Did dark energy cause the Big Bang?

As far as cosmologists can tell, the mysterious force behind the accelerated expansion of the universe, a force that we call dark energy, remains constant. But it may not have done so in the past.

Did dark energy cause the Big Bang? : Read more
Very interesting how the new physics is explaining the cause of the Big Bang event now. After reading, it would be good to see a timeline here. Before the BB event, BB event, and moments just after the BB event. Is the dark energy that floods the early universe with exotic particles that evolve into atoms (exactly what atoms on the Periodic Table for example), when does this creation event take place? After inflation is indicated but we have the Planck time, Planck length, and evolution of the universe that followed and one second after the BB event, the matter vs. anti-matter destruction of everything too. It seems the new physics goes back before the Planck time and perhaps smaller than the Planck length now, at least it may. James Peebles had something to say about the new math explaining the BB event. ‘Top cosmologist's lonely battle against 'Big Bang' theory’ "One of these theories is known as the "inflation model," which holds that the early universe expanded exponentially fast for a tiny, tiny fraction of a second before the expansion phase. "It's a beautiful theory," said Peebles. Many people think it's so beautiful that it's surely right. But the evidence of it is very sparse."

When it comes to *sparse* evidence, I compare the new cosmology to the debate between geocentric teaching and heliocentric solar system and what type of science won the day and changed the paradigm. For example, I find the measurements for the solar parallax (that determined the astronomical unit) using transits of Venus and Mercury with telescopes more reliable and verifiable than the new cosmology doctrine that explains what was there before the BB event and how the BB event took place.
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
As far as cosmologists can tell, the mysterious force behind the accelerated expansion of the universe, a force that we call dark energy, remains constant. But it may not have done so in the past.

Did dark energy cause the Big Bang? : Read more
It is basically very supernumerary since inflation makes the same predictions, and ad hoc to better suit the observations.

The only reason to raise it now is since there is a tension in observations of expansion rate, which roughly divide between methods looking at the local - or youngest - data and global - heavily weighted with oldest - data. And one early suggested, suitable and simple ad hoc for that is that dark energy had a temporary early extra component. But that, and/or the application here, is still very weak in nature.
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Very interesting how the new physics is explaining the cause of the Big Bang event now. After reading, it would be good to see a timeline here. Before the BB event, BB event, and moments just after the BB event. Is the dark energy that floods the early universe with exotic particles that evolve into atoms (exactly what atoms on the Periodic Table for example), when does this creation event take place? After inflation is indicated but we have the Planck time, Planck length, and evolution of the universe that followed and one second after the BB event, the matter vs. anti-matter destruction of everything too. It seems the new physics goes back before the Planck time and perhaps smaller than the Planck length now, at least it may. James Peebles had something to say about the new math explaining the BB event. ‘Top cosmologist's lonely battle against 'Big Bang' theory’ "One of these theories is known as the "inflation model," which holds that the early universe expanded exponentially fast for a tiny, tiny fraction of a second before the expansion phase. "It's a beautiful theory," said Peebles. Many people think it's so beautiful that it's surely right. But the evidence of it is very sparse."

When it comes to *sparse* evidence, I compare the new cosmology to the debate between geocentric teaching and heliocentric solar system and what type of science won the day and changed the paradigm. For example, I find the measurements for the solar parallax (that determined the astronomical unit) using transits of Venus and Mercury with telescopes more reliable and verifiable than the new cosmology doctrine that explains what was there before the BB event and how the BB event took place.
When you say "Big Bang event" you define it as the start of the Hot Big Bang era ["The Big Bang is Probably Not What You Think It Is"
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Q8tS-9hYo
]. I think modern cosmologists like Paul Sutter here, or Matt O'Dowd @ PBS Space & Time, prefer to define big bang as the later, lower expansion rate period we still live in. The last Planck team cosmology parameter integration managed to discern that inflation is naturally eternal (i.e. slow roll) and so of indefinite - likelier eternal - extent [Planck 2018 cosmology parameter paper @ Planck Legacy Archive]. The video link above reflect that, and explain why the Planck scale is irrelevant since slow roll happens at 10^-5 that energy scale. The inflation energy release process is described in O'Dowd's videos [
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCX2NlhdTc
;
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0
].

