Will we ever know exactly how the universe ballooned into existence?

[Admin]

Physicists have long been unable to describe what happened just after the Big Bang when a teensy blip ballooned into the universe, a process called inflation. We may know why.

Will we ever know exactly how the universe ballooned into existence? : Read more

 

[rod]

Interesting report disclosing some words of caution too, pointing to how difficult it is for science to describe the origin of the universe we see today. TCC, string theory, multiverse theory, and the list goes on. Inflation features space expanding >= 3x 10^31 cm/s. Hubble constant 69 km/s/Mpc features space expanding 2.236 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm, a change in space expansion rate of some 10^49 or more. In BB cosmology, the universe radius today may be 46.5 billion light years, thus about 4.4 x 10^28 cm. Then there are all those constants in nature. The cosmological constant is a problem with expanding space along with the Hubble constant as well as many other constants used in science today.

If the origin of the universe is not explained by science and abiogenesis fails to be *proven*, what happens to *origins science* taught to the public today?

 

[Helio]

I recall that somewhere I was taught the the Planck unit was as far as one could go, so it's never been a surprise that equations got nuts when trying to get smaller in Planck length or Planck time. Perhaps I misunderstood, but maybe there really is something more fundamental to these Planck units.

If the origin of the universe is not explained by science and abiogenesis fails to be *proven*, what happens to *origins science* taught to the public today?

The events at t= 0 and abiogenesis, if taught properly, should reveal that these are works in progress and not SM theories, though abiogenesis has at least some argument in its favor. It would be a great way to get students to think critically of what is and what isn't a theory resulting in a better understanding of the SM.

 

[rod]

The Space.com report says, "Astronomers strongly suspect that something like this inflation story happened in the early moments of the universe, when it was less than a second old; even so, they don't know what triggered inflation, what powered it, how long it lasted or what shut it off. In other words, physicists lack a complete physical description of this momentous event. Adding to the mix of mysteries is that in most models of inflation, fluctuations at exceedingly tiny scales get inflated to become macroscopic differences. How tiny? Tinier than the Planck length, or roughly 1.6 x 10^minus 35 meters (the number 16 preceded by 34 zeroes and a decimal point). That's the scale where the strength of gravity rivals that of the other fundamental forces of nature. At that scale, we need a unified theory of physics in order to describe reality...So we have a problem. Most (if not all) models of inflation require the universe to grow so large that sub-Planckian differences become macroscopic. But we don't understand sub-Planckian physics. So how could we possibly build a theoretical model of inflation if we don't understand the underlying physics?"

My question. Where are observations in nature documented at the Planck length and Planck time in experiments today showing science can observe energy events operating at these timescales and short distances of length? This report indicates issues arise with inflation and sub-Planckian differences emerge that constrains or causes issues for inflation patch in the BB model. Without inflation, the CMBR observed today should not look like what we see, just go back to George Gamow and Ralph Alpher original calculations. A different temperature CMBR with larger fluctuations and lumpiness should be observed because of Special Relativity, the light-travel-time problem in BB model. Special Relativity places constraints on the evolution of the CMBR, the horizon problem.

The 9 page report cited concludes "Emergent cosmologies with holographic scaling of thermal correlation functions also provide an alternative to inflation for explaining the large scale structure of the universe. In the context of String Gas Cosmology [25], the analysis of fluctuations was done in [56], and the prediction of a blue tilt of the spectrum of gravitational waves emerged [57]. Since this scenario is based on string theory, the swampland and TCC constraints are trivially satisfied. However, a good understanding of the emergent phase is still missing, but see [26, 58] for some promising approaches. To end with a brief outlook: the tensions between the swampland constraints (and in particular the TCC) and the inflationary scenario indicate that it may be more promising to look beyond the inflationary scenario to obtain a good theory for the very early universe." ref - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.09641.pdf

There are 26 references to *constraint* in this 9 page report. Is any of the science explaining the origin of the universe back to Planck time and Planck length or sub-Planckian physics, observed and validated as the Galilean moons at Jupiter that Galileo used against the geocentric astronomers? My answer is no, this touches upon Helio's post #3 concerning the SM or scientific method and various testing needed to confirm theories presented in science.

 

[Allan_001]

I have some ideas about how the universe could get to where we are today without inflation. Could be wrong, but something new to think about. Quick read. Just a ten-page eBook.

A Non-Spacial Universe, by Allan Tingey

 

[Helio]

So we have a problem. Most (if not all) models of inflation require the universe to grow so large that sub-Planckian differences become macroscopic.

Yes, something is needed to explain the CMBR variations, which allowed stars to form.

But we don't understand sub-Planckian physics. So how could we possibly build a theoretical model of inflation if we don't understand the underlying physics?"

I'm not sure we have to if the inflation model happens after the first Planck unit of time. I think the original (Guth, et. al.) came about 100 million Planck units after the first one.

My question. Where are observations in nature documented at the Planck length and Planck time in experiments today showing science can observe energy events operating at these timescales and short distances of length?

I think you may be able to Google to see how close we come but it's closer than you might think.

This report indicates issues arise with inflation and sub-Planckian differences emerge that constrains or causes issues for inflation patch in the BB model. Without inflation, the CMBR observed today should not look like what we see, just go back to George Gamow and Ralph Alpher original calculations. A different temperature CMBR with larger fluctuations and lumpiness should be observed because of Special Relativity, the light-travel-time problem in BB model. Special Relativity places constraints on the evolution of the CMBR, the horizon problem.

Yes, but this is a little like my baseball analogy -- if we learn that Doubleday didn't invent baseball then does baseball vanish? It's not hard to assume something fantastic in the way of physics would take place when, and if, all the forces were once united. Inflation may still be the answer to the horizon (and flatness) early problems.

Is any of the science explaining the origin of the universe back to Planck time and Planck length or sub-Planckian physics, observed and validated as the Galilean moons at Jupiter that Galileo used against the geocentric astronomers? My answer is no, this touches upon Helio's post #3 concerning the SM or scientific method and various testing needed to confirm theories presented in science.

To simulate or duplicate in a lab what physics looks like when squeezed into a ball smaller than an atom is asking a lot more than what a 2.5" aperture telescope can reveal about Jupiter's moon. This especially true when we should know that BBT isn't about actual origins no more than Darwin's theory was about origins. We may want both to give us origin explanations but they aren't required to do so. We could stop BBT at the CMBR since, for now, that's as far as we can actually see.

 

[Catastrophe]

If you think that a singularity reminds you of pushing an infinite weight up a very steep hill, then you might agree with me that this wondrous thing also popped out of "nothing" into an enormous explosion whereafter entropy only increased. I don't think.
I prefer to think that the socalled BB was simply a nexus - the narrow in a venturi - out of one "phase" of Universal existence into another. Just my opinion, but I prefer to think venturi rather than "creation" of out nothing. Big Bang Wallop Thank you Hoyle!

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Fred_Hoyle
Rejection of the Big Bang


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Highly recommended:

Insights Intro to Big Bang and Infinity Concepts - Comments Last Post Nov 2, 2020 3 Replies 50 Views 5K

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/cosmology.69/

 

[rod]

Helio in post #6 said about observations of nature operating at the Planck units and scale, "I think you may be able to Google to see how close we come but it's closer than you might think. "

Apparently this is not accurate information here. Planck units - Wikipedia and the smallest scale gravity measured is still much larger than Plank length scale or Planck time. Physicists have measured gravity on the smallest scale ever, https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-measured-gravity-on-the-smallest-scale-ever/, May 2021. Apparently a long way from quantum gravity and quantum foam universe scales in cosmology. Helio also said in post #6, "We could stop BBT at the CMBR since, for now, that's as far as we can actually see."

Cosmology is not doing this, they are going deep into Planck and sub-plankian physics now. What *we can actually see* remains to be verified in the quantum universe origins modeling (my terminology).

