I suggested that you to look at time in my thread. Time doesn't have to be anything but physics. I mean in this room it is the 4th dimension, past, and future... but it doesn't have to be. When you post that time was eternal, it 'might' just mean that there was a stillness. You just have to get the stillness to move.
Origin of the universe
- Thread starter pluto2
- Start date
I suggested that you to look at time in my thread. Time doesn't have to be anything but physics. I mean in this room it is the 4th dimension, past, and future... but it doesn't have to be. When you post that time was eternal, it 'might' just mean that there was a stillness. You just have to get the stillness to move.
Do you mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"?
Do you mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)
Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy.
Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).
If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.
We can get an estimate of a value for h0 from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.
The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.
Back to our original definiton of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:
Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r. Maybe Cyrilic backward "R"? Lower case Cyrilic?
The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero.
Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell.
Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.
Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D.
Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.
Do you mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)
Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy.
Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).
If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.
We can get an estimate of a value for h0 from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.
The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.
Back to our original definiton of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:
Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r. Maybe Cyrilic backward "R"? Lower case Cyrilic?
The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero.
Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell.
Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.
Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D.
Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.
Last edited:
"The universe", "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse" origins, emergence eschatology
Do we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)
Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy.
Yes, I know. The universe cannot be said to have a discrete "radius". But for all intents and purposes, it does have r = a, a is the so-called "scale factor" that acts just like r.
The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It’s a sort of Pauli exclusion principle.
Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).
If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.
We can get an estimate of a value for ho from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.
The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.
Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:
Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward "R" ? May be lower case Cyrillic ?
The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero.
Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell.
Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.
By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositiions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing them to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.
Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D.
Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.
Do we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)
Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy.
Yes, I know. The universe cannot be said to have a discrete "radius". But for all intents and purposes, it does have r = a, a is the so-called "scale factor" that acts just like r.
The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It’s a sort of Pauli exclusion principle.
Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).
If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.
We can get an estimate of a value for ho from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.
The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.
Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:
Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward "R" ? May be lower case Cyrillic ?
The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero.
Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell.
Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.
By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositiions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing them to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.
Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D.
Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.
Last edited:
Check out:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61223
I think the OP speaks to the condition r=0.
You are referring to the estimated age of the observable universe. Estimates to the Big Bang suggest 78 BY or more.
"Radius" requires space, we are left to contemplate the origin of space itself.
But why not lepton based vacuum breathing armadillos? Why can't they?
We are seeking the source of all the excitement.
Is the singularity, from whence the BB exploded, virtual?
Where does acceleration originate?
Assuming this governed. From what does e originate?
***
But it's just a model. In other words, who knows?
***
***
***
***
Talk about collapsing a wave function.
_______________
*** in other words, who knows?
In conclusion, who knows, it's beyond science. It's the perennial unsolved problem. I feel like a I'm standing on a street corner, with a lot of other bums, and everyone's searching their pockets, scratching their heads, but no one's got a nickel for car fare. But everyone's remembering the last time they found a penny.
So the thread is asking whether the universe originates ex nihilo, or is it infinite.
The question focuses on t=0, r=0, a=0, no space, no time, no tensor or differential, no velocity or acceleration, no force, energy or action, just what? Singularity? What is that? What does it mean? :shrug:
The answer to your question is C reference or C-space. Did someone let dimmwitter out of the pen? Just gnore him, since he lacks the brain power to contribute and has to pretend knowledge via being a nag.
Maybe he can explain why relative reference is better than an absolute reference like C, which by itself, addresses all these concerns?
Energy, although it travels at C, is not part of C-space, because it has finite components called wavelength and frequency. These finite components can not exist in C-sapce. Energy has two legs, one in finite, and the other at C, just touching C-space. C-space does not have matter, since matter can't go C. There is no time or space in C-space, since these are finite concepts. Limiting concepts like infinity and eternal will touch C-space, but can define it only if there is no energy or matter.
If you start at C-space, there is not yet any singularity, since that is a finite concept. We need to start before time or before t=0.
This, once again, is pure bullshit.
I see you have, as usual, resorted to personal attacks rather than substantiate your bullshit claims.
Maybe you could substantiate your specious hand-waving, rather than simply attack me.
Provide evidence? Show how it could be demonstrated?
There is no C until time and space are created to propagate anything. No one but you has any idea what C-space means.
The singularity comes first, and is associated with infinite density, despite your ideas to the contrary.
There is no density in the singularity for mass has not been created yet. The Higgs Boson has not been created so no mass. What is density without mass?
It could be a density of dots sort of like intensity of colour. I used to think of it in terms of "space Points" the space points were compressed and each space point is the fine structure on which a particle will form (proton- electron combination)
I see they put a figure of 10^85 particles in the Universe, imagine if there were 10^85 points in the singularity, but no mass.
Now we're getting somewhere. You are speaking to the nature of the singularity itself. As you note, the presumption that it is infinitely dense is subject to the definition of mass at t=0.
wellwisher was minimizing the singularity as if it plays no role in the Big Bang. I answered that it is the largest thing conceivable.
Of course, who knows what laws apply at t=0. Is really a mass at all? It doesn't seem like it can be energy, because there not yet any of the time or space that normally spans energy.
I wouldn't necessarily constrain the BBS to a particulate nature. Even particles, as you note about mass, occupy space. So what does it mean for the object that creates all subsequent particles to exist in zero space?
I suppose you could speculate similarly about a neutron star. It is assumed to have nonzero volume, but ridiculously small nonetheless. Of course space in its vicinity is essentially collapsed. So what does volume mean in collapsed space?
So I never thought of it as a total singularity but a very small amount of space with this enormous number of "Space Points" (3-D Lattice?) then Energy is applied to that and it spins at speeds that cause the lattice to expand, but the trade off for expansion is the inclussion of energy into the space point. So each of the space points grow and the energy is drawn into the expansion causing the rotation to slow.
The Rotation is the reflection of the angular momentum still present in the Universe.
So I never thought of it as a total singularity but a very small amount of space with this enormous number of "Space Points" (3-D Lattice?) then Energy is applied to that and it spins at speeds that cause the lattice to expand, but the trade off for expansion is the inclussion of energy into the space point. So each of the space points grow and the energy is drawn into the expansion causing the rotation to slow.
The Rotation is the reflection of the angular momentum still present in the Universe.
In the Big Bang model, it's just there, then it explodes.
(Problematic in the model is that of the singularity beginning to explode at all when there is no time or space in which to begin).
Um, no it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
Well you've obviously managed to complete your course in "Word Salad for Beginners".So I never thought of it as a total singularity but a very small amount of space with this enormous number of "Space Points" (3-D Lattice?) then Energy is applied to that and it spins at speeds that cause the lattice to expand, but the trade off for expansion is the inclussion of energy into the space point. So each of the space points grow and the energy is drawn into the expansion causing the rotation to slow.
The Rotation is the reflection of the angular momentum still present in the Universe.
Did you get a certificate for it?
Guys, I think what is being debated falls into something about the fallacy of the analogy. Every factor of his theory cannot be embodied into an analogy, hence the nature and usefulness of analogies. (Richard Dawkins has a lovely chapter in 'The Blind Watchmaker' devoted to assessing the usefulness and potential pitfalls of analogies.
Dig deeper.
Dig deeper.
no it isn't nonzero, or no it isn't zero?
citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star:
which (under the cited assumption) is nonzero volume.
I think you just gave it to me, with distinction.
What didn't you like about the meal?
What do you mean, and who is "he"? (and dig where, with what) :shrug:
I think you just gave it to me, with distiction.
What didn't you like about the meal?
Not to put the proverbial spoon in his mouth, but I think Dywyddyr is thinking "where's the beef?"
I've been standing here at McDywyddyr's for quite a while and haven't gotten hardly a crumb out of him.
Although I did get a drop of naysayer salad dressing (all vinegar).
OK I'm on track with you now. Yes Dawkins has tried to help creationists see the light. Hawking, too.
Welcome to SciForums. (You can click on the "quote" button on the pane containing the statement you are referencing, and it will lift their quote and name.)
But in order to see the light, they must first get the Planck out of their eye.