A possible way to explain the inflation theory without changing Relativity

[nkt]

Yes, I know it's a big claim, but there you go. Although I have a formal physics education to Honours degree standard, and am a free-lance inventor and problem solver, I'm not a great fan of maths.

 

Ok, on with the show.

 

A major issue for many years has been the "missing mass" that is required to explain the current rate of expansion of the universe, following the big bang. So far, attempts to explain the short period of rapid expansion from singularity to a universe roughly the size of a basketball, have invoked all sorts of weird effects, etc.

 

However, one seems to have been overlooked entirely. According to the Theory of Relativity, gravity only exists once there is an inhomogenous universe. Therefore, at the time of the big bang, when the universe was homogenous, gravity had no effect. After a few milliseconds, and some cooling, the first matter would start to interact, and gravity would start to make itself felt. I suspect this would only be true in one axis/plane, however, until further irregularity came about, then again, for effect in all three dimensions.

 

Hence the universe is not a perfect sphere(1), and could expand very rapidly at the beginning of the universe without the effects of gravity.

 

This leads nicely into a "recurring universe" scenario - if the universe collapses to a small point, it becomes free from gravity again, and inertia alone keeps things compressing further. This is then overwhelmed, and the universe expands again.

 

Neat, huh?

 

(1) The universe is probably bounded, but probably not a perfect sphere. It is bounded, as far as anyone knows, in that the fabric of space-time is closed, while the Euclidian geometry is still valid in 3-D. This means that if you head in a straight line/one direction for long enough, you will eventually return to your starting point from the other side.

If the universe is a perfect sphere as viewed from the 'outside', it would disprove my theory.

 

I've put this on my website at http://www.rubbertreeplant.co.uk/gravity.php with pictures and a bit more of the theory. I might be way off, I don't even know if the guys in (1) were ever published. However, it ties in with the FLRW model.

 

Feedback, please!

 

EDIT: corrected hyperlink.

[infamous]

 

According to the Theory of Relativity, gravity only exists once there is an inhomogenous universe. Therefore, at the time of the big bang, when the universe was homogenous, gravity had no effect. After a few milliseconds, and some cooling, the first matter would start to interact, and gravity would start to make itself felt. I suspect this would only be true in one axis/plane, however, until further irregularity came about, then again, for effect in all three dimensions.

 

 

Feedback, please!

 

Very interesting point nkt, before symmetry breaking the gravitaional force would have looked like the strong nuclear force, at least thats the current speculation. With all four forces basically symmetrical, gravity would not show its face untill later in the expansion.

[GAHD]

Still it doesn't quite explain the current rate of expansion, unless your indicating that matter might be disappearing & thus allowing the speed up.

[Tormod]

Hence the universe is not a perfect sphere(1), and could expand very rapidly at the beginning of the universe without the effects of gravity.

 

I am not aware of any current cosmological models that assume the universe to be a perfect sphere. Which theory are you referring to? It seems your ideas need support from at least one such model to go any further.

[nkt]

I am not aware of any current cosmological models that assume the universe to be a perfect sphere. Which theory are you referring to? It seems your ideas need support from at least one such model to go any further.

 

It's the opposite, Tormud. If the universe turned out to still be a perfect sphere, it would disprove the theory, but, as you say, I don't know of anyone who has made that claim.

 

The other theory that would disprove it would be if the universe turned out to be a torus shape, since I can't figure a way for that to work.

 

Back at the time of the big bang, the universe, if homogenous in line with the FLRW model, then it would be fairly obvious that the universe started out as a perfect sphere.

 

Take a look at my page with pictures, URL in the OP. It explains it better, and has proper references.

[amt7565]

I thought the missing matter was responsible for holding galaxies together and slows the speed of expansion...

[nkt]

I thought the missing matter was responsible for holding galaxies together and slows the speed of expansion...

 

The expansion speed is wrong, that's true.

 

As far as I know, the state of the universe as we are observing it is wrong, as the predicted mass doesn't tie up with the masses required to explain the velocities of the galaxies, and the fact that they hang together, in spite of the rate of rotation of those galaxies, when gravity shouldn't be strong enough to keep them together. (Not enough centripetal force from gravity). Of course, rapid expansion without gravity in the begining would explain the higher than predicted velocities outwards. I can't explain the rotation rate issue, though.

 

The other issue is that the rate of expansion seems to be speeding up, which cannot happen under current theory, since there is nothing to "push" outwards. However, I think that this can be explained by the expansion of the very fabric of the universe being affected by the masses in it. The way I think of it is, gravity holds the matter clumps together on the trampoline, so as you stretch the trampoline, the masses also hold back the local stretching of the trampoline. If that makes sense.

 

This means that where there is little matter and hence less gravity, i.e. between stars and moreso between galaxies, the rate of stretching is higher than where gravity holds on to the fabric of space-time.

 

Note that this solution, while just a hunch, explains the odd acceleration observations, as well as giving a clue as to where inertia comes from.

[coldcreation]

“The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is. However I and several other people showed that, at least in its original form, it predicted much greater variations in the temperature of the microwave background radiation than are observed. Latter work also cast doubt on whether there could be a phase transition in the very early universe of the kind required. In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers as if it were viable.” (Hawking, 1988, p. 132)

 

I agree...but I like Guth's "free lunch" idea.

[coldcreation]

There is a suggestion that changes relativity only slightly. Some believe that the phony vacuum is not like an empty lunch box, that it has incredible energy: a kind of false energy, an epicurean smorgasbord of unknown energy. It follows that there is a neo-Einsteinian food/energy equivalence according to E = fc2 where energy equal food times the speed of light squared.

 

Skeptics may ask what is there left to say about real matter, real energy, the real vacuum, real fields, or a real meal. According to Guth’s theory, the egg came before the chicken - epitomized by the false vacuum: That’s one big egg. If there’s anything worth paying for and worth seeking out, it’s a decent freshly laid egg. But the language of eggs is as debased as the product of inflation, when the words chicken and “free lunch” have currency but no value.

 

The real invention of inflation is it’s false vacuum. Some call it low fat food. Let’s put it this way: take an empty vacuum and lower the energy-density still further, until the energy-density is negative (good luck). This is the kind of food you can eat plenty of and never get fat. It was cooked up to season the big bang not a big mac. All it's all bunkum.

 

The speed and precision with which the false vacuum wipes clean the problems of modern cosmology are irrefutable. Well, almost. The repulsive force did not eliminate the fine-tuning problem. It renewed it. Yet no doubt, inflation and the standard model can feed off of each other and coexist amicably on the same researchers desk. Inflation doesn’t do away with the omnipresent explosion. It becomes an intimate part of it.

 

There are no laws. You can do what you want. And you never know what you’re doing.

[Little Bang]

Heres an E-mail that I sent to a friend, what do you think?

 

All the phenomena that we see in the Universe lends itself to the belief that there was some sort of beginning. Now that beginning may or may not have been the Big Bang. I have two problems with the Big Bang. One, no force as we understand the laws of physics today could cause a Black Hole to explode. There is one scenario that I can postulate. The reason that light can’t escape is that the escape velocity is greater than C, the photon basically loses all it’s momentum before it can escape. During the Big Crunch as all the matter in the Universe falls back into the primordial Black Hole it’s spin rate would keep increasing, like a Neutron Star, until it began to approach C. Some place during this spin-up it would take the shape of a torus at which point the momentum would approach infinity and you get the Big Bang with a torus shaped Universe. Two, theoreticians postulate that during the Big Bang there was slightly more matter created than anti-matter, and yet nowhere have we ever found a condition where a particle gets created without it’s anti-particle twin. It just looks like there needs to be another way.

[coldcreation]

Heres an E-mail that I sent to a friend, what do you think?

 

theoreticians postulate that during the Big Bang there was slightly more matter created than anti-matter, and yet nowhere have we ever found a condition where a particle gets created without it’s anti-particle twin. It just looks like there needs to be another way.

 

You're right little bang, there is another way. The scenario you've described is well know, generally accepted, but seriously flawed.

 

I never liked the asymmetry of matter-antimatter. I suppose those who invented supersymmetry didn't either.

 

Guth's inflationary theory takes care of the problem though, it wipes the plate clean with one swooping false vacuum. (This is high-energy gastrophysics.)

 

Actually I like the false vacuum concept. Like a work by Jeff Koons, I would hang it on my wall without a frame.

[infamous]

You're right little bang, there is another way. The scenario you've described is well know, generally accepted, but seriously flawed.

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE]

 

Could you elaborate on some of the reasons why this view is flawed. It appears, one the surface, to be an acceptable theory.

[coldcreation]

Heres an E-mail that I sent to a friend, what do you think?

 

All the phenomena that we see in the Universe lends itself to the belief that there was some sort of beginning. Now that beginning may or may not have been the Big Bang. I have two problems with the Big Bang. One, no force as we understand the laws of physics today could cause a Black Hole to explode. There is one scenario that I can postulate. The reason that light can’t escape is that the escape velocity is greater than C, the photon basically loses all it’s momentum before it can escape. During the Big Crunch as all the matter in the Universe falls back into the primordial Black Hole it’s spin rate would keep increasing, like a Neutron Star, until it began to approach C. Some place during this spin-up it would take the shape of a torus at which point the momentum would approach infinity and you get the Big Bang with a torus shaped Universe. Two, theoreticians postulate that during the Big Bang there was slightly more matter created than anti-matter, and yet nowhere have we ever found a condition where a particle gets created without it’s anti-particle twin. It just looks like there needs to be another way.

 

First, no phenomenon appears to point to a beginning. If I am mistaken please indicate one.

 

The torus idea is interesting but if in the first micro-fraction of a second after the initial deflagration or implosion (whatever it was nobody knows), antimatter and matter annihilate to form gamma rays, the asymmetry of matter and antimatter cause an excess of matter, which remains the same forever, and in the process all the antimatter gets totally annihilated and inflation kick is then the universe is flat. How do you get from a torus to flatness?

 

I agree little bang that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is unacceptable. The fact that there is no explanation for the asymmetry leads to the belief that something is missing from the theory above. Matter without its antimatter is like a person without a mirror image.

[infamous]

First, no phenomenon appears to point to a beginning. If I am mistaken please indicate one.

 

My own feel good view would love to believe in the eternal universe. To do this however many obstacles will need to be overcome. When I was a young man, the steady state theory was popular, but has sense been widely dismissed. How do we revive this, if not dead, dying view of universal evolution.

[coldcreation]

First, no phenomenon appears to point to a beginning. If I am mistaken please indicate one.

 

My own feel good view would love to believe in the eternal universe. To do this however many obstacles will need to be overcome. When I was a young man, the steady state theory was popular, but has sense been widely dismissed. How do we revive this, if not dead, dying view of universal evolution.

 

check out William Duncan MacMillan (1871–1948), Walter Nernst and Robert Millikan.

 

They were precursors to QSSC.

[maddog]

I was not aware that Inflation by Guth is "out" in any matter of the sort. I have a book

about the rival theory [VSL] by a Miguelo (i forget his last name), "Faster than the

speed of Light". I liked it. Explained a lot for me. I now see why Brian Greene in

"Fabric of the Cosmos" is going in such detail (as he is apparently a Guth supporter).

I think a upcoming test is eminent to distinguish which is correct. How could both be

true ? Greene seems to think the Inflation Theory can solve both the Horizon and

Homogeneity problems. Miguelo said VSL does so without creating a needed new

field to deal with (Inflaton field).

 

I do give kudos to Brian Greene for finally explaining what the hell we need a Higgs

field for... ;-) I still question it, yet at least now I understand it. Higgs = inertia

not mass. Mass is then the resistance to motion, not the other way around.

Interesting.

 

maddog

[coldcreation]

There is no way to explain inflation without changing special relativity and general relativity.

 

Special relativity would have to allow for faster than light-speed propagation: one thing it will never do.

 

General relativity would have to be modified too for faster than light propagation: one thing it will never do.

 

In passing, inflation predicts a flat universe. I doubt Einstein would have adhered to a universe without curvature. A central conclusion of Einstein was that a universe with matter in it cannot be flat. The universe according to GR is Quasi-Euclidean at the very least.

 

Inflation essentially postulates a flat universe partly on philosophical grounds and partly on aesthetic whims (for the beauty of the critical model, Friedmann's model that coasts to infinity). Accelerated expansion dashed those hopes. The only good thing about the 1998 supernovae survey result is that it eliminates the fine tuning problem that has haunted modern cosmology for decades.

 

If the solution is to reduce the velocity of an exponential expansion I don't buy it.

 

It was Hawking that said Guth's theory was "dead."

 

I agree.

 

Note that Steinhardt co-developed the inflation theory with Guth. Steinhardt's new theory is called the ekpyrotic universe model; “ekpyrotic” in Greek means conflagration or cataclysmic inferno. He explains that although both theories are in competition with each other…“They both have the possibility of being correct.” (That's' like sitting one *** on two horses - an old Hungarian dictum)

 

Steinhardt’s criticism of inflations failure to provide for the observed universe now, and for its own ignition then, highlights one of the central ironies facing modern cosmology. The pro-big bang physicists that had cultivated worldwide reputations as fervent defenders of an open-ended inflationary era find themselves faulted by friends (Guth) for failing to support entirely an exponential inflation.

 

"I don't think it's by any means yet a real rival to inflation, but I think it is a model well worth pursuing," says Alan H. Guth, and then adds "I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing."

 

Linde (Stanford University) argues, "Instead of a theory, we have only wishful thinking."