Robustness and uncertainty of the observations is not a problem for inflation as much as the exact field model, it is claimed to be the modern consensus [I think that claim was in one of the last two videos as well]. As for robustness the above parameter integration saw it consistently with two independent methods (cosmic background spectra of spot size respectively spot polarities) as well as with both data combined, and it gives some preliminary inkling of how the field behaved. And the uncertainty is at the modern cosmology or down towards parts of a percent. Even if the last, outstanding data tension of expansion rate may upend some parts of cosmology - unlikely - the background spectra show flatness of space, and inflation as the cause of that flatness, so it seems fairly safe. I see that while early solar parallax measurements were robust they did not have at all that low uncertainty (to say the least) [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism ]. All those problems - robustness, uncertainty and what models apply - instead append to the Hot Big Bang era. Even if Planck can see that inflation had a natural exit - it quickly releases energy as the system slosh around after exit from inflation - I believe there are questions about non-linear couplings to gravity since the energy scale is still high (as such couplings would release heat faster). And above all which phase transitions happened as the quantum fields froze out, i.e. which forces and which particles appeared when (say, dark matter).
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I was not clear enough here concerning cosmology and comparing it to the science of the heliocentric solar system. The solar parallax can still be measured and determined today using telescopes, An Experiment in Solar Parallaxes, this is part of the heliocentric solar system science like predictions of Galilean moon eclipses and transits. Is there experimental measurement that shows the rate of 3D space expansion during inflation (>> c velocity) - is verified like modern measurements of the solar parallax?
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Perhaps I was not clear enough here concerning cosmology and comparing it to the science of the heliocentric solar system. The solar parallax can still be measured and determined today using telescopes, An Experiment in Solar Parallaxes, this is part of the heliocentric solar system science like predictions of Galilean moon eclipses and transits. Is there experimental measurement that shows the rate of 3D space expansion during inflation (>> c velocity) - is verified like modern measurements of the solar parallax?
Expansion rate is measured in many ways. Planck 2018 cosmology parameter paper @ Planck Legacy Archive is an older synthesis:

https://pla.esac.esa.int/#home -> https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications -> https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications#Planck2018 -> https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

History of expansion rate measurements:


The latest public review:


I would start with the history since it has an introductory image showing how it started out like the solar parallax large errors but converged (or not) since modern, high precision cosmology arrived. Then read the latest insight. Planck cosmology is more advanced, for the whole picture (albeit you may want to read a Wikipedia entry on Hubble rate before that since Planck integration is with Planck data front and center). Good luck!
 
Thanks for the references. I do not see where 3D space expanded >> c has been verified by experiments or even that 3D space is expanding here on Earth or in the solar system like direct measurements for the solar parallax in the history of astronomy. The history of conflict in measuring H0 is well documented, since the days of Edwin Hubble when H0 reported about 500 showing a universe < 2E+9 years old. When it comes to inflation, the ability to measure the velocity of 3D space expansion *during inflation* is not the same as the ability to verify the solar parallax value, this is my main point.

Others say inflation is not proven at this time. https://astronomy.com/magazine/2018/07/inflation-leaves-its-mark, “With inflation, the number of observational quantities we have is limited,” says Marc Kamionkowski, a professor and theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University. “Therefore, it limits the level of detail at which the model or theory can be specified...In the past four decades, inflation has become a central pillar around which cosmology is organized. But while it tidies up outstanding problems with the Big Bang theory, it remains unverified. And the lack of evidence leaves some scientists with reservations. “It’s had incredible success at describing what we see . . . and people talk about it as the only option, but many theorists think that we should be considering other options for what happened in the early universe,” Dunkley says. “I think it’s unlikely that it happened exactly the way we’ve been thinking about it. I don’t think we’ve got the whole story yet.” For now, inflation remains cosmologists’ best theory to explain the current structure and infancy of our universe. Perhaps it will be another half-century before scientists have a clearer understanding of what happened in the universe’s first breaths."

Here is the key concerning inflation in cosmology "...it remains unverified". The solar parallax is verified and verifiable today, just like the measurement was in the 1700s using Venus or Mercury transits across the Sun or even later observations.
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Thanks for the references. I do not see where 3D space expanded >> c has been verified by experiments or even that 3D space is expanding here on Earth or in the solar system like direct measurements for the solar parallax in the history of astronomy. The history of conflict in measuring H0 is well documented, since the days of Edwin Hubble when H0 reported about 500 showing a universe < 2E+9 years old. When it comes to inflation, the ability to measure the velocity of 3D space expansion *during inflation* is not the same as the ability to verify the solar parallax value, this is my main point.



Others say inflation is not proven at this time. https://astronomy.com/magazine/2018/07/inflation-leaves-its-mark, “With inflation, the number of observational quantities we have is limited,” says Marc Kamionkowski, a professor and theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University. “Therefore, it limits the level of detail at which the model or theory can be specified...In the past four decades, inflation has become a central pillar around which cosmology is organized. But while it tidies up outstanding problems with the Big Bang theory, it remains unverified. And the lack of evidence leaves some scientists with reservations. “It’s had incredible success at describing what we see . . . and people talk about it as the only option, but many theorists think that we should be considering other options for what happened in the early universe,” Dunkley says. “I think it’s unlikely that it happened exactly the way we’ve been thinking about it. I don’t think we’ve got the whole story yet.” For now, inflation remains cosmologists’ best theory to explain the current structure and infancy of our universe. Perhaps it will be another half-century before scientists have a clearer understanding of what happened in the universe’s first breaths."



Here is the key concerning inflation in cosmology "...it remains unverified". The solar parallax is verified and verifiable today, just like the measurement was in the 1700s using Venus or Mercury transits across the Sun or even later observations.
I'm not sure what expansion rate you are discussing now, since you mention inflation. This is by the way a basic reason, I think, why astrophysicists separate between the inflation era with high expansion rate and the big bang era with low expansion rate, we are talking different expansion rates as well as measurements.

I was earlier discussing only the low expansion rate ("Hubble rate") earlier, and the ESA image show that it wasn't very well observed and understood until the the late 90's - early 00's [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law ]; I hear by the way it was Freedman, from the Quanta article, which did the first solid observation so she is a solid rock in a stormy sea then and now. The point with the ESA figure and Quanta article is that this rate is measured in many independent ways so can be trusted.

The 3D expansion - which means the universe is homogeneous (alike at every distance) and isotropic (same laws at every spatial direction) - is a basic observation and theory result from LCDM cosmology. It is also verified differently such as by galaxy redshift and spectroscopy surveys, but the best evidence is the whole sky data from the cosmic background. After removing the solar system velocity in respect to the background photon reference frame, it shows the universe and its laws are homogeneous and isotropic to 1 part in 10^-5.

This homogeneity and isotropy also carries over to the earlier inflation era, where the best evidence for the high expansion rate is that space is spatially flat, that it is homogeneous and isotropic, and that there are no funny "cosmic strings" or odd "magnetic monopoles" and other possible physics theory defects. The exact inflation era rate (as well as minimal duration) observations are iffy - see the Planck papers - but as I pointed out the 2018 integration has two independent data sets they use which agree in every possible combination.

As I said on inflation, it seems to be the (new) consensus. If you can't accept it, that is fine - though it can make it hard to understand modern cosmology. The "unverified" claim in the article is the last out of 6 possible ways to test it (more or less 6 parameters or outcomes to test it on), and it is uncertain that last test can be done at all. The consensus has moved on - the tests are considered enough: it is verified- I take it - in the eyes of the consensus. That arguably leaves "unverified" as sophistry. If you want to be funny and return some sophistry of your own, you can say that "unverified" is an unverified claim. :-D
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
It is basically very supernumerary since inflation makes the same predictions, and ad hoc to better suit the observations.

The only reason to raise it now is since there is a tension in observations of expansion rate, which roughly divide between methods looking at the local - or youngest - data and global - heavily weighted with oldest - data. And one early suggested, suitable and simple ad hoc for that is that dark energy had a temporary early extra component. But that, and/or the application here, is still very weak in nature.
So I read the paper as I should in the first place, and it is not supernumerary in all senses. It is a suggestion of a possible energy exchange between vacuum and matter sectors in the very early universe, right after baryons have frozen out, so it does not add new fields as much as asks for constraining possible theory effects. And while it is the Hubble rate tension that motivates them, their fitted model predicts the lowest scales of the matter power spectrum (how much baryon matter at different scales, I think) better than LCDM. The lowest scales of the cosmic background spectra has some deviation, i.e. the largest background spatial spots of temperature variation differs from predictions, and if the largest matter "spots" becomes better predicted maybe that helps.

That said, they have to exclude exchange with dark matter, so assume it is a GUT scale remnant and hence already decoupled from the vacuum (too high energy to be easily created by the exchange). That is, the forces (except gravity) are unified at high enough energy and the remnants seem to leave topological defects [ https://books.google.se/books?id=oTzwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA495&lpg=PA495&dq=GUT+energy+scale+remnants&source=bl&ots=Poemv7hrWR&sig=ACfU3U3VvrsgMkMFEg6viSpzmAXlE--KRQ&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMibWP7YXoAhUvposKHQESD68Q6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=GUT energy scale remnants&f=false ]. But GUT would mean protons decay, which is not seen.
 
Torbjorn, some interesting comments you present. Here is my bottom line upfront :) The redshift of light from galaxies, I do like the interpretion as evidence for an expanding universe based upon the *cosmological redshift* interpretation but do not consider the interpretation of the redshifts as secure in testing like the solar parallax measurements since the 1700s for the astronomical unit.

Inflation is very different than the cosmological redshift interpretation of light, it depends upon quantum gravity, inflatons, and inflation field(s) as well as 3D space expanding >> c. The cosmological redshift interpretation of light from galaxies dating back to the days of Edwin Hubble et al, as far as I know has no direct method of verification like lab experiments showing photons redshift as the photons travel through 3D space stretching. The same can be asked about space probes like New Horizons sending information back to Earth over some 47 AU distance. The cosmological redshift interpretation, is an *interpretation of the redshift observed* based upon GR using the principle of equivalence and the favored interpretation as you said is "LCDM cosmology". Unlike the displacement of stars near the Sun during a total solar eclipse that was predicted by Einstein and tested numerous times since 1919 (including August 2017 total solar eclipse across the USA), the redshift of photons passing through 3D space has no direct measurement to show this is true, other than an interpretation using GR to understand the galaxy redshifts documented since Edwin Hubble days. This type of test is circular. When you examine the history of cosmology, George Gamow and Ralph Alpher are the fathers of the Big Bang and predicted a very different temperature to the primordial universe than what was found in the mid-60s, proclaimed as the evidence for George Gamow and Ralph Alpher model. The CMB temperature variations have been reworked in cosmology ever since to explain various problems uncovered and the CMB is the primary testbed vs. other objects in the universe. A serious issue in the Big Bang model that forced the acceptance of inflation cosmology was the horizon problem in the Big Bang model. Special Relativity places a speed limit on the temperature smoothness that could evolve during the expanding universe and what should be observed today. The measured CMBR near 3 Kelvin and the smoothness does not match this (just look at George Gamow work), we should see a very lumpy CMBR today.

So, I consider the solar parallax measurements more verifiable and secure than inflation cosmology and the circular interpretation of the cosmological redshift used today. However, I do like the cosmological interpretation for galaxy redshifts.
 
More likely that a big bang causes the big bang than dark matter that is really just a guess at something not detected.
Or dark matter just a property of the real universe quantum fluctuation and the rest just a product of it.

Final frontier just an illusion in and endless sea of universes following similar self regulated laws.

IMO quantum fluctuation is the universe and big bang just an event inside it.
 
Mar 8, 2020
1
0
10
"Did dark energy cause the Big Bang?" No. If you want to see how the last 50 years or so have been completely wasted when it comes to astrophysics and cosmology start reading less click-bait garbage like this and start reading Peter Woit and his page "Not Even Wrong" along with Sabine Hossenfelder and her page "Backreaction."

Dark energy, dark matter, what the universal constants even are, Hubble constant, string theory, etc. A lot of it is garbage math and garbage theories based on flawed observation methods. Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder do a lot to shed light on how bad the past 50 years has been. Whole generations of scientists are working on what will end up going absolutely nowhere because scientific leadership has chosen protect theories that need to be revisited. The large hadron collider should have made this clear with multiverse, supersymmetry and string theory largely shown to be garbage by the results there - but 90% of the field decided to take result and continue the insanity.

Its time to look at the sacred cows and stop doing this pop-science big-bang-theory-tv-show brian greene/neil tyson/bill nye garbage science and click-bait.
 
"Did dark energy cause the Big Bang?" No. If you want to see how the last 50 years or so have been completely wasted when it comes to astrophysics and cosmology start reading less click-bait garbage like this and start reading Peter Woit and his page "Not Even Wrong" along with Sabine Hossenfelder and her page "Backreaction."

Dark energy, dark matter, what the universal constants even are, Hubble constant, string theory, etc. A lot of it is garbage math and garbage theories based on flawed observation methods. Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder do a lot to shed light on how bad the past 50 years has been. Whole generations of scientists are working on what will end up going absolutely nowhere because scientific leadership has chosen protect theories that need to be revisited. The large hadron collider should have made this clear with multiverse, supersymmetry and string theory largely shown to be garbage by the results there - but 90% of the field decided to take result and continue the insanity.

Its time to look at the sacred cows and stop doing this pop-science big-bang-theory-tv-show brian greene/neil tyson/bill nye garbage science and click-bait.
Going down the wrong path is just that.
If anything stands the test of time then it probably has merit, if not then it's the wrong path.
We really know so little that most paths will be wrong but putting an X on them is the important thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrRaviSharma
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Torbjorn, some interesting comments you present. Here is my bottom line upfront :) The redshift of light from galaxies, I do like the interpretion as evidence for an expanding universe based upon the *cosmological redshift* interpretation but do not consider the interpretation of the redshifts as secure in testing like the solar parallax measurements since the 1700s for the astronomical unit.

Inflation is very different than the cosmological redshift interpretation of light, it depends upon quantum gravity, inflatons, and inflation field(s) as well as 3D space expanding >> c.
Thank you!

As regards redshift - or in general the entire dataset of distance ladders, BAOs and other distance/expansion rate measurements - versus parallax measurements, they are comparable in uncertainty today.

Inflation rely on much the same data, and does not involve quantum gravity but quantum field theory. But so does the LCDM since it uses it not only in the equipment (of course) including computers (of course) but also to verify the standard particle model (such as 3 generations of matter particles).
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
"Did dark energy cause the Big Bang?" No. If you want to see how the last 50 years or so have been completely wasted when it comes to astrophysics and cosmology start reading less click-bait garbage like this and start reading Peter Woit and his page "Not Even Wrong" along with Sabine Hossenfelder and her page "Backreaction."
That shows nothing of the sort since they are fringe, more like the usual 1 % fringe of all areas than the 10 % you claim. If anything it shows that science is not waste - it generates criticism, so can test itself - and that they are apriori less likely to be correct.

What you should do is consider the evidence. Your unreferenced claims makes me think you haven't.

The discussion of where the science edge is, is always interesting but precarious for outsiders. My opinion based on the self biased sample I have read is that multiverse theory is becoming more popular, since it is difficult to avoid it based on inflation - multiverse is natural physics. While supersymmetry and so string theory is less popular due to LHC and ACME negative results - string theory is not natural physics (but useful math). My own opinion is that LCDM inflation shows quantum field theory suffice anyway, everything large scale happens way below Planck scale.
 
The first claim breaks causality, an event cannot produce itself. That we live is evidence that a shortlived - very shortlived - fluctuation is not what we are.
Not our big bang, big bang from another universe causes our big bang. FTL expansion of an external big bang only real way to release a universe size black hole (ours).
Fluctuation is the mechanism for energy to create the matter and the reason for an eventual big bang, simply a product of unbalanced fluctuation at the begging, now balanced energy so no creation or destruction.
Fluctuation a product of void space.

No way round the idea that the universe is fluctuation and everything else just a product of that.

A simple idea from 0 to everything :)
 
Last edited:
FYI. As I dig deeper into quantum cosmology, I find many interesting terms like QFT, inflatons, inflaton field, magnetic monopole, etc. Here is an example.

"Inflation is most often described using quantum field theory (QFT) on a fixed, curved spacetime background. Such a description is valid only if the spatial volume of the region considered is so large that its size and shape moduli behave classically. However, if we trace an inflating universe back to early times, the volume of any comoving region of interest—for example, the present Hubble volume—becomes exponentially small. Hence, quantum fluctuations in the trajectory of the background cannot be neglected at early times. In this paper, we develop a path integral description of a flat, inflating patch (approximated as de Sitter spacetime), treating both the background scale factor and the gravitational wave perturbations quantum mechanically. We find this description fails at small values of the initial scale factor, because two background saddle point solutions contribute to the path integral. This leads to a breakdown of QFT in curved spacetime, causing the fluctuations to be unstable and out of control...Our discussion emphasizes that, even if the inflationary scale is far below the Planck mass, new physics is required to explain the initial quantum state of the universe."", Quantum incompleteness of inflation

A complete database showing all these new physics with interesting fields, particles, and quantum cosmology components needs to be posted online, for all to read and see I feel, not all the math, just the vocabulary terms and concepts :)
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
No way round the idea that the universe is fluctuation
It is one possibility among many.

There are reasons why theoretical physicists wants initial conditions for processes, and especially here, but they are arguable, and especially here.

In general if we would look back we would ask for an added process that sets that condition - that is inherently less likely. And here an infinitely large turtle is in principle infinitely much likelier than an infinite series of turtles all the way down.

The observed slow roll inflation may stand up, and it makes many of the special hypotheses that says you will go to Planck scale - the scale of general relativity fluctuations* - wrong or problematic. It can roll indefinitely - it is in the name - and expands inflating space faster than exciting inflation will remove space. For example, the conditions that say general relativity will break do not apply.

On some points you raised:

- The universe is not a black hole [ https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole ]. It is expanding, not collapsing. And it has no boundary such as the Schwarzschild radius. The basic thing these two systems have in common is that they share the condition that the distant universe is flat. See the link why that - when quantified - leads to confusion by many.

- A hot big bang cannot produce another hot big bang either. Instead some similar physics is possible, a big bang universe with a certain vacuum state - dark energy - can theoretically tunnel to a lower energy state [Hawking et al]. However, this is theoretic and the whole point with a big bang is that it goes ta the vacuum state so we are in a pretty low energy state already. In fact 10^-120 times lower than a naive estimate would say.

* Fluctuations that are not perturbative - basically, linear - that is. Large, uneven masses will generate gravitational waves by perturbation as they move, at much lower energies.
 
Last edited:
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
FYI. As I dig deeper into quantum cosmology, I find many interesting terms like QFT, inflatons, inflaton field, magnetic monopole, etc. Here is an example.



"Inflation is most often described using quantum field theory (QFT) on a fixed, curved spacetime background. Such a description is valid only if the spatial volume of the region considered is so large that its size and shape moduli behave classically. However, if we trace an inflating universe back to early times, the volume of any comoving region of interest—for example, the present Hubble volume—becomes exponentially small. Hence, quantum fluctuations in the trajectory of the background cannot be neglected at early times. In this paper, we develop a path integral description of a flat, inflating patch (approximated as de Sitter spacetime), treating both the background scale factor and the gravitational wave perturbations quantum mechanically. We find this description fails at small values of the initial scale factor, because two background saddle point solutions contribute to the path integral. This leads to a breakdown of QFT in curved spacetime, causing the fluctuations to be unstable and out of control...Our discussion emphasizes that, even if the inflationary scale is far below the Planck mass, new physics is required to explain the initial quantum state of the universe."", Quantum incompleteness of inflation



A complete database showing all these new physics with interesting fields, particles, and quantum cosmology components needs to be posted online, for all to read and see I feel, not all the math, just the vocabulary terms and concepts :)
Fun! FWIW, I agree on the database, but no such will be complete/completely satisfying for every user, nor will a vocabulary be rigid and consistent since both language and science evolve. At the same time we are discussing some recent results that has barely settled. I am sure there are popular science resources that are easier to digest, but - with the caveats that peeer review is fallible and scholars can have narrow interests - Scholarpedia comes to mind [ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page ]. If you haven't heard of it, maybe that is a tip. I haven't had time to peruse it much, just when something fits. It has a very nice article on the long term stability of the solar system, by the way.

"quantum cosmology", "QFT, inflatons, inflaton field, magnetic monopole".

Speaking of Scholarpedia, if you want a complete quantum cosmology you may want to look at how linearized gravity can be quantized [ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Quantum_gravity_as_a_low_energy_effective_field_theory ]. It may or may not break down in nature - the whole idea of "effective" quantum field theory is that it will under some conditions - but as I just said in another comment: An infinitely large turtle is in principle infinitely much likelier than an infinite series of turtles all the way down* (or up, in energy scale). Else people tend to think of either semiclassical cosmology - keeping general relativity classical - or something like string theory.

Not being a theoretical physicist it is hard to filter out the stuff one shouldn't worry about. My filter need not apply to you, but in case you wonder how I look at it:

- Magnetic monopoles have never been observed, and they arise in theories that are arguable less likely today. "Modern interest in the concept stems from particle theories, notably the grand unified and superstring theories, which predict their existence.[3][4]" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole ] GUT implies in general that protons decays, but we do not see that. And string/superstring theory imply natural WIMPs that LHC and ACME did not see.

- Quantum field theory, obviously as it is "simply" the relativistic version of quantum mechanics, and the inflation field has both been observed on the other hand. For example. Planck especially sees inflation and the imprint of the field fluctuations that eventually resulted in cosmic background areal spots, spot orientation polarization and cosmic filaments. (The latter which other sky surveys also see.)

- The inflatons were diluted during inflation, and would have decayed right after the field did anyway, and I don't think we can reach those energies in accelerators in near term (or ever). If inflation is eternal, the inflationary field was effectively emptied out of inflatons - its temperature was effectively cooled to 0 K. (Which will take infinite dilution/adiabatic cooling time, but here we may have infinities and eat them too.) And since we don't see inflatons in any case I think the original idea became that these particles were unstable and decayed. The field potential Planck sees looks Higgs like, so presumably any particles during inflation would not have their vacuum state mass like Higgs eventually got - which is why any of them would decay, AFAIU, precisely compliant with the original idea. Maybe it isn't important, there are lots of field excitations that physicists likes to kick around (say, "virtual particles" that have imaginary mass if you treat them like particles and try to derive mass - they are non-resonant excitations, not resonant excitations like bona fide particles).

"Quantum incompleteness of inflation".

Turok is the last author, so his interest would be to do away with inflation so he can make his bouncing universes more appetizing. This is not my specialty, but from the abstract I would deem that they approximate a flat, inflating patch as a de Sitter spacetime and then say something about de Sitter spacetime. Not really convincing.

Here is the fun in this (but maybe it is me just being sophistic): The topology of a de Sitter space time has a bottleneck as in a conic section if you glue two copies together in the narrow end at the Planck scale, to get a smooth topology to study. So of course you run into problems if you go to such scale sizes in a universe that started out that way (at the bottleneck). But we know that the topology of spacetime can be flat if we want to consider a non-bouncing universe. So we can approximate Turok's de Sitter universe with a flat space and that leads to a breakdown of bouncing universe physics in as much as it relies on de Sitter space and that bottleneck and its problems. In such a case, to quote the paper, "new physics is required", preferably something that works in flat space. LCDM cosmology comes to mind.

That said, it is nice to discuss new stuff. But since I did not read Turok et al I was a bit lazy on my part. I hope you have non-lazy fun in your further digging!

* If you take the analogy to biology, it breaks. It works out as equally easy on cell level, exponential growth of population is exponential growth in mass, so it doesn't matter if you build a single turtle or a chain of equal massed ones. Analogies are still analogies, I guess.
 
Last edited:
It is one possibility among many.

There are reasons why theoretical physicists wants initial conditions for processes, and especially here, but they are arguable, and especially here.

In general if we would look back we would ask for an added process that sets that condition - that is inherently less likely. And here an infinitely large turtle is in principle infinitely much likelier than an infinite series of turtles all the way down.

The observed slow roll inflation may stand up, and it makes many of the special hypotheses that says you will go to Planck scale - the scale of general relativity fluctuations* - wrong or problematic. It can roll indefinitely - it is in the name - and expands inflating space faster than exciting inflation will remove space. For example, the conditions that say general relativity will break do not apply.

On some points you raised:

- The universe is not a black hole [ https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole ]. It is expanding, not collapsing. And it has no boundary such as the Schwarzschild radius. The basic thing these two systems have in common is that they share the condition that the distant universe is flat. See the link why that - when quantified - leads to confusion by many.

- A hot big bang cannot produce another hot big bang either. Instead some similar physics is possible, a big bang universe with a certain vacuum state - dark energy - can theoretically tunnel to a lower energy state [Hawking et al]. However, this is theoretic and the whole point with a big bang is that it goes ta the vacuum state so we are in a pretty low energy state already. In fact 10^-120 times lower than a naive estimate would say.

* Fluctuations that are not perturbative - basically, linear - that is. Large, uneven masses will generate gravitational waves by perturbation as they move, at much lower energies.
Just a very simple way to go from nothing to everything.
That also means that before the first big bang anywhere it was all fluctuation so expansion of a big bang is an illusion of everything or an event inside it.
Just expansion of the big bang event in a foggy bubble of fluctuation.

I have a feeling that is the way it since creating nothing is very difficult with fluctuation trying to fill nothing ASAP.
Could be just a property of nothing spawns fluctuation, a potential energy of nothing.

I think the common thought of gravity is wrong.
Gravity IMO is just compression or has no interaction with fluctuation or travels in the nothing between fluctuation.
Instant travel or just compression passing through nothing makes gravity a simple beast.

SPAD with gravity entanglement very simple solution.
SPAD as particle entanglement very difficult.

Black hole infinite mass/gravity+ singularities
Or simple compression of an area self regulated size by lack of activity (no fluctuation/time).

I love simple solutions :)
 
Fun! FWIW, I agree on the database, but no such will be complete/completely satisfying for every user, nor will a vocabulary be rigid and consistent since both language and science evolve. At the same time we are discussing some recent results that has barely settled. I am sure there are popular science resources that are easier to digest, but - with the caveats that peeer review is fallible and scholars can have narrow interests - Scholarpedia comes to mind [ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page ]. If you haven't heard of it, maybe that is a tip. I haven't had time to peruse it much, just when something fits. It has a very nice article on the long term stability of the solar system, by the way.

"quantum cosmology", "QFT, inflatons, inflaton field, magnetic monopole".

Speaking of Scholarpedia, if you want a complete quantum cosmology you may want to look at how linearized gravity can be quantized [ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Quantum_gravity_as_a_low_energy_effective_field_theory ]. It may or may not break down in nature - the whole idea of "effective" quantum field theory is that it will under some conditions - but as I just said in another comment: An infinitely large turtle is in principle infinitely much likelier than an infinite series of turtles all the way down* (or up, in energy scale). Else people tend to think of either semiclassical cosmology - keeping general relativity classical - or something like string theory.

Not being a theoretical physicist it is hard to filter out the stuff one shouldn't worry about. My filter need not apply to you, but in case you wonder how I look at it:

- Magnetic monopoles have never been observed, and they arise in theories that are arguable less likely today. "Modern interest in the concept stems from particle theories, notably the grand unified and superstring theories, which predict their existence.[3][4]" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole ] GUT implies in general that protons decays, but we do not see that. And string/superstring theory imply natural WIMPs that LHC and ACME did not see.

- Quantum field theory, obviously as it is "simply" the relativistic version of quantum mechanics, and the inflation field has both been observed on the other hand. For example. Planck especially sees inflation and the imprint of the field fluctuations that eventually resulted in cosmic background areal spots, spot orientation polarization and cosmic filaments. (The latter which other sky surveys also see.)

- The inflatons were diluted during inflation, and would have decayed right after the field did anyway, and I don't think we can reach those energies in accelerators in near term (or ever). If inflation is eternal, the inflationary field was effectively emptied out of inflatons - its temperature was effectively cooled to 0 K. (Which will take infinite dilution/adiabatic cooling time, but here we may have infinities and eat them too.) And since we don't see inflatons in any case I think the original idea became that these particles were unstable and decayed. The field potential Planck sees looks Higgs like, so presumably any particles during inflation would not have their vacuum state mass like Higgs eventually got - which is why any of them would decay, AFAIU, precisely compliant with the original idea. Maybe it isn't important, there are lots of field excitations that physicists likes to kick around (say, "virtual particles" that have imaginary mass if you treat them like particles and try to derive mass - they are non-resonant excitations, not resonant excitations like bona fide particles).

"Quantum incompleteness of inflation".

Turok is the last author, so his interest would be to do away with inflation so he can make his bouncing universes more appetizing. This is not my specialty, but from the abstract I would deem that they approximate a flat, inflating patch as a de Sitter spacetime and then say something about de Sitter spacetime. Not really convincing.

Here is the fun in this (but maybe it is me just being sophistic): The topology of a de Sitter space time has a bottleneck as in a conic section if you glue two copies together in the narrow end at the Planck scale, to get a smooth topology to study. So of course you run into problems if you go to such scale sizes in a universe that started out that way (at the bottleneck). But we know that the topology of spacetime can be flat if we want to consider a non-bouncing universe. So we can approximate Turok's de Sitter universe with a flat space and that leads to a breakdown of bouncing universe physics in as much as it relies on de Sitter space and that bottleneck and its problems. In such a case, to quote the paper, "new physics is required", preferably something that works in flat space. LCDM cosmology comes to mind.

