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.
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.
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 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 Cyrillic backward "R"? 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.
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.
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.
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 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 Cyrillic backward "R"? 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: