Pre Big Bang State

[hazelm]

Exchemist,

 

Why don't you try asking the person who wrote the theory?

 

There is no disputing there existed a hot phase, but this isn't the point. The point is to think there was a low entropy with a high temperature, violates my understanding of thermodynamics, it simply doesn't make sense. A cold pre big bang phase, does.

Sorry, dubbleosix.  I accidentally  hit the wrong button and then fixed that.  So:  a cold pre big bang phase?  Perhaps an earlier universe which had already undergone its cooling phase?   Then, for some unknown reason another big bang?  Hmmm?  How about the theory that universes both expand and contract?  Same universe; more than one bang (big or small) phase?

[Dubbelosix]

In the beginning, with standard cosmology, the universe began in a hot dense state. Hot systems however, only make sense with harboring a large entropy! This is why big bang doesn't make sense with the laws of thermodynamics. A more sensible picture would be a pre big bang state which was super cool and potentially in a fluid state, so the Gibbs-Hilmholtz thermdynamic phase change from a liquid to radiation vapor is suggested. Why the fluid expanded, is another question. I spoke to a physicist about this, it could be a topological collapse.... it could be something entirely different. It's an interested question about what caused the expansion.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

As for collapse, it should be ruled out due to irreversibility, which is closely related to non-conservation (which is taken in my model) as a particle creation phase from the fluid state.

[Dubbelosix]

I suggested a condensate for the pre big bang phase, which means it takes into respect thermal wavelengths and quantum mechanics in general. I suppose the expansion is the heating up of a condensate.

[exchemist]

Yes

 

and you know

 

Suns are born, grow old and die. They form from cold clouds of, mainly Hydrogen, gas known as nebulas, when they die they can explode in supernovae, producing most of the heavier elements, and plasma.

 

In quantum loop gravity black holes might even explode due to hawking radiation reducing their mass. One theory amongst many others is that the centre of a blackhole is supported by radiation, which is due to the matter becoming compressed and heated inside a BH until it converts into a plasma. 

 

Big Bang theory requires a singularity for a hot plasma to appear from. Which requires a leap of faith that requires the laws of physics to be ignored. This singularity can either be taken literally or it can be viewed as a region of space.   

 

As such it allows for reasonable speculation > A hot plasma could be from a BH exploding or one or multiple super novaes filling a region of space. The CMBR suggests that multiple bangs might have happened. The cold spots in the universe can not be explained by Hot Big Bang theory, and might be a remnant of pre big bang cold material.

Indeed, but suns form by matter contracting under gravity and thereby heating up. As I was saying, expansion generally leads to cooling. 

 

Whereas we observe both expansion and heat consistent with an early hot plasma. 

 

So if you want to start with cold matter that is highly compressed together, you need something to heat it as well as causing it to expand, don't you? What would the process be?

 

The version of the zero energy universe that appeals to me, due to its simplicity (and the fact I can just about understand it :) ) ,  is based on the idea that  gravitational potential is negative, only reaching zero at infinite separation. So, one can postulate that the very high negative energy of a highly compressed initial state could be exactly compensated by a +ve energy of mass-energy. So you have no violation of the 1st Law of TD and it all appears from zero. But it has to appear "hot" of course, so that it can cool by expansion enough to give the surface of last scattering after 380,000yrs.  

 

But tell me more about these "cold spots". What are they exactly and why can they not just be regions from which the matter has been removed by gravitation from elsewhere?  

Edited January 21, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

I keep saying it is my model, with respect to the mathematics I have constructed, I have certainly took this model further than anyone in academia has, as far as I am aware. The first suggestion for a pre-big bang phase actually comes from Motz and Kraft. Motz originally, Kraft hooked up to make adjustments to their theory. I still have the basic concept they used, which was a thermodynamic phase change, from liquid to radiation vapor. There is in fact a stage below the fluid state, but I've been unable to make total sense of it just yet.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs%E2%80%93Helmholtz_equation

[Dubbelosix]

You don't really need to know the mechanism of expansion in principle, all the reasons for expansion should come from the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation for thermodynamic phase changes.