That said, it is nice to discuss new stuff. But since I did not read Turok et al I was a bit lazy on my part. I hope you have non-lazy fun in your further digging!

* If you take the analogy to biology, it breaks. It works out as equally easy on cell level, exponential growth of population is exponential growth in mass, so it doesn't matter if you build a single turtle or a chain of equal massed ones. Analogies are still analogies, I guess.
I think that hurt my brain LOL
I think the real solutions to everything will be simple nature with simple self regulated systems.
Once you add a long line of math to any idea it IMO will lead you away from the truth or reality of the universe/universes.

Fit a few things like gravity, light speed and time into a simple calculation and if it all check out without a math crutch then it's close.

JMO
 
Jan 4, 2020
217
95
1,660
Just a very simple way to go from nothing to everything.

That also means that before the first big bang anywhere it was all fluctuation so expansion of a big bang is an illusion of everything or an event inside it.

Just expansion of the big bang event in a foggy bubble of fluctuation.



I have a feeling that is the way it since creating nothing is very difficult with fluctuation trying to fill nothing ASAP.

Could be just a property of nothing spawns fluctuation, a potential energy of nothing.



I think the common thought of gravity is wrong.

Gravity IMO is just compression or has no interaction with fluctuation or travels in the nothing between fluctuation.

Instant travel or just compression passing through nothing makes gravity a simple beast.



SPAD with gravity entanglement very simple solution.

SPAD as particle entanglement very difficult.



Black hole infinite mass/gravity+ singularities

Or simple compression of an area self regulated size by lack of activity (no fluctuation/time).



I love simple solutions :)
Well, as long as we agree it is not the only alternative.

But as I implied earlier, the idea of "nothing" - which originates in simplistic thinking of disappeared objects perhaps,the memory of the discovery of peekaboo in children, and in any case is a religious meme - makes little sense. Since all we know when we look back is "something", it is an extraordinary claim that would need extraordinary evidence. Not exactly "simple", as you suggest, but very, very hard. Get back to me when you have the extraordinary evidence that suggests it.

This applies also to your opinion that "common thought of gravity is wrong". Here you would need to show the peer reviewed quantification that show you have a superior theory that describes all that general relativity describes, but better. Mind that the general relativistic LCDM cosmology is the best decscription we have seen so far. And also mind that competing theories are the ones that have failed miserably, nearly all of them, due to our observations of the neutron star binary merger:

"New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity. " [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ . ]
 
Well, as long as we agree it is not the only alternative.

But as I implied earlier, the idea of "nothing" - which originates in simplistic thinking of disappeared objects perhaps,the memory of the discovery of peekaboo in children, and in any case is a religious meme - makes little sense. Since all we know when we look back is "something", it is an extraordinary claim that would need extraordinary evidence. Not exactly "simple", as you suggest, but very, very hard. Get back to me when you have the extraordinary evidence that suggests it.

This applies also to your opinion that "common thought of gravity is wrong". Here you would need to show the peer reviewed quantification that show you have a superior theory that describes all that general relativity describes, but better. Mind that the general relativistic LCDM cosmology is the best decscription we have seen so far. And also mind that competing theories are the ones that have failed miserably, nearly all of them, due to our observations of the neutron star binary merger:

"New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity. " [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ . ]
Oh i agree no guarantee my idea will be right.
Just an idea :)

A void in the beginning needs no reason, just was nothing but empty space.
That i think is the answer to everything.
A property of nothing that has potential energy in just occupying space.
That potential energy number can be tiny and still create everything because nothing took up everywhere forever.

An interesting read is creating nothing, science team did and got some pretty odd results of nothings properties and fluctuation persistence in trying to consume nothing asap.
Or just maybe they got the idea wrong and nothings PE produced fluctuation :)

Gravity thinking pretty easy to see is wrong with infinite energy and mass that don't show anywhere in the universe.
If it was a real property of a black holes gravity then infinite would consume everything instantly.
I'm writing so it must be wrong.
If that is wrong them a singularity is also wrong for the same reason.

Proof of the idea of a very simple reason for everything and simple reasons for actions in a universe.
Would have to bend a lot of fixed minds for that.

Math for it is Void=Potential (E )=Fluctuation(PE)
Everything else in the universe just dependent or product of fluctuations property.
Light speed,gravity,duality,space,time all break down to simple math of fluctuations property of nothingness and somethingness.
Matter just the unbalance (pe) of fluctuation when it all started as nothing.
And all self regulated laws.

IE.. (C speed)=max wave point of fluctuation.
Duality of (L) one traveling at wave point the other in the void between the wave points of fluctuation.

Fun to think how simple it could all be :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts