The Big Bang and Inflation

Mar 17, 2020
24
13
515
Here is my take on how it all started:

At T (time) = 0, the Big Bang started. There was a singularity that was actually a finite ball of energy (much physically smaller than a photon, axion, etc.). This "entity" shall I call it, contained a lot of energy (but not infinite). Lets call it "EU(p)" for potential energy in the universe. After 14 billion years, approximately, EU(p) became EU(k) which stands for kinetic energy in the universe. So today, EU(k) = M *c(squared) or all of the matter in our current universe + the dark matter and dark energy (which is currently unaccounted for).

Remember that The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. So I allowing for the total energy in the universe to remain the same at all times thus not violating any of the laws of physics.

Lets backtrack. Inflation started immediately after the Big Bang and let's say it lasted for 1 * 10 (-32 power) second. So how did the universe expand so quickly? Let's assume the heat of the big bang was over a very large number say 100 trillion degrees Centigrade. At that temperature, all energy was in a pure state where there was no matter and was able to expand "spacetime" for an undetermined period where time itself moved only for 1*10 (-32 power) second.

The energy was expanding at a speed of c - squared or a multiple of the speed of light squared. Remember, there is no known limit on the speed of space expanding - just the speed of light through space (which is the same in all points of the universe). The energy released during the Big Bang was able to "warp" or expand the newly formed space for a period of "spacetime" and not actual T(time). This spacetime could be any number.

Current UFO sightings report objects moving at very unusual speeds very quickly and almost instantly accelerate and change directions without any sound. The only way that can happen is that the pilots are using an exotic (negative) energy source that can move the objects or spaceship through spacetime and not through the atmosphere or space. If such spaceships have a power source for those feats, surely the Big Bang itself should easily accomplish the same feat with energy much greater (say over 100 trillion degrees Centigrade).

Again, I believe that the laws of physics (at least in our current universe) were never violated even right after the Big Bang. Logically, this makes sense to me and that's how the current universe and its rules are today.

I am preparing a few new similar articles on topics such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Stay tuned. Thank you all for reading my theory. Your comments will be certainly appreciated.

Sincerely,
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,282
913
3,560
I did some checking. In 1948, there was a completely different equation of state for the origin of the universe then found in cosmology today so different versions of the Big Bang have come and gone it seems. Universe Creates All Elements in the Periodic Table in 10 Minutes

“Nineteen years after Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the galaxies seem to be running away from one another at fabulously high speeds, the picture presented by the expanding universe theory—which assumes that in its original state all matter was squeezed together in one solid mass of extremely high density and temperature—gives us the right conditions for building up all the known elements in the periodic system. According to calculations, the formation of elements must have started five minutes after the maximum compression of the universe. It was fully accomplished, in all essentials, about 10 minutes later.”

—Scientific American, July 1948

Who showed that the 1948 reports were wrong?
 
Feb 7, 2020
109
24
585
theories keep going wrong ... no bad proposition no betterment on it :) relatively, nothing is good or bad ... over time, we refine our understanding :) when you look back that was a valuable start ...
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Just a hunch or a feeling (neither of which go well with science = luck is OK though) but I cannot see larger atoms being 'built' with all that jumping around and banging together going on.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
You may know my stance on the BB. Would you like to try your math on that? Instead of a straight line from expansion
(?inflation?) take a smoothed conic section to converge gradually through the BB and mirror image out the other side.
Then for time - it ticks more slowly through restriction.
Maybe it is a black hole and you approach the narrowest part infinitely slowly. Maybe it erupts into the other side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
You may know my stance on the BB. Would you like to try your math on that? Instead of a straight line from expansion
(?inflation?) take a smoothed conic section to converge gradually through the BB and mirror image out the other side.
Then for time - it ticks more slowly through restriction.
Maybe it is a black hole and you approach the narrowest part infinitely slowly. Maybe it erupts into the other side.
I partly mostly agree with your idea but not the wording. Why 'other side' and not just 'before and after'. You make it sound like it's in another dimension or something. I think it's all happening in the same space without any sides to it. Why not just call it straight forward collapse and rebound. My ideas are similar to yours in that some form of recycling is better than something from nothing theories. Indeed there are still too many top scientists who still say the big bang is the beginning of everything, including space and time. As for time, I think you might know my catchphrase on that - "there's no such thing as time there's only motion".

My other main difference, is that I think because the matter (probably lots of small black holes by this time) is not coming in all at once in the collapse, and can't, therefore, rebound immediately, it must first accumulate in a black hole and then go bang afterwards when the black hole gets big enough. What do you think about that? (I'm going to be arrogant here, and call it 'Franks's Black Hole Critical Mass', you saw it here first:)) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
That sentence has just caught my attention. If it's going in infinitely slowly then the whole process will take an infinite amount of time to happen wont it?
Yes, of course you are correct. This is another example of how we (humans) tie ourselves up using words we don't understand. Infinity, I mean, and its derivatives - infinite, and so on - no matter, I treat these as separate cases (black hole infinite and rush into mirror image).
In my defence, Guv, I did post the following:
"Maybe it is a black hole and you approach the narrowest part infinitely slowly. Maybe it erupts into the other side."
I should have made it clear that these are two different cases.

Cat
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
I partly mostly agree with your idea but not the wording. Why 'other side' and not just 'before and after'. You make it sound like it's in another dimension or something. I think it's all happening in the same space without any sides to it. Why not just call it straight forward collapse and rebound. My ideas are similar to yours in that some form of recycling is better than something from nothing theories. Indeed there are still too many top scientists who still say the big bang is the beginning of everything, including space and time. As for time, I think you might know my catchphrase on that - "there's no such thing as time there's only motion".

My other main difference, is that I think because the matter (probably lots of small black holes by this time) is not coming in all at once in the collapse, and can't, therefore, rebound immediately, it must first accumulate in a black hole and then go bang afterwards when the black hole gets big enough. What do you think about that? (I'm going to be arrogant here, and call it 'Franks's Black Hole Critical Mass', you saw it here first:)) :)
Yes. I think there is a lot in common there. Back to semantics and Velikovski.
"You make it sound like it's in another dimension or something"
Perhaps it is, or something :)
"Why not just call it straight forward collapse and rebound."
It erupts to the other side in spacetime, the collapse and rebound both 'exist' simultaneously.
As for time - there we go, talking about things we don't understand again. The map is not the territory.
"What do you think about that?"
Well, I am still trying to get my head round the last paragraph, but it seems all right by me. Why not have a lot of small black holes, or even a lot of (any) black holes?

Cat
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
May 18, 2020
3
4
15
Why must we assume that any theory is correct. I notice that most of you do think outside of the box but when it comes to time it seems everyone is controlled by the "space/time" continuum theory. Time in the way most people think of it is a human construct that may have no meaning in the rest of the universe. I believe that when we stop using time in this sense, our understanding may increase on how and why the universe expands continuously. There may be hundreds of millions of inhabited planets where a time construct has been created to place constraints on the way we live. There also may be millions of inhabited planets where time is totally different from ours. In fact, it may be so different that there never was a big bang. Perhaps the universe has always existed and since there is no outer boundary of the universe, it keeps trying to expand to it's maximum. Maybe it will never be able to. I think some of you are looking at black holes in the same manner that I do . . . they are just large recycling centers. I have just joined your group and will be reading much more of what has previously been posted and try to study some of the concepts that you all have shared. I hope to be able to contribute regularly.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Firstly, welcome to our Forum. Especially so, with such an interesting 'maiden speech'.

For the benefit of our US members, if you do not have this expression, it is used in our Parliament when a new MP makes his first speech.


I think time deserves a new thread. We don't want to sidetrack this one. I have started one named Time for Time and I would hope to see you there soon.
 
May 18, 2020
3
4
15
Firstly, welcome to our Forum. Especially so, with such an interesting 'maiden speech'.

For the benefit of our US members, if you do not have this expression, it is used in our Parliament when a new MP makes his first speech.


I think time deserves a new thread. We don't want to sidetrack this one. I have started one named Time for Time and I would hope to see you there soon.
Catastrophe
Thank you for the welcome and I will certainly check out your new thread Time for Time. I will stay on point on this thread should I make more posts. I didn't realize this was an international forum but am pleased to learn that it is. Thanks again,
Mitchell
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Feb 8, 2021
58
24
35
Here is my take on how it all started:

At T (time) = 0, the Big Bang started. There was a singularity that was actually a finite ball of energy (much physically smaller than a photon, axion, etc.). This "entity" shall I call it, contained a lot of energy (but not infinite). Lets call it "EU(p)" for potential energy in the universe. After 14 billion years, approximately, EU(p) became EU(k) which stands for kinetic energy in the universe. So today, EU(k) = M *c(squared) or all of the matter in our current universe + the dark matter and dark energy (which is currently unaccounted for).

Remember that The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. So I allowing for the total energy in the universe to remain the same at all times thus not violating any of the laws of physics.

