Cosmic Seeds

[Dubbelosix]

 

We have noted in the past, if a vacuum is not truly Newtonian and it does indeed expand (new space appearing) then there will be new fluctuations added to spacetime as well. Fluctuations can also act as the seeds of the universe to explain a primordial gravitational clumping, giving rise to the large scale structure, albeit, this uses the notion of some rapid expansion phase. We too have the same phase characterized by the centrifugal force the universe experienced when it was very young from a furiously fast spin. In fact, Wald and Harren have shown it is possible to retrieve the cosmic seeds without inflation.

 

In their model the inhomogeneities of the universe arises while in the radiation phase – their model also requires that all fluctuation modes would have been in their ground state and that the fluctuations are “born” in the ground state at an appropriate time which is early enough so that their physical length is very small compared to the Hubble radius, in which case, they can “freeze out” when these two lengths become equal.

 

It has been noted in literature that there is clearly a need for some process that would be responsible for the so called “birth” of the fluctuations. I have a mechanism in my own model, which we will discuss at the end - today I want to show how you can talk about fluctuations within the context of expanding space, which is required within a sensible approach to unify the cosmic seeds with the dynamics of spacetime. It is possible to construct a form of the Friedmann equation with what is called the Sakharov fluctuation term, which is the modes of the zero point fluctuations

 

 

[math]m\dot{R}^2 + 2\hbar c R \int k dk = \frac{8 \pi GmR^2}{3}\rho[/math]

 

When [math]R \approx 0[/math] (but not pointlike) then the fluctuations are in their ground state. Though inflation is not required to explain the cosmic seeding, there are alternatives themselves to cosmic inflation such as one particular subject I have investigated with a passion; rotation can mimic dark energy perfectly which is thought to explain the expansion and perhaps even acceleration (if such a thing exists). It is possible to expand the Langrangian of the zero point modes on the background spacetime curvatuture in a power series

 

[math]\mathcal{L} = \hbar c R \int k dk... + \hbar c R^n \int \frac{dk}{k^{n-1}} + C[/math]

 

Where C is a renormalizing constant which is set to zero for flat space. It had been believed at one point that the forth power over the momenta of the particles would be zero

 

[math]\hbar c \int k dk^3 = 0[/math]

 

But interesting things happen in the curvature of spacetime, such a condition doesn't need to hold.The anisotropies may arise in an interesting way when I refer back to equations I investigated in the rotating model. An equation of state with thermodynamic definition can be given as:

 

[math]T k_B \dot{S} = \frac{\dot{\rho}}{n} + \frac{\rho + P}{n}\frac{\dot{T}}{T}[/math]

 

The last term [math]\frac{\dot{T}}{T}[/math] calculates the temperature variations that arise, even in the presence of the cosmic seed and we can therefore change the effective density coefficient in the following way:

 

 

[math]2m\dot{R}\ddot{R} + 2\hbar c R \int k \dot{k} = \frac{8 \pi GmR^2}{3}(\rho + \frac{3P}{c^2})\frac{\dot{T}}{T}[/math]

 

 

Simplifying a bit and rearranging

 

 

[math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\frac{\ddot{R}}{R} + \frac{\hbar c}{mR} \int k \dot{k} = \frac{8 \pi G}{6}(\rho + \frac{3P}{c^2})\frac{\dot{T}}{T}[/math]

 

 

 

 

 

 

ref http://sci-hub.bz/10.1007/BF00637768

Edited August 4, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[sanctus]

This brings back memories :-) My master thesis was actually on acausal scaling seeds due to topological defects rather than fluctuations but you. might be interested in seeing the analysis anyway:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.1845.pdf

[sanctus]

Dubbelosix, I have to admit I have trouble to get back to my roots in "theoretical cosmology", for my PhD I changed to data-analysis of the CMB and that I finished years ago, now I work only with data scientist. So I have trouble following, but I hope I get time to read up on everything.

[sanctus]

I would not say a no-brainer, but different. I mean you make models I get the likelihood of them. I mean by better and better observations of the CMB more and more models could be dicarded by the observation. So I would more say they go hand in hand. What is the point in making a model which would predict an observable, but no 1 is checking whether the observable does not falsify the model? And the converse is true too.
And you can also do cool stuff, in one of my papers we detected a lot of foreground sources in the CMB never detected before at those frequencies (all leading to better measured CMB estimations) and now in the HEASarc-archive there is even a table in my name :-)

I more kinda slid into it and wanting family rather than travel the world to stay in academia, I had to see what else is there I like. And I like coding :-)

[OceanBreeze]

I would not say a no-brainer, but different. I mean you make models I get the likelihood of them. I mean by better and better observations of the CMB more and more models could be dicarded by the observation. So I would more say they go hand in hand. What is the point in making a model which would predict an observable, but no 1 is checking whether the observable does not falsify the model? And the converse is true too.

And you can also do cool stuff, in one of my papers we detected a lot of foreground sources in the CMB never detected before at those frequencies (all leading to better measured CMB estimations) and now in the HEASarc-archive there is even a table in my name :-)

 

I more kinda slid into it and wanting family rather than travel the world to stay in academia, I had to see what else is there I like. And I like coding :-)

 

With your background, why have you been so Quiet?

 

Straight forward Question: Based on the observable evidence, do you agree that the rotational model proposed by 006 can be discarded, or not?

 

What he wrote in post number 1 in this thread:  "We too have the same phase characterized by the centrifugal force the universe experienced when it was very young from a furiously fast spin"

 

A "furiously fast spin". Really? There is zero evidence for any such thing!

 

So, what do you think about that, Sanctus?

[Turtle]

We can take the excess of matter over antimatter as evidence also of a chirality to the universe, preferring one handedness (or spin) over the other.

 

Your multiple mentions of chirality reminded me of one of our old -if not irascible- members, one UncleAl, and his focus on chirality and physics. Not sure if he ever found anyone to conduct his experiment, but I'll link to his proposal on the chance it is related to your work.

 

Pursuing the Limits of Failed Symmetry

[sanctus]

OCeanBreeze: as said in the post you refer to, a quiet because it was some years back :-) . When I am sure I post otherwise I follow ;-)

[OceanBreeze]

OCeanBreeze: as said in the post you refer to, a quiet because it was some years back :-) . When I am sure I post otherwise I follow ;-)

 

Ok fair enough.

[OceanBreeze]

There is evidence and we have been over that before. You are incapable retaining information about my theory. You have suffered this from the beginning, either mixing up crucial idea's or not understanding my theory, to the point you continue posting links that have already been refuted. 

 

 

There is evidence for the spin, in a number of different arguments.

 

1) Spin decays (proven by Hoyle and Narlikar) meaning there is no axis because dark flow is way too slow - so dark flow is taken as a primordial leftover and evidence of such a rotation.

 

2) In a big study, the excess of galaxies with the same handed spin was about 7%. We need about 22% for a sigma five. It is generally believed this excess is a 1 in a million chance, so there is evidence here as well.

 

 

You don't even have a theory. You have a conviction that is based on zero evidence. Hawking has shown that any spin could not have amounted to more than a few seconds of arc in 13 Billion years! And the CMB studies indicate there was no spin at the time of CMB formation. The chirality you mention has been shown to be of no statistical significance, nothing but chance is needed to explain it, the same as a coin toss.

 

You have nothing.

[OceanBreeze]

I don't remember any study stating they had evidence of what the CMB was once like.

Wow!

Edited July 13, 2017 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

I don't remember any study stating they had evidence of what the CMB was once like.

 

Usually in any modern study I know of, they searched the CMB for an axis in the present day. This does not mean of course such an axis did not once exist.

 

 

 

This is sad, and hilarious at the same time.

 

This guy who claims to have a "theory" about the universe, does not have the slightest clue what the Cosmic Microwave Background is, and what it represents!

 

He says he doesn't know of a study that has "evidence of what the CMB was once like"

 

He doesn't understand that the CMB is a:  "snapshot of the universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thereby making the universe nearly transparent to radiation because light was no longer being scattered off free electrons. When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the universe was about 3000 K"

 

A snapshot! How can he possibly ask what the CMB "was once like" when it is a snapshot of the early universe?

 

This is the man with a theory? I suggest he go back and ask his friend "Matti" Pitkanen, a known CRACKPOT for some guidance.