Pre Big Bang State

[hazelm]

Amongst the inflationary universe theories Lindes chaotic inflation makes sense, explaining microscopic fluctuations in the CBR.

 

Cold spots caused by collisions with other universes, might be pushing the limits of plausible, chaotic inflation might be a better explanation. 

 

Matter appearing in a region of space rather from a singularity is more plausible than the original big bang theory.

 

The question is can matter appear from nothing (zero energy universe ) at low temperature or does it appear at an apparently high temperature with lots of virtual particles, the CBR appears to support high temperature etc. 

 

A particle at high temperature has increased mass, and gravity. +ve energy + -ve energy = 0 under hot or cold conditions. 

 

 

For what it is worth (or not). 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre%E2%80%93Big_Bang_physics

A white hole emitting massive energy

A big crunch after a universe expansion

A cyclical universe - extra dimensional membranes collide

 

 

A white hole with "massive energy"?

The second reference says the white hole comes from a black hole.

Wouldn't it be compressed (hot)?

 

I like the idea of the cyclical universe - but "membranes"?

My mind will not deal with more than three dimensions. 

No membranes, please. 

[hazelm]

Yep there are lots of theories out there, all trying to explain what we observe, trying to sift through them all causes a lot of confusion. Lots add extra dimensions, string theory for instance uses lots depending on which version of string theory you look at. White holes are Popalawski's idea suggesting we live inside a black hole, in a higher dimensional universe. Cyclical universes go along with Quantum Loop gravity. 

 

Currently Lindes version of inflationary universe explains most accurately the CBR fluctuations. I am not aware of anything coming closer.

I have read your posts about CBR several times.  I am still working at it - looking for more about it.

[Dubbelosix]

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. 

 

There are a number of significant vocal opposers to the inflation model. Technically, the inflation model does not solve anything and requires a fine tuning parameter. Vocal opponents include Penrose and Steinhardt. My early model takes into respect rotation which causes a dark energy to expand the universe, which is itself, nothing more than a centrifugal force pushing things away. Homogeneity as shown by Hoyle and Narlikar, can be achieved if energy is released into space uniformly as it expands. 

 

As for zero energy theories of the universe, I don't really see it this way. I know of zero energy theorems, but this model doesn't require one. A zero point temperature, is as it sounds, a temperature in the ground state. It is also the smallest energy of any oscillator of a field. A zero point temperature pre big bang phase, has an energy. 

[exchemist]

Amongst the inflationary universe theories Lindes chaotic inflation makes sense, explaining microscopic fluctuations in the CBR.

 

Cold spots caused by collisions with other universes, might be pushing the limits of plausible, chaotic inflation might be a better explanation. 

 

Matter appearing in a region of space rather from a singularity is more plausible than the original big bang theory.

 

The question is can matter appear from nothing (zero energy universe ) at low temperature or does it appear at an apparently high temperature with lots of virtual particles, the CBR appears to support high temperature etc. 

 

A particle at high temperature has increased mass, and gravity. +ve energy + -ve energy = 0 under hot or cold conditions. 

I suppose one heating mechanism could be annihilation of particles and antiparticles, assuming both are present to start with.

 

But how anyone could possibly discriminate between these ideas on the basis of observation beats me entirely. I prefer to stick with what we can extrapolate from observation viz, expansion and a plasma condensation at the surface of last scattering.

 

I read the Cold Spot article by the way. Laura Mersini-Houghton's proposal reminds irresistibly of Asimov's "The Gods Themselves", which came out when I was at university and which I remember discussing with one of my tutors (- off topic, as it was not really much to do with chemistry, apart from the idea of the electron pump itself).     

[Dubbelosix]

I suppose one heating mechanism could be annihilation of particles and antiparticles, assuming both are present to start with.

 

But how anyone could possibly discriminate between these ideas on the basis of observation beats me entirely. I prefer to stick with what we can extrapolate from observation viz, expansion and a plasma condensation at the surface of last scattering.

 

I read the Cold Spot article by the way. Laura Mersini-Houghton's proposal reminds irresistibly of Asimov's "The Gods Themselves", which came out when I was at university and which I remember discussing with one of my tutors (- off topic, as it was not really much to do with chemistry, apart from the idea of the electron pump itself).     

 

 

Yes observational evidence is important, but a self-consistent theory is also important. A hot big bang does not make sense in thermodynamical laws.

[Dubbelosix]

The issue of thinking about the expansion phase as a result of a collision of antimatter with matter, just doesn't fit experimental evidence, there is overwhelming support a symmetry was broken somewhere. The early rotating universe, would have a preferred frame, and so dictates the chirality of the particles being created.

 

Just to let everyone know, I have some idea's what things we need to investigate to answer what caused the cold phase to collapse into a radiation vapor. I will be investigating it and writing it up when I have something interesting.

[Dubbelosix]

I think you have misunderstood a part of the theory - the pre big bang phase does not imply there was no matter or energy or space. The pre big bang phase, does not need to reduce to pointlike scales, in fact a big bang can happen at any ''size'' or scale. This is how Planck stars are conceptually visioned, a gravitational pressure prevents a dense star from collapsing to singularities. The universe is no different, we impose a special condition in which quantum mechanics forbids collapsing to singular regions. The pre big bang phase, is specifically either, a fluid of matter or energy. My original model presupposed a very cold fluid matter but I also come to realize that a photon condensate may also be possible, no different say, to  Bose Einstein condensate.

[Dubbelosix]

The equations describing the condensate can be found here:

 

https://prebigbangstate.quora.com/Bose-Condensate-Pre-Big-Bang-Phase

[Dubbelosix]

The best result comes from knowing that only the kinetic term contributes to zero point temperatures ~  in other words, we are only concerned with zero point temperatures during the pre big bang phase, the equation drastically simplifies, and remains to be analogous to the Planck zero point correction term. So for a pre big bang phase, we are only concerned with the last term for fluctuations:

 

[math]\frac{\dot{T}}{T}(\frac{\ddot{T}}{T} + \frac{kc^2}{a^2}) = \frac{3072 G}{60}(\frac{k^3 \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ P = \frac{1024 G}{360}(\frac{k^3 \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ \mathbf{U}[/math]

 

With [math]\mathbf{U} = 3P[/math] for the pressure term. Integration of the volume element yields:

 

[math]\int\ \frac{\dot{T}}{T}(\frac{\ddot{T}}{T} + \frac{kc^2}{a^2})\ dV = \frac{3072 G}{60}(\frac{k^3 \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ PV = \frac{1024 G}{360}(\frac{k^3 \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ \mathbf{U}V [/math]

 

[math]= \frac{3072 G}{60} \frac{\zeta(4)}{\zeta(3)}\dot{N}kT [/math]

Edited January 31, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Ok... so we have been able to describe the ground state fluctuation in Friedmann cosmology. How do we describe the phase change from the pre big bang matter-dominated into the radiation vapor stage?

 

To help explain a diabatic anisothermal phase change from some super cool pre-big bang phase, we introduce a Friedmann equation which has been rewritten in the style of a Gibbs equation - this specific equation can be argued in a number of different ways: The basic way to view it is that the Friedmann equation is related to the entropy of a universe insomuch that it consists of two parts, a reversible and irreversible particle creation dynamics.

 

[math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(\frac{\ddot{R}}{R} + \frac{kc^2}{a}) = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}(\dot{\mathbf{q}}_{rev} + [(\frac{\rho}{n}) + 3P_{irr}(\frac{1}{n})]n\Gamma) = \mathbf{k}nT \dot{S}[/math]

 

where S has dimensions of [math]k_B[/math] in which define an equation of state with temperature variations:

 

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

 

which also justifies the following form as a fully thermodynamic interpretation:

 

[math]\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(\frac{\ddot{R}}{R} + \frac{kc^2}{a}) = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}(\dot{\mathbf{q}}_{rev} + [(\frac{\rho}{n}) + 3P_{irr}(\frac{1}{n})]n\frac{\dot{T}}{T}) = nk_B T \dot{S}[/math]

 

[math]P_{irr}[/math] is known as the irreversible pressure, and inside of it, we can talk about the Gibbs-Helmholtz free energy equation for an irreversible phase change from a liquid particle creation phase to vapor for some infinitesimal change in volume,

 

[math](P_{irr}(\frac{1}{n}))\dot{n} = -(\frac{1}{4 \pi R^2}\frac{dU_2}{dR})\frac{\dot{n}}{n} = -(\frac{dU_2}{dV}(\frac{1}{n}))n\Gamma[/math]

Edited January 24, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

A correction to make the irreversible pressure related to the photon condensed fluid state (as opposed to an all-matter state) ~

 

[math](3P_{irr}(\frac{1}{n}))\dot{n} = -(\frac{1}{4 \pi R^2}\frac{dU_2}{dR})\frac{\dot{n}}{n} = -(\frac{dU_2}{dV}(\frac{1}{n}))n\Gamma[/math]

 

The Friedmann equation solution we obtained was

 

[math]\frac{\dot{T}}{T}(\frac{\ddot{T}}{T} + \frac{kc^2}{a^2}) = \frac{3072 G}{60}(\frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ P = \frac{1024 G}{360}(\frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ \mathbf{U}[/math]

 

We will rewrite the last expression to accommodate the Helmholtz-Gibbs thermodynamic phase change;

 

[math]\frac{\dot{T}}{T}(\frac{\ddot{T}}{T} + \frac{kc^2}{a^2})  = - \frac{1024 G}{360} \frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3(\frac{1}{4 \pi R^2}\frac{dU_2}{dR}) =  -\frac{1024 G}{360}(\frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3) \frac{dU_2}{dV}[/math]

Edited January 25, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

It's possible... I won't slam the idea just yet.

 

Yes, I am not a terribly big fan of inflation - the universe is not flat, like we are often told, it is certainly not homogeneous. And of course, alternative models could explain the expansion of space in better ways.

[Dubbelosix]

Using the equalities:

 

[math]\int\ \frac{U}{V} = \int\ u(T)\ d\nu = \int\ \frac{U}{V \nu} d\nu = \mathbf{U}\ d\log_{\nu}[/math]

 

We form different versions of the same theoretical physics:

 

[math]\frac{\dot{T}}{T}(\frac{\ddot{T}}{T} + \frac{kc^2}{a^2}) = \frac{1024 G}{180}\ \int\  [\frac{d}{dt} + \dot{S}_k + \dot{S}_{ik}] (\frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}VT^3)\ u(T)\ d\nu + \frac{1024 G}{360}(\frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ u(T)\ d\nu[/math]

 

[math]= \frac{1024 G}{180}\ \int\ [\frac{d}{dt} + \dot{S}_k + \dot{S}_{ik}] (\frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}VT^3)\ \mathbf{U}\ d\log_{\nu} + \frac{1024 G}{360}(\frac{k^3_B \zeta(3)}{\hbar^3c^3}\frac{dV}{dt}T^3)\ \mathbf{U}\ d\log_{\nu}[/math]

Edited January 25, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Yes the apparent flatness is actually a result of the universe getting very large. A sphere looses its curvature as it expands.

[Dubbelosix]

If by experimentally prove, then there is already experimental evidence that supports this. For starters, a large universe with a vanishing curvature is related to the weak equivalence principle, extended say to black holes, which seems to approximate the sort of state our universe is in today. The experimental evidence is supported by expansion and the relative model for large densities during the initial stages of the universe.

[Dubbelosix]

The internal curvatures of a universe suggests nearly, if not flat. Remember, the flatness is also subject to the dilution of matter and energy in space as it expands. If there was much more matter out there, the flatness could have been debated more clearly. Matter covers only about 1% of all space, so if it is not entirely flat, there may be a small curve when we measure it.

[Dubbelosix]

This should interest you... but curious still is the case of the expanding black hole revealing secrets about the flatness problem. It was shown in my essays that you can show mathematically that observers inside a black hole, of sufficient size no less, would observe the interior as not being very dense at all! (in conjunction with the very little matter out there we just spoke about).

 

Black holes also lose curvature when they expand but the gravitational influence of a black hole is often ignored, in the sense that harbors a lot of energy curving space. It is possible to argue that the black hole gravitational energy is approximately the same for the gravitational binding energy of a typical spiral galaxy like our own.