Lets backtrack. Inflation started immediately after the Big Bang and let's say it lasted for 1 * 10 (-32 power) second. So how did the universe expand so quickly? Let's assume the heat of the big bang was over a very large number say 100 trillion degrees Centigrade. At that temperature, all energy was in a pure state where there was no matter and was able to expand "spacetime" for an undetermined period where time itself moved only for 1*10 (-32 power) second.

The energy was expanding at a speed of c - squared or a multiple of the speed of light squared. Remember, there is no known limit on the speed of space expanding - just the speed of light through space (which is the same in all points of the universe). The energy released during the Big Bang was able to "warp" or expand the newly formed space for a period of "spacetime" and not actual T(time). This spacetime could be any number.

Current UFO sightings report objects moving at very unusual speeds very quickly and almost instantly accelerate and change directions without any sound. The only way that can happen is that the pilots are using an exotic (negative) energy source that can move the objects or spaceship through spacetime and not through the atmosphere or space. If such spaceships have a power source for those feats, surely the Big Bang itself should easily accomplish the same feat with energy much greater (say over 100 trillion degrees Centigrade).

Again, I believe that the laws of physics (at least in our current universe) were never violated even right after the Big Bang. Logically, this makes sense to me and that's how the current universe and its rules are today.

I am preparing a few new similar articles on topics such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Stay tuned. Thank you all for reading my theory. Your comments will be certainly appreciated.

Sincerely,
I don't believe inflation-FTLS-came out of an explosion-slower than lights speed...
here's the way our universe began...In a former universe a BH reached its density maximum, by eating a galaxy cluster or two, and this BH collapses-"more"-and rips a hole in spacetime then this inflates. Inflation is a result of a BH whose energy/density has reached critical mass and because a BH can trap lights speed it is FTLS or its energy is greater and would therefore expand FTLS if the contractive force was removed...
So first there is Inflation and this freezes for just a moment in the outer edges, but the rest that doesn't freeze crashes right through it-basically "never" touching it because it is FTLS-and this creates the BB, and at the same time the former universe that we slipped out of snaps shut-in a Big Snap-, which causes a scalar wave passing back and forth through the two poles of the BB BS(pun intended)...
Now our visible universe is expanding slower within the Inflation -that doesn't end-and this drag from the density difference creates spin, which creates mass, form, memory, time, entanglement and consciousness.
I call this Tension Dark Energy, and all particles with mass are entangled and are conscious...at the most basic level, because energy that" waves" like EM can express either state equally which is a result of non-spin and lack therefore of form and memory/consciousness.
 
May 13, 2021
9
0
10
But we don't know what To is To basically should be -0 Kelvins, not even the Big-Bang singularity can reach that. In fact Big-Bang's singularity it's somewhere around the -0 Kelvins, (The unreachable hottest temperature, beyond more than twice the Plank temperature).
 
Aug 14, 2020
555
103
1,060
I did some checking. In 1948, there was a completely different equation of state for the origin of the universe then found in cosmology today so different versions of the Big Bang have come and gone it seems. Universe Creates All Elements in the Periodic Table in 10 Minutes

“Nineteen years after Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the galaxies seem to be running away from one another at fabulously high speeds, the picture presented by the expanding universe theory—which assumes that in its original state all matter was squeezed together in one solid mass of extremely high density and temperature—gives us the right conditions for building up all the known elements in the periodic system. According to calculations, the formation of elements must have started five minutes after the maximum compression of the universe. It was fully accomplished, in all essentials, about 10 minutes later.”

—Scientific American, July 1948

Who showed that the 1948 reports were wrong?
What laws and physics came before your 'Creation' beginning and formation of.... everything out of nowhere (Gk. ou topos: no place / Utopia: Nowhereland). Oh! Maybe just Magic Land... magical laws and physics! A magic "Creation". Something from nothing, not even quantum field fluctuations since there were no laws, no physics, no blueprints, whatever: No anything as we know even minimally things to be now.. Getting something for nothing. A point or ball relative to what? AE said it takes three dimensions to describe a point. Only thing is there was no three dimensions, no such thing as dimensionality to begin with, to describe your pre-Creation point or ball. Oh, that's right, there was no such thing as pre-Creation!!! Only a single-sided 2-dimensional frame of time. "Nothing" had existed timelessly (forever) until suddenly... bam, out of nowhere, something (laws, physics, microverse, macroverse,all of it ready, set, go!).

Even most physicists duck and cringe if ask where it came from. No size, since size did not exist... no finite, no infinite, no finite nor infinite, thus no '0', much less '1'. No four forces... nothing. No forces! Could only be magic. Even magic needs a magician, though. Gandalf the Grey?

How about, "The beginning and end is 'now'"! Always 'now'.... Pffft!
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS