pressure term is thought to be driven by relativistic particles, such as photons, largely from the cosmic background radiation.</p><p>The effect of gas that has not yet been detected would be to increase the estimate of mass in the universe as well as to slightly increase pressure and would probably result in a tendency to slow expansion rather than to increase it.</p><p>The rotation rates of stars within galaxies and the forces holding galaxies together against the centripetal force that results are not related to pressure. The pressures involved, from things similar to solar wind, are simply not strong enough to have a significant effect, and they would tend to be in the wrong direction in any case. The dominant force is gravity, and there does not appear to be enough mass present to provide sufficient gravity -- hence the "dark matter" place holder. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Dude, if the universe was just a salad being tossed in a massive bowl, we would see it accelerating as it falls back without need of any Big Bang or a singularity, ever. 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Dude, if the universe was just a salad being tossed in a massive bowl, we would see it accelerating as it falls back without need of any Big Bang or a singularity, ever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Dude, if the universe was just a salad being tossed in a massive bowl, we would see it accelerating as it falls back without need of any Big Bang or a singularity, ever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Dude, if the universe was just a salad being tossed in a massive bowl, we would see it accelerating as it falls back without need of any Big Bang or a singularity, ever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Aren't the contents what make up the universe. How do you differentiate the two? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />No and that is the key dirrerence. It is the space that is expanding, the matter is just along for that part of the ride, while also responding to the matter and energy of the objects in the U. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Aren't the contents what make up the universe. How do you differentiate the two? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />No and that is the key dirrerence. It is the space that is expanding, the matter is just along for that part of the ride, while also responding to the matter and energy of the objects in the U. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Aren't the contents what make up the universe. How do you differentiate the two? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />No and that is the key dirrerence. It is the space that is expanding, the matter is just along for that part of the ride, while also responding to the matter and energy of the objects in the U. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Aren't the contents what make up the universe. How do you differentiate the two? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />No and that is the key dirrerence. It is the space that is expanding, the matter is just along for that part of the ride, while also responding to the matter and energy of the objects in the U. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. <br />Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. <br />Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. <br />Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now that Mozina has entered and polluted the thread this needs to be moved back to The Unexplained. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. <br />Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all. But I do agree with Meteor Wayne's approach, and look forward to Mozina's defense of his assertions and specific answers to my specific challenges to those assertions.</p><p>The real issue behind dark matter is the explanation of the observed rates of revolution of the outer arms of some galaxies about the galactic center. There is not enough observed matter to provide the necessary gravity and centrepital acceleration. Dark matter is a hypothesis designed to explain what it seen, and it is solid mainstream physics. It is speculative physics, and we don't know what dark matter is. We don't even really know if it exists. But it is responsible speculation.</p><p>Dark energy, likewise, is a hypothetical construct, more speculative than dark matter, that is intended as a place holder while an explanation for the observations that indicate that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing is devised. It is equivalent to a positive cosmological constant in the Einstein equations of general relativity. It too is nothing more than responsible speculation, and discussion of it is a legitimate discussion within physics. We dond't know if it exists, be we do know that there is something going on that seems to be consistent with a model that incorporates a positive cosmological constant. We have no idea as to the physical source of that constant.</p><p>Mozina has gone beyond the issue of dark matter, and even of dark energy. He has impuned the very solid work of a number of outstanding physicists -- work reflected in the references that I have provided for him to refute (if he can). His objective has nothing whatever to do with a sensible discussion of dark matter. His objective is to promote his own agenda -- pushing the outlandish ideas of Electric Universe proponents and denigrating mainstream physicists who have dismissed him and his nonsense.</p><p>The problem with the thread has nothing to do with the legitimacy of discussions regarding dark matter or dark energy. The problem pure and simple is Mozina himself and his personal agenda. But now his responsibility to defend his position with real science and real data has been made clear by Wayne. I have provided for him specific references to material that he says is contrived and false. It is up to him to either defend his statements, concede that they are utter nonsense or face serious consequences for posting pseudoscience in a legitimate science forum and attempting to hijack the thread in the name of that pseudoscience.</p><p>The references that I provided to the physics and physicists that he has impuned are real scientific scholarly works, not over-simplified popularizations. The authors are eminent physicists, very eminent. He has his work cut out for him to show, with real data and real mathematics, that they have been less than rigorous and forthright in their work. In fact his task will be impossible since their work is solid and Mozina has no idea what he is talking about. His mouth has written a check that his bank account cannot handle.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all. But I do agree with Meteor Wayne's approach, and look forward to Mozina's defense of his assertions and specific answers to my specific challenges to those assertions.</p><p>The real issue behind dark matter is the explanation of the observed rates of revolution of the outer arms of some galaxies about the galactic center. There is not enough observed matter to provide the necessary gravity and centrepital acceleration. Dark matter is a hypothesis designed to explain what it seen, and it is solid mainstream physics. It is speculative physics, and we don't know what dark matter is. We don't even really know if it exists. But it is responsible speculation.</p><p>Dark energy, likewise, is a hypothetical construct, more speculative than dark matter, that is intended as a place holder while an explanation for the observations that indicate that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing is devised. It is equivalent to a positive cosmological constant in the Einstein equations of general relativity. It too is nothing more than responsible speculation, and discussion of it is a legitimate discussion within physics. We dond't know if it exists, be we do know that there is something going on that seems to be consistent with a model that incorporates a positive cosmological constant. We have no idea as to the physical source of that constant.</p><p>Mozina has gone beyond the issue of dark matter, and even of dark energy. He has impuned the very solid work of a number of outstanding physicists -- work reflected in the references that I have provided for him to refute (if he can). His objective has nothing whatever to do with a sensible discussion of dark matter. His objective is to promote his own agenda -- pushing the outlandish ideas of Electric Universe proponents and denigrating mainstream physicists who have dismissed him and his nonsense.</p><p>The problem with the thread has nothing to do with the legitimacy of discussions regarding dark matter or dark energy. The problem pure and simple is Mozina himself and his personal agenda. But now his responsibility to defend his position with real science and real data has been made clear by Wayne. I have provided for him specific references to material that he says is contrived and false. It is up to him to either defend his statements, concede that they are utter nonsense or face serious consequences for posting pseudoscience in a legitimate science forum and attempting to hijack the thread in the name of that pseudoscience.</p><p>The references that I provided to the physics and physicists that he has impuned are real scientific scholarly works, not over-simplified popularizations. The authors are eminent physicists, very eminent. He has his work cut out for him to show, with real data and real mathematics, that they have been less than rigorous and forthright in their work. In fact his task will be impossible since their work is solid and Mozina has no idea what he is talking about. His mouth has written a check that his bank account cannot handle.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all. But I do agree with Meteor Wayne's approach, and look forward to Mozina's defense of his assertions and specific answers to my specific challenges to those assertions.</p><p>The real issue behind dark matter is the explanation of the observed rates of revolution of the outer arms of some galaxies about the galactic center. There is not enough observed matter to provide the necessary gravity and centrepital acceleration. Dark matter is a hypothesis designed to explain what it seen, and it is solid mainstream physics. It is speculative physics, and we don't know what dark matter is. We don't even really know if it exists. But it is responsible speculation.</p><p>Dark energy, likewise, is a hypothetical construct, more speculative than dark matter, that is intended as a place holder while an explanation for the observations that indicate that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing is devised. It is equivalent to a positive cosmological constant in the Einstein equations of general relativity. It too is nothing more than responsible speculation, and discussion of it is a legitimate discussion within physics. We dond't know if it exists, be we do know that there is something going on that seems to be consistent with a model that incorporates a positive cosmological constant. We have no idea as to the physical source of that constant.</p><p>Mozina has gone beyond the issue of dark matter, and even of dark energy. He has impuned the very solid work of a number of outstanding physicists -- work reflected in the references that I have provided for him to refute (if he can). His objective has nothing whatever to do with a sensible discussion of dark matter. His objective is to promote his own agenda -- pushing the outlandish ideas of Electric Universe proponents and denigrating mainstream physicists who have dismissed him and his nonsense.</p><p>The problem with the thread has nothing to do with the legitimacy of discussions regarding dark matter or dark energy. The problem pure and simple is Mozina himself and his personal agenda. But now his responsibility to defend his position with real science and real data has been made clear by Wayne. I have provided for him specific references to material that he says is contrived and false. It is up to him to either defend his statements, concede that they are utter nonsense or face serious consequences for posting pseudoscience in a legitimate science forum and attempting to hijack the thread in the name of that pseudoscience.</p><p>The references that I provided to the physics and physicists that he has impuned are real scientific scholarly works, not over-simplified popularizations. The authors are eminent physicists, very eminent. He has his work cut out for him to show, with real data and real mathematics, that they have been less than rigorous and forthright in their work. In fact his task will be impossible since their work is solid and Mozina has no idea what he is talking about. His mouth has written a check that his bank account cannot handle.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving this thread back from ‘Space Science & Astronomy’ to ‘The Unexplained’ will be like admitting that issues of ‘Dark Matter’ isn’t scientific but rather of religious philosophy. Still there are no doubt serious interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, and consequently Dark Matter and Dark Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory <br />Posted by vidargander</DIV></p><p>Not at all. But I do agree with Meteor Wayne's approach, and look forward to Mozina's defense of his assertions and specific answers to my specific challenges to those assertions.</p><p>The real issue behind dark matter is the explanation of the observed rates of revolution of the outer arms of some galaxies about the galactic center. There is not enough observed matter to provide the necessary gravity and centrepital acceleration. Dark matter is a hypothesis designed to explain what it seen, and it is solid mainstream physics. It is speculative physics, and we don't know what dark matter is. We don't even really know if it exists. But it is responsible speculation.</p><p>Dark energy, likewise, is a hypothetical construct, more speculative than dark matter, that is intended as a place holder while an explanation for the observations that indicate that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing is devised. It is equivalent to a positive cosmological constant in the Einstein equations of general relativity. It too is nothing more than responsible speculation, and discussion of it is a legitimate discussion within physics. We dond't know if it exists, be we do know that there is something going on that seems to be consistent with a model that incorporates a positive cosmological constant. We have no idea as to the physical source of that constant.</p><p>Mozina has gone beyond the issue of dark matter, and even of dark energy. He has impuned the very solid work of a number of outstanding physicists -- work reflected in the references that I have provided for him to refute (if he can). His objective has nothing whatever to do with a sensible discussion of dark matter. His objective is to promote his own agenda -- pushing the outlandish ideas of Electric Universe proponents and denigrating mainstream physicists who have dismissed him and his nonsense.</p><p>The problem with the thread has nothing to do with the legitimacy of discussions regarding dark matter or dark energy. The problem pure and simple is Mozina himself and his personal agenda. But now his responsibility to defend his position with real science and real data has been made clear by Wayne. I have provided for him specific references to material that he says is contrived and false. It is up to him to either defend his statements, concede that they are utter nonsense or face serious consequences for posting pseudoscience in a legitimate science forum and attempting to hijack the thread in the name of that pseudoscience.</p><p>The references that I provided to the physics and physicists that he has impuned are real scientific scholarly works, not over-simplified popularizations. The authors are eminent physicists, very eminent. He has his work cut out for him to show, with real data and real mathematics, that they have been less than rigorous and forthright in their work. In fact his task will be impossible since their work is solid and Mozina has no idea what he is talking about. His mouth has written a check that his bank account cannot handle.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> .... What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.... <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> .... What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.... <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> .... What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.... <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> .... What inflation postulates is a scalar field that served to cause the rate of expansion in that early era to be extremely high.... <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</p><p>I don't know the details of the scalar field associated with inflation, but Guth postulated the existence of such a field with some specific properties and from that assumption was able to answer some open questions in cosmology, notably the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the apparent uniformity of the cosmic background radiation on a large scale and the small anisotropies seen on a small scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang</p><p>There is book written by Guth for a general audience that might interest you. It is <em>The Inflationary Universe. </em>You can also look into inflation more deeply through Guth's web site and references to his papers, both technical and for a general audience. http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</p><p>I don't know the details of the scalar field associated with inflation, but Guth postulated the existence of such a field with some specific properties and from that assumption was able to answer some open questions in cosmology, notably the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the apparent uniformity of the cosmic background radiation on a large scale and the small anisotropies seen on a small scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang</p><p>There is book written by Guth for a general audience that might interest you. It is <em>The Inflationary Universe. </em>You can also look into inflation more deeply through Guth's web site and references to his papers, both technical and for a general audience. http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is a scalar field? It says here something about being associated with zero spin particles and elsewhere is says "a scalar field associates a scalar value....to every point in space." So does that mean a particle was responsible for inflation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>A scalar field is simply a function that assigned to each point in space-time a real number. One common example is eletric potential. The difference between the value of the electric potential at two points measures the difference in potential energy that would occur to a particle of unit charge moved from one point to the other. The gradient of that scalar field is vector which in this case is the E-field (electric field) of classical electrodynamics.</p><p>I don't know the details of the scalar field associated with inflation, but Guth postulated the existence of such a field with some specific properties and from that assumption was able to answer some open questions in cosmology, notably the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the apparent uniformity of the cosmic background radiation on a large scale and the small anisotropies seen on a small scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang</p><p>There is book written by Guth for a general audience that might interest you. It is <em>The Inflationary Universe. </em>You can also look into inflation more deeply through Guth's web site and references to his papers, both technical and for a general audience. http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
SpaceX launches 21 Starlink internet satellites from Florida, lands rocket at sea (photos)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram