Yes, my statement was not what I meant to say. We had just returned from a Ray's game and the Miranda Lambert concert, it was late, and ... well I should have said I agree, and I speculate
.
Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
.
The source of the energy for spacetime models might be God, it might be green speghetti monsters, but it won't be mentioned so you have to look at alternatives. Any smart
guys disagree?Don't worry, I know that if you are a smart guy you won't disagree, lol.
So since you have read the Mersini-Houghton paper and the John Baez page, you will agree that spacetime cosmologies fail in providing an explanation for the source of energy except that "space-time has a certain structure of cause-and-effect and that it supports fields of particles in that space-time" described by rpenner in the thread, "The speed of light may have been broken".
And he is probably right that there will be errors found that will restore conficence in spacetime. But still, you have to say that spacetime had a beginning and if it did where did the energy come from to establish it? God? Ex nihilo as QQ suggests which cannot be science? Or what?rpenner said:
It is obvious that we need an alternative cosmology that has always had energy. It will not be any of the spacetime multiverse cosmologies because they all suffer the "something from nothing" curse.
Last edited:
The source of the energy for spacetime models might be God, it might be green speghetti monsters, but it won't be mentioned so you have to look at alternatives. Any smart
Don't worry, I know that if you are a smart guy you won't disagree, lol.
So since you have read the Mersini-Houghton paper and the John Baez page, you will agree that spacetime cosmologies fail in providing an explanation for the source of energy except that "space-time has a certain structure of cause-and-effect and that it supports fields of particles in that space-time" described by rpenner in the thread, "The speed of light may have been broken".
And he is probably right that there will be errors found that will restore conficence in spacetime. But still, you have to say that spacetime had a beginning and if it did where did the energy come from to establish it? God? Ex nihilo as QQ suggests which cannot be science? Or what?
It is obvious that we need an alternative cosmology that has always had energy. It will not be any of the spacetime multiverse cosmologies because the all suffer the "something from nothing" curse.
Ignore me then, but putting ALL and CURSE is a bit insulting to me.
Not intended. And I didn't know yours was a spacetime cosmology. Nothing you have said fits spacetime.
Sorry, I automatically replace the word spacetime with Aether.
Spacetime is an unknown in science. Einstein used it to replace the Aether. He made the 4D from an unknown as well. I fixed those, and I just translate very quickly when I read posts.
Does anyone (not you right now, Pincho, later maybe) disagree that a cosmology that depends on something from nothing is a curse. Let me add some insight from rpenner before we get into a feud about spacetime: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2824739&postcount=188
The whole framework does not hinge on the theory of general relativity but is a general description of the environment that encompasses the standard particle model and the standard Big Bang cosmology.
The future successful theory will unite the two and the five main explanations of the cosmological constant in John Baez's paper will be resolved to one consensus view.
In the mean time it is my deluded pea brained hobby to follow all this and speculate about what cosmology that includes both the macro and micro realms might look like. My topic is right now about the source of the energy that drives the expansion that we observe in our Hubble volume of space and that is theorized in the bubbles of the spacetime multiverse cosmologies.
That is pretty educational and shows that spacetime is not just the standard consensus cosmology of Big Bang Theory, but is a whole framework where Lorentz invariance applies.rpenner said:
The whole framework does not hinge on the theory of general relativity but is a general description of the environment that encompasses the standard particle model and the standard Big Bang cosmology.
The future successful theory will unite the two and the five main explanations of the cosmological constant in John Baez's paper will be resolved to one consensus view.
In the mean time it is my deluded pea brained hobby to follow all this and speculate about what cosmology that includes both the macro and micro realms might look like. My topic is right now about the source of the energy that drives the expansion that we observe in our Hubble volume of space and that is theorized in the bubbles of the spacetime multiverse cosmologies.
Last edited:
I’ll just go ahead and write out my pea brained scenario of Big Bang universe and space time to the point where we recognize the accelerating expansion and anyone who wants can object and correct it. These are not speculations within QWC; they are supposed to be a layman’s view of spacetime that originated with the Big Bang.
I envision the initial event as an infinitely dense zero volume point of space, a mathematical singularity derived by backtracking our expanding universe to the limit and arriving at an infinitely dense point of space. The beginning of Big Bang Theory (BBT) found this point of space bursting into an expansion of the space.
The expansion is the inflation of the initial singularity and the subsequent expansion that we observe as the galaxies and galaxy groups separate at an accelerating rate.
The beginning was the simple origination of this zero volume point of space.
This zero volume point of space got active about 14 billion years ago, but there is no telling how long it might have been “in waiting”, or if it originated at the instant that it became active. It would be consistent with BBT to say that event happened without preconditions.
The initial singularity is really a mathematical singularity that describes our observable known universe when expansion and inflation are backtracked in time to the limit, i.e. to a point of space.
Spacetime emerges from the zero volume point in space and as it inflates a volume of space appears. We go from a point to a volume with three spatial dimensions and a time dimension very rapidly in the first instant.
Logically, if inflation is a process that proceeds from t=0, then at each instant or measure of time, new space occurs and the volume of the universe increases. From a very early point in time the size or the volume of space is determined by the rate of inflation and the duration of the time that has past at that point, and we have a very quantifiable universe where each x,y,z point within it has an associated time element and we can say that each point is an event in space time. Those points comprise the spacetime continuum or the geometry of spacetime.
As of now, this spacetime continuum has been expanding for ~14 billion years and is very big and every point within it has an x,y,z,t coordinate.
It is safe to say that this spacetime continuum has energy in it and I’ll define energy as the tension imposed on the space as inflation/expansion stretches it. The tension would be a growing vacuum and the energy would be vacuum energy density. Out of this vacuum energy density there is a process of particle formation associated with the spacetime field of particles. The individual spacetime point events express their presence relative to all other points via their individual ability to curve spacetime.
During expansion these individual curvatures take advantage of perturbations or energy density fluctuations in the spacetime continuum, maybe caused by the reverberation of the big bang event itself, and those perturbations allow points of space to be become differentiated and to group together and spacetime becomes a field of particles. Each grouping retains the curvature of the individual spacetime events that make up the particles and so the groups each have a relative curvature associated with them.
These relative curvatures accommodate the formation of particles and nucleosynthesis and then gravity … wait, no gravity, just curvatures of spacetime equivalent to the summation of the x,y,z,t events encompassed by the particle. Particles, using their curvature, are able to clump as expansion continues. Particles, atoms, molecules, produce electromagnetic radiation and the dark universe lights up; stars, galaxies, galaxy groups and huge structure forms. As clumping plays out the galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away from each other and evidence shows that the rate of separation between the galaxies in accelerating.
We attribute that acceleration to the vacuum energy density. The matter that exists exerts pressure against the vacuum. The vacuum is not perfectly off set by the pressure of the matter and the acceleration is the slight differential between the vacuum and the pressure. It is called the cosmological constant and is discussed in the John Baez link. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
Last edited:
Notice that I was editing when you posted so see the changes.
I would say that you could look at my pea brained scenario and fold in the QGP and VP right into it to produce particles and CMB with no trouble.
No, I don't think so, lol.
I should mention again that the scenario I just described is my layman's view of the standard spacetime, Big Bang Theory in a nutshell. It differs significantly from your continuous creation and my QWC, and our two ideas might have many similarities but seem to have significant differences. Mine is essentially a steady state arena process across the landscape of the greater universe that complies with the Perfect Cosmological Principle. I think yours agrees with the more common and usual Cosmological Principle. I discussed both of them and the differences earlier in the thread.
The idea is to come up with some explanation for the source of energy in BBT.
Regards.
Last edited:
Continuous creation, or the Steady State Theory would require the creation of 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter every billion years, and about 5 times that in dark matter.
One of the problems is that this creation would also have to include helium, deuterium, and a small amount of lithium, because there is no way to create helium-3 or deuterium in the proper proportions via stellar nucleosynthesis.
Another problem is that it also requires proton decay, which has been looked for, but not yet found.
It also contradicts astronomical observations of the far universe. If steady state were true, then the universe has always been there, and always looked the same. But when we observe galaxies and quasars far back in time, they look distinctly different.
If you want to think 'out of the box', you must still confine your theories to what observation tells us.
Careful AlexG, you are on the verge of contributing.
. . . . QGP (~ 10 x e120 erg/cc energy flux) was existent pre-BB . . . . it may have been the source for BB . . . OR, it may be the source for a continuous process that exists now via the transformation described above . . . . i.e., ~10 x e120 (QGP energy flux est.) --> ~ 10 x e60 erg/cc (est. energy confined in observable universe (matter + CMB) . . . probably quantifiably 'calculatable' (not by me - not a mathematician!) as a 'one-way' free-energy transformation process that is, however, locally 'reversed' in black hole environments . . . email (wlminex@msn.com) for narrrative + illustrative figures for this hypothesis, if interested . . . .
wlminex
wlminex
I'm interested. I have gone the route of having people send me their files attached to email and I haven't found it productive. I encourage you to do it step by step in conjunction with the thread, either this one or the QWC 2011 thread, so that we can compare and I can steal what I want and get it to fit my scenario, lol.
Seriously, the QWC thread would be better right now. Here I am developing my view of the standard cosmology a little better with the help of people like you (I won't mention AlexG also yet, lol). What you say makes sense and is worth attention so just note that I can tell from what you just said that the Big Bang may have had preconditions, the QGP, or instead of a big bang as such there might be a steady process that is on-going that provides the energy I am looking for.
But look at my scenario of BBT and let's see if we can agree where they say the energy comes from, i.e. the spacetime continuum, the particle field, vacuum energy density and matter energy pressure, off-setting to produce the accelerating expansion. After that we can compare different possibilities that use preconditions instead of the initial singularity.
You sound like a sensible inquirer/scientist . . . . go ahead and email me your ideas and I'll send mine (but I won't be a pest!) . . . perhaps we can meld some collaborative ideas . . .
wlminex
I don't have anything to email you. I do it in my threads on a discussion basis and any comments relative to the topics are treated with respect. As the ideas develop I capture them in a file but it is just copies of posts. From there I revise from start to finish periodically and then start a new thread with the updates.
I'd love to meld some ideas but lets do it on the forum and in the appropriate threads. Why not start a thread, ignore the posts that don't address the content, and we can contribute to each other that way? I feel sure we can have some fun, lol.
OK, you'll start a thread? Or OK, you will look at my post about the layman's scenario of BBT and discuss the source of the energy?