[Dubbelosix]

What I always found interesting, is that in the hot big bang, cosmic seeds are suspected to have formed from the ground state, but this is at odds also with a low entropy, high temperature state. A true system in the ground state, would be found in the pre big bang cool phase. Their wavelengths would be smaller than the Hubble radius, and these gravitational contributions ''freeze out'' when they become equal in the Hubble length.

[Dubbelosix]

Perahps the pre big bang phase, was cool liquid phase no different to a zero point temperature.

[exchemist]

Starting with a or many large clouds of dispersed cold gas, not compressed cold gas, and having it collapse to form a sun or black hole, will cause heating due to compression.  Having multiple stars form and supernovae over an extended period might cause the ripples in the CMBR

 

Lots of people agree with the zero energy universe, maybe even a majority :)

 

The big bang hypothesis requires gravity not to work for a short period pre plank time. Gravity is required in the zero energy universe theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot 

Thanks for the link to the cold spot article. I'll need to read it more carefully and think about it.

 

But I'm not sure I understand why you say the big bang hypothesis needs gravity not to work at the start. Given that it is space itself that was expanding, rather than objects moving apart in space, is that expansion prohibited by the operation of gravity?  

[hazelm]

Starting with a or many large clouds of dispersed cold gas, not compressed cold gas, and having it collapse to form a sun or black hole, will cause heating due to compression.  Having multiple stars form and supernovae over an extended period might cause the ripples in the CMBR

 

Lots of people agree with the zero energy universe, maybe even a majority :)

 

The big bang hypothesis requires gravity not to work for a short period pre plank time. Gravity is required in the zero energy universe theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot 

 

Edit: Oh damn, you've put an question in my head, expansion causes cooling, how cold could a already cold universe go if it was expanding due to dark energy.  

 

 

I like this from the wiki link: 

 

A controversial claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton is that it could be the imprint of another universe beyond our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation.^[3] Laura Mersini-Houghton said, "Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole" and made the remarkable hypothesis that the WMAP cold spot is "… the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own." If true, this provides the first empirical evidence for a parallel universe (though theoretical models of parallel universes existed previously).

 

 

Question:  Would the two universes have always been two different universes that came together in an entanglement?  Or could they have been one universe before the separation?  I think I am asking if the entanglement was a phase in the process of a universe moving away. 

 

Then there is this:  Other researchers have modeled the cold spot as potentially the result of cosmological bubble collisions, again before inflation.  :-)

Edited January 21, 2019 by hazelm

[Dubbelosix]

Here, I have written up the fluctuation approach to cosmology

 

https://prebigbangstate.quora.com/Fluctuations-In-Cosmology-And-Entropy-Production

 

The third derivative leads to non-conservation, which has to translate into irreversibility due to an entropy production. What's interesting is that the third derivative leads to the definition of an entropy production in an irreversible way, a topic I will be writing up about soon.

[Dubbelosix]

The predictable response from someone who revels in word salad.

[Vmedvil2]

As a side note I would like to Congratulate you finally dubbel on solving your equations for G_uv.  Hints your Poster Comment section. Now it is undeniable that your UFT is correct or at-least in accordance with GR as we all may have guessed. It seems Gravitomagnetism is correct and that the Dark Energy expansion is caused by Universe Spinning on its axis.

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[exchemist]

Since we dont have an agreed recognized theory of quantum gravity yet the planck epoch is pure speculation. The inflationary stage is where all matter and energy in the universe that has been produced expanded out of some super heated 10^30Kelvin ball of plasma, that appeared 10^-36 seconds after the planck epoch. Black holes have lots of mass and nothing gets out, they have theoretical singularities. The Big Bang originates from a singularity where all the mass in the universe suddenly appeared from nowhere, and gravity didnt stop it happening because the laws of physics must be ignored at such high temperatures.

 

The very early universe – the first picosecond (10⁻¹²) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently understood laws of physics may not apply; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces – first gravity, and later the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions; and the expansion of space and supercooling of the still immensely hot universe due to cosmic inflation, which is believed to have been triggered by the separation of the strong and electroweak interaction.

Tiny ripples in the universe at this stage are believed to be the basis of large-scale structures that formed much later. Different stages of the very early universe are understood to different extents. The earlier parts are beyond the grasp of practical experiments in particle physics but can be explored through other means.

 

The earlier stages of the big bang are based on pure speculation and dont comply with a zero energy principle.

Those sorts of temperatures approaching absolute hot require energy. Perhaps in QLG a black hole could explode something like a big bang, but it  does not explain where the matter in the Black hole came from.  

Ah OK, so something to do with this idea of the 4 interactions "separating" then? I see what you mean. I think. 

 

As you say, all this is pure speculation and not possible to test by observation. So in fact it is not a scientific theory, or not yet.

 

I don't know what is meant by "absolute hot". As far as I know there is no upper limit to temperature.  

Edited January 22, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

Apparently wiki also has a page on the cold big bang: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang

 

From the article, David Layzer speculated the same thing that I speculated, a cold state near absolute temperatures.

 

''In 1966, David Layzer proposed a variant on Lemaître's cosmology in which the initial state of the universe was near absolute zero. Layzer argued that, rather than in an initial high entropy state, the primordial universe was in a very low entropy state near absolute zero''

 

There are no mentions here for  a pre big bang phase described as the liquid state -  which is interesting because this is a natural assumption. Also, Layzer appears to be motivated by the same reasons I was taken by the Motz-Kraft model, in that it makes sense of low entropy in a low temperature state. 

[exchemist]

Straightening out the sequence of events. From Lindes inflationary universe paper and a bit of zero energy speculation.

 

A chaotic inflationary stage of the universe came first, all matter in the universe did not appear in the same pico second as considered in standard big bang, it also never appeared at the same point in space, it appeared throughout a region of space, ie there was no singularity.

 

Virtual particles oscillated into and out of existence, in an un-damped fashion gaining enough energy to become real particles, quarks electrons etc 

=

Symmetry breaking/phase transitions occurred around the point where virtual particles had enough energy to become real, causing permanent quantum fluctuations/matter to come into existence from the virtual particles. 

 

The big bang can then continue from this point in time + or - a few million years. 

 

The cold spot in the universe is most likely caused by the chaotic inflation stage of the universe and the fact that the so called hubble constant is not a constant, it has changed since the inflationary stage of the universe. Why should it be the same throughout all of space today if the inflationary stage did not all happen at the same instant in time.

 

The HUP quite happily borrows energy from the vacuum of space, producing virtual particles everywhere. Dark Energy/Hubble constant drives the expansion of space. The expansion slowed after the production of matter and gravity (+ve and -ve energy), could this cause a damping effect on the production of particles in space due to the HUP.

 

Mexican hats come to mind :)

 

A second order equation can become unstable when undamped. 

 

A third order equation can also be unstable. 

 

Absolute hot might not exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot the hagedorn temperature is interesting. Could a similiar thing happen with virtual particles ? no one knows :(

 

 

 

Question? how does one define cold, +ve + -ve = 0, +ve energy + -ve energy = 0. Matter + gravity = 0 energy. If virtual particles gained enough energy during the inflationary stage of the universe to become real particles, would other virtual particles oscillating into and out of existence not interfere with them causing them to vibrate and appear hot.   

 

On average the energy is zero. 

OK thanks for the background esp. on the idea of "absolute hot". 

 

I must admit this sort of speculative house-of-cards building is not really my scene, being too remote from testable hypotheses to allow anything much to be decided.