Cold Dominated Baby Universe And The Origin Of Existence

[Dubbelosix]

It was explained by Motz in his paper (see references), that a universe will collapse to a point (also see notes); the acceleration is always negative [math]\ddot{R} < 0[/math] and will collapse so long as...

 

[math]\rho + 3c^{-2}(P + \frac{u}{3}) > 0[/math]

 

... in the Friedmann universe. This is necessarily so because the pressure is positive [math]P > 0[/math]. There is some relic notation in here, we will change this for modern representations. Motz goes on to explain how a differentiation of the Friedmann equation will lead to a non-conservation, an important departure he says from a model in which it has taken the unwarranted assumption that the over all rest mass should remain the same. 

 

He said the basis of that assumption is that thermonuclear transformation of mass into energy in the stellar interiors has reduced the mass of the universe only negligably and increased the entropy only slightly. [a source needed for this]

 

Motz et al. further explains that this assumption is not valid if the initial state of the universe was cold.

 

 

I argue in this work, Motz may be correct in the assumption, perhaps his model needs a tweak. He does explain that a radiationless state dominated by what he called ''Unitons'' could explain such a state, where the gravitational attractions between any two such particles exceeded their mutual electrostatic attraction. Indeed, with some consideration of this mechanism, it seems perfectly plausible for some relic non-electromagnetically-interacting system of particles could explain the cold baby universe. Their mutual electrostatic interactions would be dwarfed by gravity 137 times - he expects them to have coalesced very rapidly into gravitationally-bound triplets that he would come to identify as nucleons. This is where Motz-Kraft theory may suffer problematics, since none of the quark particles today contain the kind of gravitational mass required for a relic Planck particle. 

 

There is an alternative to their Uniton model. Franck Wilczek has shown (initially with some skepticism) that there may be more to the story in the unification picture. Gravity and electromagnetism may in fact hold a complimentary existence (see references). The unification picture requires (at least logically) that gravity increases as you approach the initial singularity (if indeed there is one at all). What he has discovered, at least mathematically is that as gravity increases, electromagnetism will tend to zero!

 

 

This means, the early universe is already free of electromagnetic interactions in Wilczek's universe, based on the most modern approach. 

 

This means, any relic Planck particles that did exist as a degenerate gas, will not have interacted electromagnetically. 

 

These particles would have a mutual electrostatic interactions dwarfed by many magnitudes of gravity - from this point, if the radius [math]R[/math] of this initial state was [math]>0[/math] and its temperature equal to zero, then the energy released during this gravitational collapse would have produced the big bang and inflated the universe from its initial compact state. Motz did emphasize that this remarkable transition of the universe from a static state to an expanding state required a vast change of phase from all-matter to a phase consisting of a gas radiation phase. 

 

Motz and Kraft go on to derive a formula which boils down to a pressure term related essentially to the Gibbs equation!

 

This interested me because I too saw a relationship between Friedmann cosmology and the Gibbs equation. Noticing that for diabatic systems the first law of thermodynamics changes into a Gibbs equation and so altered the effective density parameter. The equation I arrived at with Friedmann and Gibbs physics was:

 

 

[math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(\frac{\ddot{R}}{R} + \frac{kc^2}{a}) =  \frac{8 \pi G}{6}[(\frac{\dot{\rho}}{n}) + 3\dot{P}(\frac{1}{n})][/math]

 

 

They notice their solution is simple yet a profound result, essentially the Gibbs equation for an isothermal reversible change of a phase of liquid to vapor for infinitessimal differential volume of change gives a singularity free universe. The model I found striking for the counter-intuitive notion that we may have to start thinking about the baby universe as a cold dominated matter phase in the absence of electromagnetic interactions. It was only by a realization I made linking possible importance between Wilczek's work and this older work that I had read many years ago. If Wilczek is indeed correct (like many independent scientists are trying to prove), then Motz and Krafts early universe no longer looks strange. It would actually make sense. 

 

 

Based on all the current models of significance in the theoretical world, I have came to some final conclusions about the universe at large. 

 

1). To follow the intrinsic rules of spatial symmetries, the universe is part of the full Poincare Group leading to a primordial universal rotation.

 

2) The rotation naturally leads to an intrinsic torsion field. 

 

3) It also leads to an intrinsic centrifugal force field which will replace inflation theories which are being heavily attacked right now in the academic community. 

 

4) A dynamical infusion of Friedmann cosmology with re-definitions of the thermodynamic law as expressed as a Gibbs equation may lead to an interpretation of the universe which had a pre-big bang all-matter liquid phase. 

 

5) The pre-big bang phase was a gas of degenerate Planck particles that underwent a phase transition from a liquid state to a vapor. The phase transition from all-matter liquid to radiation vapor states generated the expansion pushing the universe out of the dense Planck era. The pre-big bang phase would be gravity dominated only. As a universe expands, gravity weakens and electromagnetism dominates.

 

 

 

 

There has been a lot more study, equations and information of other types inbetween these five premises which create the foundation of my entire theory. Inflation needs to be scrapped, there are other solutions. It just so happens, when you extend the Poincare group to the Friedmann cosmology, it naturally creates the repulsion required to push the universe out the Planck era. Or at least, contributed to pushing it out which would be more accurate to say. 

 

 

The pre-big bang phase was a super cool static region that had to undergo some transition in the absence of electromagnetism: the phase transition occurs because of a change in the metric itself, not to do with the actual dynamics of any systems inside of it (which was an important realization made by my friend, prof. Matti Pitkanen, creator of the 40-year old extraordinary theory of Topological Geometrogenesis (or TGD). He also linked important to the Hagedorn temperature, which is something I am yet to investigate. )

 

 

My time writing about the Friedmann equation and my idea's about the origin of the universe is coming to an end here. I am getting tired now of venturing into this. I just wanted to plant a seed out there that could help a future scientist or someone aspiring to be similar to look at it and consider it and maybe take it forward to the next levels of hypothesis. I'll be concentrating now on other things, but I will be occasionally coming back to answer and reply to certain things. Hope you enjoyed my contributions!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(notes) - in this day and age, not all models invoke pointlike scales as the origin, but it seems likely this may be very close to the case at hand. 

 

 

extra note, in this case, the magnitude of gravity is about 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism. Gravity could grow like [math]G \cdot 10^{40}[/math] whereas electromagnetism will tend to zero [math]e \rightarrow 0[/math]

 

REF:

 

http://sci-hub.bz/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb17071.x

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827853.600-why-the-early-universe-was-free-of-charge/

Edited June 4, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[OceanBreeze]

Let's be clear about something though, my model avoids of all this. My model says the super cool pre-big bang phase is the actual region that looks like a black hole and its phase transition was from a condensed liquid matter state into radiation vapor. I just thought I'd cover those interesting questions in the last post.

 

Anyone can come up with his own model, but unless your model is at least as good at matching observational data, as is the Big Bang model, your model will not be accepted, no matter how much you may like it.

As far as I can tell, your model does not match up with the observation that the universe is indeed expanding, that there is absolutely no evidence in the CMB that the universe was ever spinning, and your guesswork about what might be inside of a black hole is just that, guesswork.

[OceanBreeze]

Your rotating universe does not solve anything! Do you understand that the rotation of the galaxies can only be accounted for by the addition of dark matter? How does your theory account for the entire universe rotating, aside from the fact that there is zero evidence for such a thing? The fact is, you cannot account for that without the addition of dark rotational energy, so all you have “accomplished” in all of these self-aggrandizing posts here, is an exchange of dark energy in the BBT model with dark rotational energy in your rotating model.

 

The only difference between your posts and any other crackpot’s posts is your heavy use of LaTex equations and the funny thing about that is they are all bastardizations the FRW metric and not even original work.

 

It is a simple matter that any schoolboy can do, to set the rotational energy to be equal to the cosmological constant/dark energy in the FRW model and Eureka! Another new theory is born! Well, except it has been done at least a dozen times, that I know of. The problem, as I have told you several times, the CMB data suggest more or less a homogeneous and isotropic universe, with no evidence at all of any rotation. “Your” theory does not match observation and in fact is contradicted by observation.

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

Finally

 

 

 

I have been over this with you two times, this is now our third.

 

 

Rotation exponentially decays for a universe, rotation today is way too slow to detect any axis in the CMB. Can this be our last time we discuss this ''flaw'' you think exists?

 

 

You are reacting just as any crackpot does when his cherished "theory" is challenged.

 

You can state your belief as many times as you like, and I will remind you that you have no evidence to support your nonsense.

 

 

As for my information, I rely on the input of real scientists, and not something posted on the Internet by an anonymous crank.

 

For example:  Scientists confirm the universe has no direction

Scientists from University College London and Imperial College London have put this assumption through its most stringent test yet and found only a 1 in 121,000 chance that the universe is not the same in all directions.

To do this, they used maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation: the oldest light in the universe created shortly after the Big Bang. The maps were produced using measurements of the CMB taken between 2009 and 2013 by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, providing a picture of the intensity and, for the first time, polarisation (in essence, the orientation) of the CMB across the whole sky.

 

 

Four potential CMB patterns for universes with direction:

A universe spinning about an axis, for example, would create spiral patterns, whereas a universe expanding at different speeds along different axes would create elongated hot and cold spots.

 

Dr Stephen Feeney, from the Department of Physics at Imperial, worked with a team led by Daniela Saadeh at University College London to search for these patterns in the observed CMB. The results, published today in the journal Physical Review Letters, show that none were a match, and that the universe is most likely directionless.

 

 

As I said, no evidence the universe is spinning, except in your own mind.

[OceanBreeze]

The only reason why I am acting the way I am is based on two main points:

 

 

1) You criticized my work for not being original 

 

2) You didn't even understand my theory when you mixed up two different subjects together

 

 

 

You would be critical of someone too if they came in and said these things about your own ''cherished theory.'' My attitude towards your refutations is that they are laughable. You don't know my theory well enough to realize your last question about the CMB was moot. As for this last post,you have again missed entirely what is being told to you. We can hardly detect dark flow as it is... it is a very small common motion in the directions of galaxies. In the nearly vanishing limit of this rotation, you would not get those ''spiral signatures'' of the CMB.

 

Do we need to go through it one last time?

 

Yes of course! The universe is rotating just fast enough to solve all of the outstanding problems in modern cosmology, but not fast enough to be detected!

 

Don't bother repeating it, once is enough of your nonsense.

[OceanBreeze]

And you also say ''I only get my information from (real) scientists, not some crank on the net.''

 

 

Yeah, I am the real crank here. You come back when you actually understand my theory and then we'll talk. I am offering real science here and I have been since I came here. I take great care in my work and you have no consideration of the time I have put into this. You think there is a simple flaw in my model when I can assure you,there is not. I have been meticulous enough in my investigations to make sure of that, like any good theory should.

 

 

You just hit the jackpot on the crackpot index.