Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 150

Thread: My Theory on an Alternative to the Big Bang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641

    My Theory on an Alternative to the Big Bang

    The Circumfluo Cosmological Theory

    And so, I have decided to write an alternative to a Big Bang model because I have been pressed on ''personal idea's'' lately without being properly prepared. I have now sat down and been able to write one up.

    ''Circumfluo'' is latin and it means to ''flow round''. What is flowing round? I will get to this soon, but first of all, why do I not like Big Bang? The main reasons are obvious: there is a serious form of a singularity in the beginning of existence - it is true however Hawking uses quantum mechanics to rid the singularity but he is left with the problem of how to unify GR at times less than the Planck Time. As has been noted in this forum recently I did notice a circular arguement made by Hawking, a kind of chicken-egg scenario; I also feel that GR should be trusted - that we should not ignore a singularity if it appears. The fact however big bang arose with a singularity there is the problem of where it came from and why it expanded. I believe the question of why the singularity first expanded is not fully understood but I attempt to answer this, as I have in my thread next door. But my biggest problem to date with BB is the question of, ''what happened before it?'' And perhaps the crux of the problem, the question of cause and effect. Did the universe really appear, without any prior cause? I don't think it did, but BB would love to have you believe this and I am simply not ready for this.

    What if there was no singularity in the sense of an infinitely concentrated point of energy density? There is a way out of this... It's pretty technical but could be allowable according to the science of quantum mechanics and even relativity theories. To do this however, we need to understand what it means for a universe to be in a Ground State and what it means for a universe to be in an Excited State. Normally, a ground state system will arrange it's constituents, (for a quick instance, an atom) which consists of electrons, protons and nuetrons to the lowest energy state possible. A Ground state system effectively stores as much energy as it can. An excited state system/atom however, is something more exotic - it will release energy after a period of time through a tremendous burst of gamma radiation.

    But we are talking about a universe here, surely atoms are bad examples?

    Actually they are brilliant examples and can be effectively used to describe universes, because, in the beginning, this very universe has a structure that was very similar to what we might call an atom today. This view, the view of thinking of the universe like an atom has a special name, called quantum cosmology. Let's call this the primordial atom - our universe, the primordial atom then could have began with either two unique energy states - those being an excited state or a ground state. [1] If our universe arose in a ground state, then it cannot spill out energy. This is the uninteresting case. If it has began in a ground state, it would have had a structure similar to a black hole. Now, if it had began as a singularity, then this is my interesing case and the case we are going to deal with today. If our universe began in an excited phase, then it would have had began as a singularity.

    Now, before I continue, I want to cover a small topic the now concerning the many worlds hypothesis. I don't agree with the parallel universe model name for reasons which will be discussed very soon.

    Finita Fluunt

    Unless energy from the outside had entered the ground state hypothetical universe, then effectively it would never quantum leap - this much has been established. One thing to remember however, that any energy which has flowed in from the outside (whatever that system might be) would have to be exactly the energy needed to excite the universe to the first excited state [2] and yet again, any energy flowing in, the exact kind of energy would flow out of it if it did not have this exact value. Our journey begins in a primordial universe - actually one of many universes which would be born, but they wll never exist side-by-side simultaneously. Hopefully now you will come to understand why the name, ''Parallel Universes'' is actually a bad choice of a name in this theory?

    This primordial universe, the beginning universe is caught up in a massive Curved Spacelike Loop with a finite amount of universes. universes would suffice this theory (an estimate calculated by Bryce de Witt) by how many universes a theory could have instead of the alternative infinite number we often here about in the halls of Parallel Universe enthusiasts. This excited state universe will eventually spill its energy, and this energy will quantum leap into a new configuration, but this configuration is not any old configuration - the energy and information actually ''tunnels'' into a new universe which is just beginning. It is beginning because this energy has just tunnelled into a very small confined point. What causes this point to expand will be explained later. But for now, we should keep in mind that this energy is just the correct kind of energy and information which will make this newly born universe an excited state phenomenea.

    Inexorably, we must infer that this is then an excited state of information that is shared throughout each universe - the rate at which it gives up it's energy may vary only by a small quantum difference - indeed, given enough of these differences, you will eventually come to universes where they may only exist for short periods and give up their energies very quickly in an abundant rush. Just like what we would expect from a Parallel Universe model, no two universes can ever be quite the same and the reason why is because that information is stored in the wave function - the wave function would be this ''information'' I speak about, coexisting alongside the energy. Again, this continues until the very last universe gives up it's energy and then returns back to the universe it once began in. Reality then truely is destined to repeat itself.

    And so, as each branch effectively gives up its energy, this energy will be transported via tunnelling into a new universe. The wave function is not spread over a single universe alone, but there is a wave function which is ''continued'' into the new branch and contains all the relevant dynamics of the previous branch. This way, we can say that information is never truely lost. And if this wave function acts like a blueprint to how a universe can arise, then it explains why certain energy conditions very early on in any universes history had not appeared side-by-side smeared by chance and probability - instead, we have a type of ''universal DNA'' which passes on information and tells each universe how to appear. Indeed, if this did not happen, then there would be a possibility that a universe could recieve this energy from a branch that is just closing down and arrange this energy in such a way that it would retain the use of the energy - a ground state universe to be exact.

    What causes the acceleration of distant galaxies?

    I could believe that spacetime is expanding - I have afterall been able to solve the cause and effect problem of BB, this was one of the biggest things which troubled me.

    Now, I know that I have said in the past that maybe it is just objects moving around in the universe which causes the impression of expansion, but my problem is not with expansion. I can deal with that and I even have an answer for the accelerated expansion we observe today in the most farout reaches of the observable universe and it all comes back down to energy conditions.

    So first, what causes the expansion in the first place?

    Well my theory next door, backed up with some math explains that in the very beginning of time, energy seems to have been stacked up infinitely - squeezed into a very small point. Normally, Hawking would invoke quantum mechanics and dictate that this singularity could not exist. I actually embraced the violation of the uncertainty principle and used it to explain why space began appearing between matter. If you want a more indepth look into this theory, you should go to that theory and read up about it. But now comes the question, what is causing the accelerated expansion? Well, it is possible that the universe is now accelerating faster than light because the universe is effectively using up more and more energy - the energy is not conserved. This idea is backed up by Michio Kaku who first postulated this in a TV program (which name I do not recall). But I am effectively saying that the accelerated expansion is in fact a clue that our universe was born in an excited energy phase. This tantalizing clue would suggest that at some point our universe will indeed quantum leap into a new configuration, and if my theory is true, it will be the birth of a new universe that is also just beginning in an excited state energy phase.

    The Universe does not Conserve Energy

    I know I said there would be no math, but I feel confident enough to try and prove that energy will not be conserved in this universe and there are some clues in which this could be approached mathematically or atleast justified in a way.

    There is something in physics and cosmology, called the ''Time Problem'' [3] - when you quantize the Einstein Field Equations, you get back what is called the Wheeler de Witt equation. The Hamiltonian is supposed to describe the energy of the universe - It's wave function is global and the equation takes this form:



    Usually for an energy equation like this, it would take the form of a Schrodinger energy equation - however, the right hand side has a vanishing time derivative and this has led to the famous interepretation that we are living in a timeless universe. (See references for reading material on this subject).

    There could be something more sinister to realize perhaps, that maybe the universe is not a conserved case of energy. This statement however just seems to hard to believe ... or does it? The universe is now receeding faster than light which seems to indicate that our universe is using energy at a faster rate. In doing so, it might be conjectured that on the crux of things, the universe is not conserving energy like a ground state atom and thus will quantum leap sometime in the future. Odd to think of a universe quantum leaping, but this has been the literature in quantum cosmology.

    Usually when we talk about a system not conserving it's energy, we talk about the system not having a symmetry. A symmetry would let a langrangian density be . That is a conserved energy from symmetry, but if you add something into the equation that break's this symmetry then you no longer have a conserved quantity. So maybe, just maybe Noether's Theorem is not applicable to the universe because it does not retain the symmetry allowed to express the system as a conserved quantity.

    So, what is a Langrangian Density?

    We may have a Langrangian



    This would be the canonical momentum in respect to . An example of breaking the symmetry, is if you had some potential term in there, and usually a simply potential may have the form



    Interested in the conservation, a simple Noether Theorem would include a transformation with a small parameter, or perturbation. A conserved solution would be



    The way this transforms is



    The epsilon dissapears (it is such a small quantity) and you are left with a conserved quantity



    If it was a field momentum, then is replaced with and the momentum is replaced with yielding



    where C is some constant.

    Perhaps the main point is that, to have a conserved quantity you require time to translate your quantity correctly. Now, if the universe is timeless, how can the universe have a defined energy? See, time and energy are conjugates of each other in Noether's theorem and in principle if we had the appearance of time in the cosmological approach, we would be theoretically able to describe the universe with a defined and conserved energy. But since our models to date tell us that time vanishes on a global scale, this conservation cannot exist and so this is a justification in itself that we live in an excited state energy phased universe that will eventually spill all its energy into a new universe.

    Final Words

    We have seen many models brought forward... even ''spectacular models'' Penrose calls it, of the Cyclic Universe theory. Mine is a Cyclic model as well, but it makes use of many universes at different times and can explain a cause and effect mechanism which his theory cannot. We also have singularities but they don't exist long, they might exist on something like the order of the lifetime of a virtual particle. I say this because the Uncertainty Principle is a clue.

    My problem has never really been with BB's prediction of a background temperature, accelerated expansion ect. My problem has been lying with the fact we don't know what happened before it and also the question of how a unification can even take into consideration a singular region of spacetime.

    [1] - Actually, if the wave function of the universe (which is just a state vector) has not collapsed in the beginning of existence, then the universe should have arose in any state side-by-side in a smear of possibilities. It is for this reason we must assume that somehow the parameters of this universe at very early times has been designated. The reason for this will be given soon in my theory.

    [2] - Fred Wolf - Parallel Universes 1985

    [3] A few articles here which can be read, timeless WDW-equation feature in all of them -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler...eWitt_equation

    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409006

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/6/1/045

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,090
    No, just because you start a thread in OTB doesn't mean it is not ATM.

    This thread is moved to ATM where it belongs and all the responsibilities of an ATM advocate, such as politely answering all questions put to you and presenting evidence of your idea apply. And since we went through this once already, and since you say you are now prepared, then it is a given that you are familiar with our rules and are prepared to participate here. You do not have the option to ask that this thread be closed, unless you concede that your idea is incorrect. You will participate as required in this thread or you will be infracted and suspended.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    No, just because you start a thread in OTB doesn't mean it is not ATM.

    This thread is moved to ATM where it belongs and all the responsibilities of an ATM advocate, such as politely answering all questions put to you and presenting evidence of your idea apply. And since we went through this once already, and since you say you are now prepared, then it is a given that you are familiar with our rules and are prepared to participate here. You do not have the option to ask that this thread be closed, unless you concede that your idea is incorrect. You will participate as required in this thread or you will be infracted and suspended.
    I am ready, I have been thinking of this model quietly for a long time.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    It seems this is not an alternative to the big bang but a hypothesis about what might have preceded it. Is that correct?

    If so, it seems to me that there is no mainstream position to be against.

    Good luck with it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It seems this is not an alternative to the big bang but a hypothesis about what might have preceded it. Is that correct?

    If so, it seems to me that there is no mainstream position to be against.

    Good luck with it.
    Oh no, it is completely alternative friend. What makes it an alternative is that the BB is replaced by many universes which exist seperately at different chronological orders. The BB is no longer the BB either - the BB cannot account or does not explain what happened before the BB. You are right, this theory does. It explains that before the BB, there where many universes, not an infinite amount but a finite collection - so our energy appeared in this universe because of the death of other universes before it. It is also alternative because the BB theory does not account for a possible quantum leap.

    This model helps explain the Cause and Effect problem of big bang, allows many different universes and explains what happened before the BB. Thanks for wishing me luck.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Oh no, it is completely alternative friend. What makes it an alternative is that the BB is replaced by many universes which exist seperately at different chronological orders. The BB is no longer the BB either - the BB cannot account or does not explain what happened before the BB. You are right, this theory does. It explains that before the BB, there where many universes, not an infinite amount but a finite collection - so our energy appeared in this universe because of the death of other universes before it. It is also alternative because the BB theory does not account for a possible quantum leap.

    This model helps explain the Cause and Effect problem of big bang, allows many different universes and explains what happened before the BB. Thanks for wishing me luck.
    There is no cause and effect problem with the big bang theory. The big bang theory has absolutely nothing to say about any time less than the plank time from the beginning of this universe. Technically, the big bang theory only implys that the universe began because observational evidence is that a) there is a universe, and b) this universe seems to have expanded from a point starting about 14 billion years ago.

    Making a theory that explains the time before the big bang is basically meaningless until after you can observationally show that there in fact was a time less than zero. This is the same problem that string and brane theories both have, in that they have no observational evidence beyond standard GR. Until you have that evidence you dont really have a solid position, and can basically say anything you want.

    I have to agree with Strange that you dont really have a mainstream position to be against, but I also have to agree with Swift that this is ATM, cause you mostly want to prove big bang theory wrong.
    Last edited by korjik; 2012-May-02 at 01:40 PM. Reason: sting to string. I do physics, not spelling :)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    There is no cause and effect problem with the big bang theory.
    There is a problem and I strongly disagree.

    BB cannot just appear into existence without identifying whether it is a cause or effect. If the universe is a cause, then what effect brought this cause about? If it is an effect, then what brought the cause about?

    There is no reaction without action. The action of the universe required a reaction before it. The BB cannot explain time before or at the big bang because

    A. BB cannot account for what happened before its own existence
    B. There was no geometry you can talk about at BB so there was no time to talk about either

    Think of it this way, do you just accept BB without any question of it's origin? There must have been an origin, nothing simply is without a reason.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-ca...-big-bang.html

    This arguement follows close to what you say. It says we are forced to think there is no cause or effect because time is not fundamental. It says however this theory will mean something really strange for us... my theory is not really strange at all and is conceivable to answer the question of what preceeded the universe - another universe, and many more... a finite collection no less which can withstand the worry of time not being fundamental; simply because there is a type of order in which energy is shared. The order is contained within the wave function forever recyclying itself.

    But I really do see the BB as a problem when talking about cause and effect. Something cannot just come into existence without a prior cause. It goes against rationale.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Oh no, it is completely alternative friend. What makes it an alternative is that the BB is replaced by many universes which exist seperately at different chronological orders. The BB is no longer the BB either - the BB cannot account or does not explain what happened before the BB.
    Yep. That is outside the scope of the big bang theory, currently. Because we don't have any evidence or any theories that extrapolate that far back. (Until now. Maybe. )

    But as you say you accept the idea of the expanding universe, presumably you also have to accept most of the rest of the big bang theory? The general timeline: the baryogenesis, nucleosynthesis, reionization, etc?

    From the little I have read, I don't think your comment that "energy is not conserved" in the universe as a whole is particularly controversial either.

    So, it seems as though you are only (?) attempting to explain the origin of the universe. I don't have the ability to comment on your argument. One problem with any speculation/hypothesis like this is: what evidence would distinguish this idea from the various others that have been proposed? Penrose predicts things which should be seen if he is correct (which he also claims have been observed). I'm not sure many other "creation" theories do.

    Does yours?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    (snip) This primordial universe, the beginning universe is caught up in a massive Curved Spacelike Loop with a finite amount of universes. (snip)
    Please prove this, here in this thread, in your words and math, without links to questionable sources.

    Regards, John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    There is no cause and effect problem with the big bang theory. The big bang theory has absolutely nothing to say about any time less than the plank time from the beginning of this universe. Technically, the big bang theory only implys that the universe began because observational evidence is that a) there is a universe, and b) this universe seems to have expanded from a point starting about 14 billion years ago.

    Making a theory that explains the time before the big bang is basically meaningless until after you can observationally show that there in fact was a time less than zero. This is the same problem that sting and brane theories both have, in that they have no observational evidence beyond standard GR. Until you have that evidence you dont really have a solid position, and can basically say anything you want.

    I have to agree with Strange that you dont really have a mainstream position to be against, but I also have to agree with Swift that this is ATM, cause you mostly want to prove big bang theory wrong.
    Which is why I compare these type of arguments to creationists complaining that the modern theory of evolution can not explain how life came from non life while throwing in long refuted "problems" with evolution.

    It is uncanny the similarity in format.

    Person A: Theory [x] can't explain what happened before it.
    Scientist: That is because what happened before Theory [x] isn't even part of Theory [x].
    Person A: But if you can't explain what happened before Theory [x] then it has to be false?
    Scientist: Theory [x] assumes a starting condition. That is how theories work.
    Person A: You can't just ignore what happened before Theory [x].
    Scientist: Yes we can. That is the domain of some other hypothesis at this point.
    Person A: What about [y]? [y] proves Theory [x] wrong!
    Scientist: No, Theory [x] actually predicted [y] before it was observed.
    Person A: What about [z]? There is no way Theory [x] can be right because of [z] works like this [insert word salad here].
    Scientist: [z] doesn't work that way. It works this way and that doesn't invalidate Theory [x]
    Person A: Theory [x] can't explain what happened before it. (hoping people will forget that what happens before the start of a theory is by definition not part of said theory)

    I'm trying to figure out what the problem is with the Big Bang Theory. Before it seemed that he/she didn't like the idea of expansion. Now his/her own idea includes a mechanism for expansion. Like the main stream his/her idea doesn't require energy to be conserved at the largest scale. Like other hypotheses I'm not sure how this idea could even be tested.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Think of it this way, do you just accept BB without any question of it's origin? There must have been an origin, nothing simply is without a reason.
    The answer is obviously yes because the BB theory is not a theory about the origin of the universe. It is a theory about how the universe has changed.
    This is the same situation as in the theory of evolution. No one expects evolution to include the origin of life.
    Likewise no one expects BB theory to include the origin of the universe.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    11,107
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Which is why I compare ...
    This is an ATM thread, let's not insert side-discussions (whether on-topic or not).
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-02 at 02:29 AM. Reason: Add quote fragment
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Please prove this, here in this thread, in your words and math, without links to questionable sources.

    Regards, John M.
    Sometimes it is hard to describe certain things and sometimes the words can appear like something else.


    They are connected like a loop. Spacelike loop sounds an aweful lot like timelike loop - one might mistake this as a GR terminology when I did not mean that. I meant that these universe are connected through pointlike spaces - Of course, fundamentally-speaking there was no such thing as space or time when any of these universes appeared. I was trying to stay away from the over-abused notions of time. These universes are not connected through time.

    They are connected simply through a potential which the particles will tunnel. Out of my entire OP, that was probably the worst written sentance. And you had to pick it

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The answer is obviously yes because the BB theory is not a theory about the origin of the universe. It is a theory about how the universe has changed.
    This is the same situation as in the theory of evolution. No one expects evolution to include the origin of life.
    Likewise no one expects BB theory to include the origin of the universe.
    Well, that's the problem.

    If BB cannot account for its own origin, there is a cause and effect problem of the universe. It's quite simple.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yep. That is outside the scope of the big bang theory, currently. Because we don't have any evidence or any theories that extrapolate that far back. (Until now. Maybe. )

    But as you say you accept the idea of the expanding universe, presumably you also have to accept most of the rest of the big bang theory? The general timeline: the baryogenesis, nucleosynthesis, reionization, etc?

    From the little I have read, I don't think your comment that "energy is not conserved" in the universe as a whole is particularly controversial either.

    So, it seems as though you are only (?) attempting to explain the origin of the universe. I don't have the ability to comment on your argument. One problem with any speculation/hypothesis like this is: what evidence would distinguish this idea from the various others that have been proposed? Penrose predicts things which should be seen if he is correct (which he also claims have been observed). I'm not sure many other "creation" theories do.

    Does yours?
    My theory makes an interesting prediction on the wave function. It says that the wave function governs the information for a universe to arise specifically in excited states. Remember what I said, if a universe appeared in a Ground State it would never spill its energy and quantum leap. We need this spill to keep the great sea of universes alive.

    The prediction here is that there needs to be conditions ''designated'' for each universe at the initial condition of the universe. The best model which suits this would be a Bohmian Wave function. The Bohmian Wave function is guided by Pilot Waves and there was a Collapse of this wave function at the very first moment of existence. If the Pilot Wave theory could be proven, that would be one big part of this theory. This theory does fail, unfortunately, from a bad experimental bug like the many worlds theory.

    That is, the laws of quantum mechanics says that no universe outside my own can be observed - that any universe is effectively ''self-contained''. If universes are self-contained, how does one actually come to observe one to prove their existences? I think David Albert a while back made comments on possible ways to take photo's of parallel universes but I don't know how realistic his approaches would have been.

    I've speculated, that if gravitons really to ''seep between universes'' as you might find in string theory, maybe you could make some kind of graviton-morse-code-machine which could send signals between universes. But hey, gravitons have never been discovered - gravity may as well be a psuedoforce and string theory is even wilder than my own theory.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Sometimes it is hard to describe certain things and sometimes the words can appear like something else.


    They are connected like a loop. Spacelike loop sounds an aweful lot like timelike loop - one might mistake this as a GR terminology when I did not mean that. I meant that these universe are connected through pointlike spaces - Of course, fundamentally-speaking there was no such thing as space or time when any of these universes appeared. I was trying to stay away from the over-abused notions of time. These universes are not connected through time.

    They are connected simply through a potential which the particles will tunnel. Out of my entire OP, that was probably the worst written sentance. And you had to pick it

    Shall I try and describe this connection?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The answer is obviously yes because the BB theory is not a theory about the origin of the universe. It is a theory about how the universe has changed.
    This is the same situation as in the theory of evolution. No one expects evolution to include the origin of life.
    Likewise no one expects BB theory to include the origin of the universe.
    Well, that's the problem.

    If BB cannot account for its own origin, there is a cause and effect problem of the universe. It's quite simple.
    Well, if that's a problem then you have the same one. The same thing could be said regarding your "sea of universes." Can it account for its own origin?

    So please explain why the properties of something can't be studied without knowing its origin.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    What evidence or observation could be made (in future, perhaps) that would distinguish this speculation from others?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    Well, if that's a problem then you have the same one. The same thing could be said regarding your "sea of universes." Can it account for its own origin?

    So please explain why the properties of something can't be studied without knowing its origin.
    Glad you asked. At first it is not completely obvious. As I said, there is no such thing as a ''connection in time'' with these universes, so let's use a little thought experiment.

    Where you see ''B'' stands for branch, and let us use three of these for a finite simple example. The Branches will be dashed, to show some kind of order, and the Branches will be numbered with subscripts to show that one end is the beginning of that branch and the end of that Branch. The dots represent the evolution of the universe in which objects will experience time local to them. This can only be applied to bradyonic systems when time is experienced.



    and ofcourse, to link them again,



    Now, hopefully that can be imagined, where the right arrow shows the transition phase - the tunneling phase in which particles are squeezed into a universe. To solve where these universes came from, you require more than one universe. Two to be exact. If the our universe was for an idealized arguement was the Branch which begins this chain given by alpha and ignoring all the universes that come inbetween to the final universe before the matter is squeezed back into this universe, no time has passed, because again, these universes are not linked in time.

    The origin of any one universe then is answerable easily by the death of another. It is an endless cycle which may have happened for eternity. In this model, we are sure to say we can answer for the origin of a universe - paradoxically, an origin which has happened over and over again.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What evidence or observation could be made (in future, perhaps) that would distinguish this speculation from others?
    The rate at which energy is being used we may extrapolate whether for certain our universe will experience a quantum leap could destinguish this speculative theory from another which for instance, requires this universe to have begun in a ground state. Hawkings approach for instance, where he removes singularities using quantum mechanics are all ground state examples.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Glad you asked. At first it is not completely obvious. As I said, there is no such thing as a ''connection in time'' with these universes, so let's use a little thought experiment.

    Where you see ''B'' stands for branch, and let us use three of these for a finite simple example. The Branches will be dashed, to show some kind of order, and the Branches will be numbered with subscripts to show that one end is the beginning of that branch and the end of that Branch. The dots represent the evolution of the universe in which objects will experience time local to them. This can only be applied to bradyonic systems when time is experienced.



    and ofcourse, to link them again,



    Now, hopefully that can be imagined, where the right arrow shows the transition phase - the tunneling phase in which particles are squeezed into a universe. To solve where these universes came from, you require more than one universe. Two to be exact. If the our universe was for an idealized arguement was the Branch which begins this chain given by alpha and ignoring all the universes that come inbetween to the final universe before the matter is squeezed back into this universe, no time has passed, because again, these universes are not linked in time.

    The origin of any one universe then is answerable easily by the death of another. It is an endless cycle which may have happened for eternity. In this model, we are sure to say we can answer for the origin of a universe - paradoxically, an origin which has happened over and over again.
    I suppose you could say, it forever answers an origin for any single universe - the sea of universes are not truely chronologically ordered in time. And since only one universe at a time ever exists, it does not hold any favours to try and answer for an origin of all the universes at once. So my sea of universes philosophically-speaking does not require an origin per se.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    The rate at which energy is being used we may extrapolate whether for certain our universe will experience a quantum leap
    Can you explain what you mean by the universe experiencing a "quantum leap"? Do you mean the entire universe being moved to a higher (or lower) energy level? What measurable effects would this have?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Can you explain what you mean by the universe experiencing a "quantum leap"? Do you mean the entire universe being moved to a higher (or lower) energy level? What measurable effects would this have?

    Posts merged


    By quantum leap, we mean a transition phase for a system: a new configuration. Our universe will inexorably reach such a quantum leap if it continues to use energy up rapidly. Now, there could be many interpretations of what this new configuration would be, but it seems back in the 1980's the idea of a universe giving up its energy to create another universe was a popular idea among physicists, as I noted a very good reading material on the subject, ''Parallel Universes'' which was published in 1985 I think.

    So in this model, the new configuration would be viewing the universe like an atom, giving up its energy via quantum tunelling into a universe which is only just beginning. I could have opted for particles to be linked by a wormhole, but to do so, it would require a ground state system to allow this wormhole. Plus we also need new adjustable parameters such as exotic matter to try and keep this wormhole open.

    And it would be to the first excited energy level, yes. There may be many excited energy levels, and there will be a critical energy level in which the energy is given up.

    With what knoweldge I have of differential equations in respect to quantum tunnelling I am attempting some kind of very simple analogous math right now. I don't know if I will be happy with it enough when it's finished to actually show it here, but if I am I will.

    I keep running into problems because I am essentially advocating a timeless universe where the dynamics from a global sense are non-changing. This has problems for my understanding of quantum tunnelling because most approaches of quantum tunnelling are time-dependant. Then of course, even if I used a time-independant case, that means my system is stationary with respect to it's dynamics so there is a problem increasing energy levels.

    Pretty complicated stuff.

    I could say that time is an induced phenomena - that whilst time is not fundamental, when matter appears in the universe time appears also locally to these objects. I could describe fields as individual slow moving matter clocks but I better make sure my universes don't get to old before they quantum leap or all what will be left will be radiation fields which don't even tick off time according to relativity.

    The only way to recover time from the Wheeler de Witt equation is by introducing matter fields - slow moving individual systems which tick off real time local to the constituents of that field. There are only so many options open for me to do this, and I need to use my Induced Time Hypothesis which I wrote about up here in this forum which you can read in the ATM.

    Geometrogenesis explains that as temperatures cooled in the universe, radiation fields experienced a symmetry breaking and gave way to the matter fields which dominate our observable universe today. Let us call these matter fields . The wave function is the wave function of these fields and the equation I derived for this understanding at the low energy phase of the universe to regain a sense of time again in the universe is a flux equation



    Where calculates the distance between the particles and the Laplacian Operator calculates the divergence. The matter field measures the rate in which these fields change in respect to the derivative of time and tick off real time events in their slow relative coordinate systems. The net flow rate would be given as



    Plugging this into the statistical analysis of entropy, one can obtain simply from a dimensional analysis that



    This way, we measure the density of states in relation to our mass flow field(s).

    Now this approach will help me use time where it should not be present in the WDW-formalism.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    If BB cannot account for its own origin, there is a cause and effect problem of the universe. It's quite simple.
    This makes no sense whatsoever. The theory of classical electrodynamics (see e.g. THE book on it by Jackson) does not make anz explanation about why there is a charge, so should that be discarded too then?
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    This makes no sense whatsoever. The theory of classical electrodynamics (see e.g. THE book on it by Jackson) does not make anz explanation about why there is a charge, so should that be discarded too then?
    Sir, I don't think you understand why people look for answers to things there are no answers to.

    Let me ask you something...


    ... If there is no current answer, should this mean we should not seek one? You seem to be caught in a circular arguement of your own. You argue, it seems from what I can read, that because something does not have an answer does not require one?


    The only time a theory should not require an answer is when there is already an existing answer to quell the fact we don't need to look for one. It is true, we don't know what causes charge. Equally I argue, we don't know what mass is. Does that mean that has stopped us in our tracks to not look for an answer?

    You must realize your example is... redundant. I don't know what kind of arguement you are trying to make here. Since my time here, I can see people posit questions as if for just the sake of shooting down a theory. Atleast, in my highest respect of yourself, posit a question if it has a true reasoning and logic. Your's has none of that.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I say there is a problem with BB because there is the question of what caused it. We live in a universe where the question of an action causing a reaction is not questioned, so why should the BB be free of that?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    893
    The BB doesn't cover the origin of the universe, only what transpires after the event. You're asking one theory to explain a different theory's territory, and then knocking it down because it can't. It wasn't meant to cover that topic.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    yes... As I keep hearing, and as I have learned over the years.

    Just because the BB does not tackle this question does not mean it should not be tackled. The BB in all honesty tries to account for everything as we understand it - but then it doesn't, because it can't even explain itself.

    this is a problem no matter what rose-tinted spectacles you try and observe it from.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    The BB is flawed in its understanding, if that understanding was not required to understand where the origin came form. It is as simple as that. You can't expact a randomg system with no pre-existing cause to explain everything, without even explaining itself.

    Surely this cannot be argued?

Similar Threads

  1. New Theory on Big Bang alternative.
    By p9107 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 2020-Aug-20, 01:44 AM
  2. My Theory on an Alternative to the Big Bang
    By Aethelwulf in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-May-01, 05:24 PM
  3. Iamcurioustoo's Idea - Alternative To Big Bang
    By iamcurioustoo in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2006-Sep-19, 05:25 PM
  4. Alexander Mayer & an alternative to the Big Bang
    By Nivag in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-13, 12:34 PM
  5. Big Bang Alternative
    By StarLab in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-20, 04:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •