Note:
All but Paul can shorten this long post by reading only the part following "
Alternative start point" which is bold below also. In that section I suggests and new explanation for both the big bang cause and dark energy, which most will find at least interesting.
The "new Paul" seems to be having a slight "relapse" in the the "old Paul" style of repition. If it continues, I for one will stop reading carefully what you have to say. Note the part of your post I made bold below and the part I placed into italics are identical.
I hope this was just an accident and you will shorten your post to make it less repetitive. I do thank you for the information provided. I must admit I am surprised that in only 10^-9 seconds or less the big bang had expanded so much that the energy density of the early universe had dropped to such a "low" level that man can now achieve that level with his accelerators colliding particles.
I will even suggest to you that in this fact (assuming it is true) there may be an answer to the version of the objection that Reiku raised. I.e. the speed of light is 3x10^10 cm/s so if De Sitter space energy were surging into the "just born" universe for at most 10^-9sec then it would only be able to intrude 30 centemeters into the universe. I do not know much quantatively about the "inflation period" except that somehow it is thought to resolve the problem of the extremely limited set of initial conditions (if all are equally possible randomly), which can result in our current universe. I.e. without the "inflation period" it is very improbable that we could have the universe we now have.
Specifically I do not know how the "diameter of the universe" at t = 10^-9 sec compares to 30 cm. If that "diameter" is on the same scale, then I for one would be willing to drop Reiku's version of the question. I.e. the De Sitter space energy could surge in and even fill the "just born" universe, perhaps even be the cuase of the "inflation" also. In fact, from your last post, I think this is, in some way, the "mother of the universe." I.e. as I observed in recent post a "scientific" but "God like" answer to the question "Where did the universe come from?" Instead of "God made it" a scientists can say "De Sitter space energy made it." But as previously noted, both of those answers only push the fundamental question back one stage.
However, even considing that an answer to Reiku's question may be at hand, that answer does NOT make ANY advance on my old question about why or how the ruptured in the barrier the first type II supernova made was "sealed up" instead of a rip or tear spreading in the barrier with the end result being thermal equlibrium between De Sitter space and our universe. (Or an oscillating one at times much hotter than the current approximately 4degrees K.) I will hence forth call this the "Dutch boy" problem. - I.e. what is the "little Dutch boy" whose fat finger quickly plugs up the "tiny pin hole" the accelerator's colliding particles made in the barrier? Saves our "Holand" from flooding with energy.
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS
Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) 7158, 449, 41-53) We note:
"Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transition from the
continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore,
await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinois or in March 2008 at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe.
Please note, Perry (1986)
"Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transition from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high-energy physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, a noted above, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinois or in March 2008 at CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the point origin
the Universe.
...Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D. Supernova from Experimentation
(If I can remember, after you eliminate your redundancy above, I will edit this post to remove my complaint about it.)
It is my understanding that you have little formal education in physics. (Certainly you none the less know considerable about it now. This is not meant to be critical - I have no formal education in cognitive science, but know considerable about it - even to the extent that like you I am a "crackpot" in that field with an entirely different POV. about the fundamentals of perception - I.e. it is NOT the "emergent" end result of many stages of neural computations, but a "real time simulation" of the sensed world made in parietal brain. If you are, as I think, a Ph.D. in psychology etc. you may know of the parietal stroke sequila called "uni-lateral neglect" - easily explained by my POV as are many other problems for the accepted "emergent" POV.)
Alternative start point
Thus I doubt that you have ever calculated the tunneling of some energy thru a finite height barrier as I have. One slightly more complex version of this classic quantum physic problem is the "twin wells" version which I will attempt to "type draw" for you now:
^............................^
|.............................|5
|.............................|4
|...........____..........|3
|...........|.....|...........|2
|...........|.....|.~~~~~|1
|._____|.....|_____.| Time now is t = 0. (or later at = t4, t8, t12, etc.)
Ignore all the "dots" (periods). They are there just to keep the (intended to be purely) vertical lines in correct positions. (Sciforum's software compresses all multiple blank spaces down to one. why I do not know.)
The two ^ at the top extreme right and left, indicate that these "walls" are infinitely high (zero tunneling probability). The ~~~~~ is the energy or wave function of it actually in the first permittied or "quantized state" at the start of the problem (at t = 0). The central divider is not infinitely high, so this energy will "tunnel thru" into the left side as time passes.
We could call the right hand side the "De Sitter well" and the left well (potential) "our universe," but there is nothing in it, at t =0. It has not been born yet (at t = 0). It is only a "potential universe." After turning the "mathematical crank" of quantum mechanical theory for a while, we come to t = t1. We then find part of the energy has "tunneled thru" - our universe is being "born" and we have:
^............................^
|.............................|5
|.............................|4
|...........____..........|3
|...........|.....|...........|2
|......~...|.....|.~.~.~.|1
|._____|.....|_____.| time now is t = t1
At a still later time, t =t2. in the standard solution to the tunneling equations All the energy has "tunneled thru." and we have:
^............................^
|.............................|5
|.............................|4
|...........____..........|3
|...........|.....|...........|2
|.~~~~~|.....|...........|1
|._____|.....|_____.| time now is t = t2
Which of course is very much like the conditions at t = 0 so at t = t3 we have:
^............................^
|.............................|5
|.............................|4
|...........____..........|3
|...........|.....|...........|2
|~.~.~.~|.....|.....~....|1
|._____|.....|_____.| time now is t = t3
and finally at t = t4 the original state is restored with all the energy back in the De Sitter well.
I actually like the idea of De Sitter space energy being real and the origin of our universe. (If the more religious types take pleasure in responding to the most fundamental question that exists by saying "God made it." then I should be allowed to do the same, by responding "De Sitter space made it."
)
In fact, one might even suggest that our universe is now in a "time frame" that is a little later than t =t1. lets call this time "tn" the subscript being for "now" This point POV may explain "dark energy" as follows:
At t = t1 there was only a little energy in our universe. Perhaps the temperature was not much more than the current 4degrees K as we see in the CBR. This low energy density (temperature) makes little (radiation) pressure on the containing barrier walls so after the intital surge of energy into the nearly zero volume universe (i.e. after the "inflation period") the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE was at a modest rate, but later (now);
At t = tn, there is more energy in the universe or a rising temperature and pressure on the "walls" so the THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE is speeding up. (I have never done the "twin wells" problem with dynamic width of the wells. i.e. their width related, (perhaps linearly but with some fixed "zero time point" energy so there is always a real width to both wells)*, to the energy contained in the well. I doubt if , after 45+ years, I could still do these type of calculations.
I HOPE SOME ONE READING THIS CAN AND WILL.
At t =t2, our universe has become the "De Sitter space" for the next universe to be "born."
Thus, with this POV, time has no begining or end, but every universe does have a begining and end. The more I consider this POV the more I like it.
I continue to think Paul's concerns are baseless, internally inconsistent nonsense until he can offer at least some vaguely plausible answer for both my two main questions (leaving aside the third one related to cosmic rays, at least until these two are answered), namely:
(1) The "Dutch boy" problem. I.e. the barrier rupture "sealing up" instead of a "rip spreading", when the first type II supernova occured, to prevent our much later (11 billion years) existance from ever happening.
(2) Exactly the same time intensity evolution of all type II supernovas, including those old ones (> 11 billion years) prior to the existance of any intellignet life forms anywhere in the universe.
None the less, if there is any sense to my above suggestion finte durtaion universes in a chain of universes without any begining or end, this longest of all threads may have had some utility.
------------
*If more convenient that solving the equations with "dynamic width wells" then try populating the second permitted energy level also initially, etc. or all possible levels if only two populated have some sort of "resonance" with "comenserate periods" and still eventually get all the energy for both levels into one well causing the other to "vanish."
PS: As many reading have never computed the quantum mechanical "tunneling" evolution of enery initially entirely in one of the twin wells, I direct their attention to folloowing, very simple, easily done analogious experiment:
Make two identical stiff-rod (not string) pendumums that hang from the ends of a short (6 inches long would be fine) horizontal bar. (Perhaps two horizontal nails thru the short rod and then pass thru smooth holes near the top of the stiff pendulum rods to be the "fulcrums.") This short bar should in turn be supported at one end of an approximately horizontal, not extreme stiff,* longer bar (foot or more would be fine). (You may find it convenient to clamp the other end of this longer bar in a window, closing down on it, etc.)
Now slightly displace only one of the two pendulum "bobs" (called it "A") from it rest position and release it. What you will observe as time passes is that although 100% of the energy was initially in pendulum "A" soon the pendulum "B" will start to swing, almost as if by magic. After a while "A" will come to rest and "B" will have 100% of the remaining energy (with real pendulums and only nails as fulcrums there will be some energy loss - used at least a pound for each bob, not a tiny weight or all the energy will be gone before bob "A" comes to rest with bob "B" swinging nearly with the same amplitude as the initial displacement.
If you are interested and the least bit capable experimentally, I strongly suggest you actually do this experiment - it is very interesting to see how the energy flows back and forth between the two pendulums. What you have made is a model of the above described "oscilating universes cosmology, except your duration of each "universe" will be on the order of 100 or so periods of the pendulums. (Make them as identical as you can so both do have the same period.) If my above suggested explanation of "dark energy," origin of the "big bang" etc. is correct the duration of our universe is probably on the order of few 1000 billion years, and it will get hotter as it gets all the available energy (at t =t2 in my illustrations above.)
How much hotter will depend mainly upon the "stiffness of the dynamic wall of the wells (or the "boundary of the universe" but that is a meaningless concept so probably someting more like "the resistance of space time to "bending" of self closure in fintie volume is more correct. I can not do much (nothing now) with general relativity math, where a better way of stating what I am trying to say probably exists.) For example, if dark energy can only "increase the volume of the universe" slightly and lots of energy is still being added from De Sitter space, the much hotter than the current 4 degrees K. If in contrast, the "walls" are "easlly moved," the temperature may even continue to drop.
As I understand the conventional ideas, the universe temperarture can only drop as it expands. If there is any indication that it may be increasing then my above suggestion should be taken more seriously. Perhaps the slight lack of uniformity in the CBR has an entirely different explanation, more related to the locations where De Sitter space energy is tunneling thru now, instead of the early stages of the universe's history?