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, may I try to clear up one point with you. As you absolutely correctly state, the observable "universe" has claims to being the universe from a scientific point of view. However, we also know that, because of c, there can be "other parts" which we cannot observe. The link in post #8 describes this as follows: (I see this link is automatically repeated at the bottom - excellent idea).

Quote
The observable universe is the part of the Universe which we can currently see (observe). The observable universe has a finite size and the current radius of the observable universe is approximately 46.6 billion light-years. As we know, signals that come from distant objects travel at the speed of light. Hence, there’s a limit to what we can see. . . . . . . . . . The universe and observable universe are different concepts).
Quote My emphasis.

I am not arguing with the scientific (your) correct stance, but I would agree with the quote that there is a larger Universe which includes "all that exists". Although it cannot be proved, I think many would agree that the "other" concept is philosophically valid, You might not agree to call 'your' universe "the observable universe" but I would suggest you consider this, and let me call 'mine' the "(philosophical) Universe". The tipping point, of course, is how you define "all that exists" - whether all that is observable, or all that has a very high chance of existing, but cannot (only because of c) be observed. I cannot really see any way around it, except to preface any discussion as being 'scientific' or 'philosophical'. Any ideas?

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/big-bang-infinities/

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Rod, may I try to clear up one point with you. As you absolutely correctly state, the observable "universe" has claims to being the universe from a scientific point of view. However, we also know that, because of c, there can be "other parts" which we cannot observe. The link in post #8 describes this as follows: (I see this link is automatically repeated at the bottom - excellent idea).

Quote
The observable universe is the part of the Universe which we can currently see (observe). The observable universe has a finite size and the current radius of the observable universe is approximately 46.6 billion light-years. As we know, signals that come from distant objects travel at the speed of light. Hence, there’s a limit to what we can see. . . . . . . . . . The universe and observable universe are different concepts).
Quote My emphasis.

I am not arguing with the scientific (your) correct stance, but I would agree with the quote that there is a larger Universe which includes "all that exists". Although it cannot be proved, I think many would agree that the "other" concept is philosophically valid, You might not agree to call 'your' universe "the observable universe" but I would suggest you consider this, and let me call 'mine' the "(philosophical) Universe". The tipping point, of course, is how you define "all that exists" - whether all that is observable, or all that has a very high chance of existing, but cannot (only because of c) be observed. I cannot really see any way around it, except to preface any discussion as being 'scientific' or 'philosophical'. Any ideas?

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/big-bang-infinities/

Cat

Since the initial expansion happened faster than C it could go on forever and we see just the parts at C or under.
When things go faster than C (if possible) we get into some strange
possibilities of physics breakdowns and backwards time for those parts that were going faster than C.
All those parts might not exist now or be in a new strange reality disconnected from us.
I tend to think of the BB as just 1 unit or exchange of energy in an endless sea of potential energy so IMO our BB universe isn't the universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Here is an addition to my post #10. The observable universe, well there is actually an infinite (OK very large) number of them. For the sake of discussion, use x, y, z to denote directions,
Starting at the centre (as all parts are) go a long way (keep it general) in the z direction. You gain some "new" observable universe and lose an equivalent amount. Repeat corresponding procedure. For every motion you gain some new "observable universe" and lose some.
To overcome "time of travel" objections, consider these movements "infinitely small". Your increase and decrease in observable universe are correspondingly small, of course, but it does show that the observable universe is a "moveable feast".

Cat

 

[rod]

Post #10-12 is interesting. However, space expansion rate can be calculated using H0, I use 69 km/s/Mpc and convert to c.g.s. units. Doing that, space expansion rate at 13.8 billon light years distance is about 2.197 x 10^10 cm/s, less than c velocity but getting closer. So far in astronomy there are no redshifts showing expansion faster than c in BB model based upon redshifts observed and documented (in early cosmology models, a redshift of 1.0 or larger could be expanding faster than c). The CMBR redshift is interpreted to be about 1100 but there is no direct spectrum measurement of this like there is for various galaxies and quasars. There needs to be observations according to the scientific method showing space expanding faster than c, that includes inflation where space expands > 10^21 c and then slows to H0 value today, some 10^49 decrease in expansion rate. I keep items like this in mind when reading reports suggesting science today is explaining the *origin* of the universe

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, Thank you for the input.

In the case where I particularly limited the movements to be small, surely this means that the observable universe is variable. I mean, move 1 cm in the 'z' direction. Have you not gained at least approximately 1cm of "new" observable universe ion the 'z' direction?

Cat

 

[rod]

Cat, reference your post #14. Here is an example in astronomy that illustrates what I discuss briefly in post #9, "What *we can actually see*". GN-z11 - Wikipedia , this galaxy redshift look back time is 13.4 billion light years from Earth, however, the report indicates the *present proper distance* is 32 billion light years distance from Earth (9.8 billion pc). GN-z11 in the *present* is expanding away faster than c but we cannot observe GN-z11 at 32 billion light years distance from Earth. Using the SM, I cannot confirm that GN-z11 exists way out there. This is a BB model interpretation presented in the report. It may be correct, or could be very wrong too

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Space expanding really has no proof so it's a leap of faith based on dark energy/matter that itself is a leap of faith.

Back to the question of free energy having dark energy/matter expanding space.
IMO no free energy ride so i think dark energy/matter as permanent items will prove out wrong and with it free energy expansion of space.

 

[rabsal]

Post #10-12 is interesting. However, space expansion rate can be calculated using H0, I use 69 km/s/Mpc and convert to c.g.s. units. Doing that, space expansion rate at 13.8 billon light years distance is about 2.197 x 10^10 cm/s, less than c velocity but getting closer. So far in astronomy there are no redshifts showing expansion faster than c in BB model based upon redshifts observed and documented (in early cosmology models, a redshift of 1.0 or larger could be expanding faster than c). The CMBR redshift is interpreted to be about 1100 but there is no direct spectrum measurement of this like there is for various galaxies and quasars. There needs to be observations according to the scientific method showing space expanding faster than c, that includes inflation where space expands > 10^21 c and then slows to H0 value today, some 10^49 decrease in expansion rate. I keep items like this in mind when reading reports suggesting science today is explaining the *origin* of the universe

If a BH has the energy to stop light then its energy is faster than lights speed, or greater than lights speed. So if a BH lost all its contraction pressure and expanded, it would be inflationary or faster than lights speed....So if our universe came from a collapsing BH that ripped a hole in spacetime and is an inflationary expansion, the initial BH state prior to expansion should be around the 10 -35 or measurable.... We should be able to calculate the inflation from this. I believe that the inflation froze for just a "moment" and the continuing inflation just blew past this and created the big bang which is the bubble visible universe we are in, expanding slower within the "sheet of inflation"....

 

[Patrick fenex]

Highly recommended:

Insights Intro to Big Bang and Infinity Concepts - Comments Last Post Nov 2, 2020 3 Replies 50 Views 5K

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/cosmology.69/

Im inspired to read this just from the title of your post! Thank you

 

[Patrick fenex]

I recall that somewhere I was taught the the Planck unit was as far as one could go, so it's never been a surprise that equations got nuts when trying to get smaller in Planck length or Planck time. Perhaps I misunderstood, but maybe there really is something more fundamental to these Planck units.

The events at t= 0 and abiogenesis, if taught properly, should reveal that these are works in progress and not SM theories, though abiogenesis has at least some argument in its favor. It would be a great way to get students to think critically of what is and what isn't a theory resulting in a better understanding of the SM.

These Christian fundamentalists feel so threatened by abiogenesis, and panspermia, that they believe the Louie Pastier experiments is all that's necessary to close the book on any further discussion.

 

[Catastrophe]

Patrick, keep away from the R word (see rules) Cat

 

[Helio]

These Christian fundamentalists feel so threatened by abiogenesis, and panspermia, that they believe the Louie Pastier experiments is all that's necessary to close the book on any further discussion.

There could be a handful that fit this hyperbolic statement.