Just found this article on BBC News. Probably all of you cosmopolitan sorts have already seen it, but if not, it looks like there are now arising questions in regard to 'the standard model.'
There may yet be room for alternate theories, lol....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
LeilaBattison_Science_reporter said:
…
The current theory holds that around 4% of the Universe is made up of normal matter - the stuff of stars, planets and people - and around 21% of it is dark matter.
The remainder is made up of what is known as dark energy, an even less understood hypothetical component of the Universe that would explain its ever-increasing expansion.
Scientists' best ideas for the formation and structure of the Universe form what is called the "cosmological standard model", or lambda-CDM - which predicts elementary particles in the form of cold dark matter (CDM).
These CDM particles are believed to have formed very early in the Universe's history, around one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, and they are "cold" in the sense that they are not hypothesised to be particularly fast-moving.
The existence of the particles has not yet been proven, as they are extremely difficult to detect - they cannot be "seen" in the traditional sense, and if they exist, they interact only very rarely with the matter we know.
It is interesting to me sometimes how the timing of events in my little deluded pea brain world play out. A few days ago rpenner came at me with the question, said in a nice way I suppose, “Sir, where is the mathematics”, and that prompted me to take another look at just how the math could be put together by someone with any interest in that. Having always been appreciative of the role of math in physics and cosmology, if I had any intention of QWC being science I would be doing something else because I’m not qualified to do science in the realm of real cosmology nor am I qualified to develop QWC with the accompanying math as I go. I speculate. That is what I do best, in spite of what everyone says, lol.
So in regard to the timing of rpenner’s question, and in light of the time I spent yesterday at the Maple pavilion revising my view of the sequence of events surrounding the instant of the Big Bang and the existence of my QWC version of dark matter and dark energy, the naturally brilliant Scheherazade brings the subject article to my thread.
First, in QWC, my fantasy cosmology that I claim is internally consistent and not inconsistent with observations and data that I as a mere layman can understand, dark matter differs from the undetectable but extremely stable particles addressed in the standard model that supposedly co-exist with the detectable particles. In QWC, dark matter survived from the preceding arenas and came through the pre-events in the form of the negated wave energy remnants of the atoms and particles that made up the galaxies and other constituents of the parent arenas from which our Big Bang was derived. All of the existing matter and energy in our known observable universe (a tiny arena of the potentially infinite greater universe) evolved from that dark matter and from the contents of the space surrounding our Big Bang into which our arena is intruding, including the thermalized energy background that pre-existed.
Dark energy is the momentum given to the new arena at the instant of the Big Bang. It is the burst energy which occurs as the preceding big crunch collapses and bounces into expansion, releasing the potential expansion energy that built up as gravity formed the big crunch from which we emerged.
Second, as QWC sees it, the Standard Cosmology, lambda CDM as Battison refers to it, is
myopic. The model is simply the best science can do without speculating, and since I am not hampered like the professionals are, I can speculative answer the imponderables that science cannot, and in QWC that is what I do.
The major problem that haunts Lambda CDM is nearsightedness. Science cannot explaing or fully quantify our known universe because we can’t see back in time far enough and we certainly can’t quantify anything that happened to lead up to the Big Bang. So what does the standard cosmology do? It doesn’t say anything about preconditions to the Big Bang. It is like there weren't any preconditions that we can talk about and so the Big Bang must have happened but the standard cosmology doesn't say so, and the make up of the universe is discussed from an instant after the implied Big Bang and history starts being written from there. In QWC, history has a potentially infinite past and everything that exists today makes sense relative to that history.
If the model cannot have a “before” then it must conjure up everything from observing what we have today and from what we can discern from the past using every tool at our disposal. We just don’t have the right tools to fill in the missing data.
I simply speculate about what the preconditions might have been using my own deluded misunderstanding of the things that I can’t possibly comprehend, lol. I sure wish some of the professionals would show me where all their math and science knowledge falsifies my speculations, because I would immediately give praise and recognition to that person and incorporate the observations and data that they use to correct my falsified speculations. Trouble is that the professionals are in the mainstream and cannot make the mainstream theories agree or find the missing data and so they have to defend incomplete and inconsistent theories. They almost never rise to the challenge of showing the actual errors I have made in my reasonable and responsible speculations. Not that any professionals actually read this crap with any intention of comprehension, lol.
Anyone who wants to can know everything about QWC. It is continually being updated so it isn’t hard to find a speculation or two to comment on. Not being able to do that, the Cptbork types simply make remarks that allude to their superior knowledge and my ignorance.
And finally I move on to my point, lol. If there we preconditions, and if the Big Bang was only a local event within a greater universe that was characterized by big bangs, would that allow new thinking that could better address questions about dark matter and dark energy? Stupid question and the answer is yes, speculatively we live in a multiverse and the Big Bang came from the matter and energy that pre-existed the Big Bang event. The Big Bang is expanding into pre-existing space that contains the remnants of a potentially infinite history of big bang arenas expanding and overlapping across the landscape of the greater universe.
QWC is my personal speculations about that multiverse.
