What force drove inflation

[newtonian]

One popular version of inflation theory has our universe expanding shortly after the big bang faster than light (FTL).<br /><br />What force drove this inflation?<br /><br />How much faster than light did it reach?<br /><br />And, in view of the current acceleration of expansion - could this also achieve FTL - or may it have done so already beyond (since) our visibility horizon?<br /><br />Is their an upper limit to acceleration "speed" such as 10 times the speed of light, or some other math limit?

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">What force drove inflation?</font><br /><br />God attacked Allah, driving up prices everywhere.

 

[newtonian]

Igorsboss - Tangent!<br /><br />Those who worship according to the Koran consider Allah to be God - and allah means Lord, and God is indeed Lord. Therefpre your post makes no sense. <br /><br />It would also likely be offensive to Moslems, to Islam - and I would think twice about offending those of that faith - especially in view of militant extremists who might get wind of it.<br /><br />In other words I suggest you edit your post.<br /><br />On thread theme, I do believe God created the heavens (Genesis 1:1), and Isaiah 40:22 indicates God is stetching out the heavens like a fine gauze, and Isaiah 40:26 links God's dynamic energy, in the Hebrew plural, to the existence of stars.<br /><br />Hence my question - exactly what form of energy drove inflation?

 

[newtonian]

ranur - Actually, the overall rate of expansion is extremely fine tuned to allow stars and life to exist.<br /><br />A very slilght proportion faster at the initial expansion and the stars could not have formed.<br /><br />A very slight proportion slower and the universe would have collapsed by now.<br /><br />But how was this done? To my knowledge the 4 forces of physics, while obviously factors in the initial expansion, do not fully explain the rate of expansion.<br /><br />Was there some interaction (or lack thereof) of the standard 4 forces (weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, gravityi) that drove inflation?<br /><br />Or was some other forces or combination (interaction, etc.) of forces involved - as, for example, dark energy has been proposed to explain more recent acceleration of expansion?<br /> <br />One should not ignore quantum effects, btw.

 

[eric2006]

Maybe when the Big Bang occurred, a Plasma Ball of radiant energy was created. If the space in the vicinity of the Plasma Ball were a void, the radial velocity of the radiant energy would have been either zero or infinite, and the Ball would have disappeared immediately. There would have been no universe. It is the finite limiting velocity of light that has made the universe possible.

 

[newtonian]

ranur - Fine tuning is not the figment of the imagination of scientists like astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell!<br /><br />Our lack of understanding the relationship of contracting and expanding forces - the whole purpose of my question - does not change the fact that the universe's expansion rate is fine tuned. <br /><br />It simply shows that the previous understandinig that it was simply gravity involved may be wrong - it is likely far more complex than that.<br /><br />Dark energy - still a theory btw - certainly complicates the fine tuning, but it does not change the following scientific observation:<br /><br />. “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.” - "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?", 1998, page 14 - quoting Astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell.<br /><br />If one of the inflation models is true, which it may well be, this simply explains in part how the expansion rate was fine tuned.<br /><br />My question, thread theme, involves how inflation was caused in the first place - since we cannot understand how the expansion rate ended up so close to omega=1 (the critical point between eternal expansion and ultimate collapse) without understandind what force(s) drove inflation!

 

[eric2006]

"My question, thread theme, involves how inflation was caused in the first place - since we cannot understand how the expansion rate ended up so close to omega=1 (the critical point between eternal expansion and ultimate collapse) without understandind what force(s) drove inflation!"<br /><br />If we assume that there is a well-defined instant at which the Big Bang singularity occurred, that "event" cannot have a prior cause because there simply did not exist any instants before it. This is just rationalizing I know. I think it is currently beyond the scope of human understanding for the time being. What do you believe the cause to be Newtonian? My difficulty with the FTL theory: <br />Wouldn't FTL cause time reversal? So how can a universe expand if it's time is flowing backwards?? Wouldn't there have to be some type of time dilation going on in that situation?

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - The cause was likely input of energy, probably plural forms. <br /><br />I.e. the singularity (or tiny start slightly larger than a singularity) somehow was not a closed system (thermodynamically speaking, not expansion rate) at the origin.<br /><br />Compare the laws of themodynamics - or simply Newton's laws of motion [e.g.: every action is accompanied by an equal but opposite reaction], complicated by Einstein's complex additions, most notably e=mc^2.<br /><br />Your post implies that our universe's space time is the only form of time that exists. <br /><br />This would then imply our universe is the only universe that exists.<br /><br />What you are referring to as time is really our universe specific space-time which began at the origin of our universe.<br /><br />There are two laws which scientists have observed which imply the existence of primordial time before our universe specific space time was created:<br /><br />1. Causality - that all occurences proceed according to cause and effect. <br /><br />However, cause and effect cannot proceed without time.<br /><br />My definition of time: the medium through which cause and effect flow.<br /><br />2. The law of conservation of matter and energy. This law is proven by changes over time, notably the conversion of matter into energy and the conversion of energy into matter according to the formula e=mc^2.<br /><br />The formula e=mc^2 becomes meaningless without time, as c is dependent on time. [c is the speed of light, and speed is distance traveled during time].<br /><br />In short, primordial time pre-existed our universe specific space-time.<br /><br />In questioning origins, as I am on this thread, I am not questioning the validity of the following simple statement:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:1) . . .In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . .<br /><br />Rather, I am questioning HOW God created the heavens.<br /><br />If I knew for sure what force(s) drove inflation, I would not be asking the question!

 

[eric2006]

"My definition of time: the medium through which cause and effect flow. "<br /><br />That is a very good analogy. But what properties does this medium possess? Would this not be like trying to understand the properties of space as being something in itself other than a void? This just becomes another "ether" and very hard to understand. Thus making it impossible to make any scientific inquiries into it.<br /><br />"In short, primordial time pre-existed our universe specific space-time"<br /><br />If primordial time existed what characteristics did this medium possess? How do we know it to be so and what shall we compare it with for the sake of human understanding? Mathematics can make anything possible but not practical.<br /><br />"However, cause and effect cannot proceed without time. "<br /><br />So primordial time should also be a medium for cause and effect. Then this may possibly open up a completely different law of physics independent and possibly very different from our own. Maybe so different that it allowed for all the correct variables to exist to allow for the expansion of a singularity. Any thoughts?<br />

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - Time is still be studied by scientists - and we are still learning.<br /><br />In the Bible God is spoken of as dwelling in another heavens (universe) beyond both our heaven and the heaven of the heavens (see 1 Kings 8:27 and context).<br /><br />God also has a much different concept of time than we do, e.g.:<br /><br />(Psalm 90:4) 4 For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night. . .<br /><br />(2 Peter 3:8) . . .However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.. . .<br /><br />This is why God's days of creation (Genesis 1) were not 24 hours but much longer, they were days according to God's concept of time.<br /><br />Theoretical physicists who try to hypothesize other universes note that they may have different properties and laws of physics.<br /><br />That is a reasonable expectation supported by Scripture - though we really do need to scientifically observe this to pin it down.<br /><br />to be continued - I need to work!

 

[newtonian]

ranur - Blowing bubbles - hmmm. I know that there are bubbles and voids observed in space - but this is not what you are describing.<br /><br />A few comments:<br /><br />1. Concerning the expanding visibility horizon "approx. 14 billion LY" (light years). This horizon is, of course, not the actual edge of the universe.<br /><br />The expanding visibility horizon is due simply to the speed of light, not the expansion of the universe.<br /><br />That being said, I agree that the universe is expanding and will consider your model of the cause coming from "inside out."<br /><br />I.e. I will simply translate "horizon" as the edge or limits of the expansion of our universe.<br /><br />Is that what you meant?<br /><br />2. Space itself has gravity? An intriguing idea - has this been measured (as in the slowing of the space probes)? I know space has energy, in view of virtual particles appearing and disappearing and the law of conservation of matter and energy - as in quantum effects.<br /><br />You say space acts as gravity, but you do not actually describe how this is happenning - is that for a future post?<br /><br />3. Particles blowing bubbles. Are you trying to describe how dark energy may be being generated?<br /><br />4. These bubbles do not directly interact with particles with mass. That fits dark energy - at least we do not observe said interaction.<br /><br />But then you say that the bubbles interact with each other, that the bubbles are accelerated, much like normal pushing.<br /><br />In that case, we should observe the effect.<br /><br />We do not seem to observe said effect locally - but we do observe the effect on a grand scale.<br /><br />That is why dark energy is being proposed.<br /><br />In short - are you attempting to model dark energy as the cause of inflation?<br /><br />But why did inflation slow down and then accelerate again????<br />

 

[newtonian]

ranur - concerning the actual observed bubbles in space, and also other unexpected structures in our universe:<br /><br />"Still another problem for the big bang has come from steadily mounting evidence of “bubbles” in the universe that are 100 million light-years in size, with galaxies on the outside and voids inside. Margaret Geller, John Huchra, and others at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have found what they call a great wall of galaxies some 500 million light-years in length across the northern sky. Another group of astronomers, who became known as the Seven Samurai, have found evidence of a different cosmic conglomeration, which they call the Great Attractor, located near the southern constellations of Hydra and Centaurus. Astronomers Marc Postman and Tod Lauer believe something even bigger must lie beyond the constellation Orion, causing hundreds of galaxies, including ours, to stream in that direction like rafts on a sort of “river in space.”" - "Awake!," 1/22/96, p.5<br /><br />The latter Great Attractor, btw, is in the Virgo supercluster (from memory).<br /><br />Clearly, these are not the bubbles you are describing - though the cause of these observed huge bubbles may indeed be in some way similar to your model.<br /><br />Certainly one would expect that the various structures in our universe should give some clues to the cause of inflation and expansion - by cause and effect.

 

[newtonian]

ranur - Interesting model to say the least. I will try to meditate on it while I work today.<br /><br />I am virtually out of time to post today.<br /><br />On 1:<br /><br />I suspect that the universe outside our visibility horizon can indeed affect us - albeit not necessarily directly.<br /><br />First, I consider dark energy may indeed propagate faster than light, which would explain why it can cause acceleration faster than light.<br /><br />In that case, dark energy generated from beyond our visibility horizon can effect us - see my thread on dark energy telescopes.<br /><br />Besides this there is also a domino effect due to different light cones (=different visibility horizons from different reference points).<br /><br />To wit: matter near our visibility horizon have drastically different light cones (horizons) than we do at our reference point.<br /><br />I.e. matter near our visibility horizon is effected by matter from beyond our visibility horizon because said distant matter has a horizon, light cone, which includes matter from beyond our visibility horizon.<br /><br />To illustrate how this might effect acceleration of expansion:<br /><br />Say that matter beyond our visibility horizon is FTL relative to us but not FTL relative to matter near our visibility horizon.<br /><br />Some astronomers predict that distant portions of our universe have already accelerated to FTL, btw.<br /><br />Now, this very distant FTL matter will pull by ordinary gravity the matter near our horizon (light cone edge), so that, in effect, the matter near our horizon will tend to try to catch up with this faster moving distant matter.<br /><br />The effect will be acceleration of expansion due to ordinary gravity from beyond our visibility horizon or light cone.<br /><br />And since the matter near but inside our horizon can effect us, and is effected by matter beyond said horizon, it logically follows that we are effected, by a domino effect, by the matter beyond our light cone edge.<br /><br />That is my

 

[eric2006]

I assume you are saying that space is something in it's own essence or basically is something more than just a void/nothingness. I agree. Gravity and magnetism also back that up. You are right it can't be measured. We can only study the effects it has on other things.<br /><br />I agree that it is more or less the medium for which things traverse through. But does it's properties change? Could that allow for an acceleration or deceleration in expansion? If it does have properties that change then it would have to have an affect on all other things. For instance would light always have a constant velocity if the medium for it's transportation is subject to change? If this medium is expanding does it thin out? If so how would this affect photons and the velocity of light? Gravity should then even be subject to fluctuation. <br /><br />Also I have heard theories (not accepted ones) that neutrinos are responsible for gravity. That gravity is not a pulling force but a pushing force caused by neutrinos. Here is a good visual model http://gravity.ontheinter.net/ Then there are gravitons. But I suspect you are speaking of something different. <br /><br />I am wondering if the "space" inside of our universe is actually "something" what would exist outside of our universe. Are we expanding into a true void. Nature will not allow for the existance of a void. Now if there is truly an outer edge of our universe (dark matter or anything for that matter) that escaped (FTL) then is there a void/space between that matter and the outer edge of our universe's light cone? I suspect we will find our answers there.....<br /><br />Honestly, I think the problem lies in the limiting capacities of the 3 dimensional brain. The answers are right in front of our faces. We just have a hard time interpreting spatial aspects that our brains were just not designed for. I guess that is where mathematics come in.

 

[eric2006]

ranur,<br /><br />It appears that you are hypothesizing a new way to understand "ether".<br /><br />Let me know what your thoughts are on this (This was taken from an article online):<br /><br />An article by Sir Oliver Lodge describes the ether as being one million million times more dense than water, and that one cubic inch would weigh a million tons if it were material in atom form that we are familiar with.<br /><br />On a modern computer you can save lots of pictures but comparatively little sound. The reason for this is that pictures contain one dimensional images with little information: this dot is blue that dot is yellow. Sound, on the other hand, is three dimensional at least, with instrument, definition, volume, and tone depth etc. ...and takes up vastly more computer memory.<br /><br />This is how I believe it works in the ether. <br /> <br />If you were one side of the room and I on the other, the space between us would be filled with air atoms. These atoms are one million million times LESS dense than the ether. The ether is a solid block of intelligence but still a solid block that material bodies do not penetrate. What happens is this... <br /> <br />Just as on a TV when images move across the screen, the dots or pixels are told what color to be at any given time. And so it is with our bodies...but in three dimensions. <br /> <br />Each 'molecule' of ether receives the information from the individual bodily intelligence as to what it will be at any given time. Cells, as we know, can create and change substance at will, and it is this will...this intelligence...that travels through the ether giving the illusion of movement. <br /> <br />Physical mass does not move, only the information of the swirling mass of atoms that make it what it is. <br /> <br />As the metal in the electric cable waits for the electricity to pass along it, so, too does the ether wait for energy and intelligence to pass though it. <br /> <br />All that exists has life...and a level of intellige

 

[vogon13]

What force drove inflation?<br /><br />God's lungs.<br /><br />{sorry, couldn't resist}<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

ranur - We are getting into tangents rather than answering my question.<br /><br />Are you describing a form of dark (=invisible) energy?<br /><br />And are you saying that form of dark energy drove inflation?<br /><br />That is what you seem to be saying.<br /><br />How would you explain the slowing after the initial inflation and the later acceleration of expansion possibly back to FTL????

 

[newtonian]

vogon13 - OK, now that you got that out of your system:<br /><br />Isn't there some standard model for what force drove inflation?

 

[vogon13]

Innate property of the primordial ylem.<br /><br />{think I have mispelled ylem consistently in prior posts, btw}<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

ylem? OK, vogon13 - can you define that while I attempt to look it up?

 

[vogon13]

An astrophysicist back in the 40s (IIRC) postulated a universal primordial substance that 'begat' (not his word) matter, life, the universe, everything. <br /><br />(sort of like 42)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

ranur - OK - do you have a name for that force?

 

[newtonian]

vogon13 - Ah! A new word for my vocabulary!<br /><br />How does ylem compare with ether?<br /><br />From wikipedia -<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylem<br /><br />In physics, Ylem is a deprecated term, used by Gamow and collaborators, for a hypothetical original state of matter which, through the big bang, formed the elements and particles as we know them today.<br /><br />From:<br /><br />http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/ylem.html <br /><br />ylem:<br /><br />has definition The word used by Gamow and his collaborators for the primordial material of the Big Bang. In most of his work Gamow assumed that the ylem consisted entirely of neutrons. In inflationary cosmology, the role of the ylem is played by the false vacuum. <br /><br />has definition Primordial state of matter - neutrons and their decay products (protons and electrons) - before the Big Bang. The term was taken from Aristotle and used for the á-â-ã theory. <br /><br />is a kind of phase of matter <br /><br />OK, ylem would be matter - I had assumed force or energy at the origin, not matter.<br /><br />I believe that the origin was too hot for matter to exist.<br /><br />I will continue to research ylem - it is a very relevant tangent, even though it is more on the origin of matter than on the origin of acceleration.<br /><br />I consider the God hypothesis more tenable than ylem.<br /><br />There is a word that sounds like ylem and can be in the lungs - was this a seqway from your lung hypothesis?<br /><br />Just kidding, btw.

 

[eric2006]

Sorry about the strange article. It was a bit off topic. I should have just pasted the scientific parts of it. It was hinting at a model of how to picture what the ether is.<br /><br />"Regarding your last paragraph. <br />Light takes time to move (read in a vacuum), hence we say it has speed."<br /><br />Yes, "WE" say it has speed. Because we are an outside observer. Wouldn't it be relative speed though? If you were the photon then "speed" would mean a whole different thing to you.

 

[eric2006]

Newtonian,<br /><br />If there is indeed matter that exist in an outer edge of our universe. Proposing FTL expansion. How do you get around the whole gaining mass thing as it travels closer to light speed. Would that matter not reach infinite mass?