Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Only Begotten Bastard


TheRedneckProfessor

Recommended Posts

Hey Ravenstar!

 

Ummm... sorry about this, but there is a deal of confusion in your post.

Granted, these are unearthly, counter-intuitive concepts - so it's easy enough to get a tad confused.  I hope my point-by-point reply is helpful.  smile.png

 

ugh… no.. space/time inflated,(creating the space and time for energy and matter to exist) which theoretically caused the primordial atom, if there is such a thing.

 

Yes, there is excellent evidence to support Inflationary theory.

It's not a slam dunk yet, but the ball appears to be running around the rim of the hoop, metaphorically speaking.  The final part that's needed (a unequivocal and repeatable detection of B-mode polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background) may be provided by future measurements of the CMB.  Two upcoming conferences will tell us how things stand.  

 

 http://www.cieffeerre.it/Eventi/eventi-in-programmazione-nel-2014/planck-2014-the-microwave-sky-in-temperature-and-polarization/PLANCK-2014

 

http://www.iap.fr/col2014/   (Hope these links work!)

 

No, the Primordial Atom is not part of Inflationary Theory and now plays no part in current cosmology.  

The two aren't linked in any way.  Inflation did not cause the PA to exist and then to explode.  Inflation is an on-going process, not a one-off explosive event.  Yes, inflation causes quantum-sized regions that superficially resemble the PA to inflate, but the underlying physics of Inflation and the PA are totally different and irreconcilable.   Two things that superficially resemble each other and that appear to behave in similar ways are not the same thing.  No more than identical twins are the same person.  

 

 I am of the mind that in quantum theory virtual particles (mass, and therefore energy - because in our universe energy = matter, which ends up at a sum of zero) 'pop' in and out of existence all the time.. I think that the manifestation of matter/energy is a property of inflating space/time. It's a virtual probability that happens because there is the space and time FOR it to happen… and it happens, in our universe… in pairs.

 

It's very cool… and I do not understand it except in the most rudimentary and intuitive way.

 

Virtual particles are indeed fascinating things, R!  That I won't deny.  

And while your point about virtual particles summing up to zero energy is correct, that's not what the universe's zero energy value means.  This is where some confusion is creeping in.   Please go here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61021-a-science-question-for-any-willing-christians/page-6#.VGz-wDSsWnI ...and look at post # 108, where I think I first introduced you to the notion of the universe 'weighing' exactly zero.

 

The key sentence is this one.

Einstein's theory of general relativity ensures that the sum of all the positive energies contributed by all the masses and other forms of energy in the universe exactly cancels out the negative energies of gravitational attraction that exist between them all.

 

The positive (+) and negative (-) energies being 'balanced out' to zero aren't quantum energies, from virtual particles.

The + and - energies that 'balance' the universe to zero are described only by Einstein's theory of General Relativity.  Meanwhile, the energies of virtual particles are described only by Quantum Mechanics.  Currently GR and QM cannot be successfully reconciled with each other.  They contradict each other, instead of complimenting each other.  (Ok, theorists are scrambling to unite GR with QM and String theory is the lead contender in this race, but as you probably know, there's still no hard evidence to support String theory.  It's a great-looking theory... but that's all it is right now!)
 
So, the universe is being weighed to a value of exactly zero using only General Relativity Ravenstar, ok?
The quantum mechanical description of virtual particles plays no part in this weighing process.  GR and QM are chalk and cheese or oil and water, if you like.  The don't match up, don't mix and don't talk to each other.  
 
Is that of any help?  Please lmk.

 

This is a VERY hard concept but before inflation there was no matter, no energy, no universe. no space, no time… nothing but probability. maybe. That's why we can not speak about 'before' the big bang… there was no before, because there was no time.. and time can only exist in space.. because time is a velocity.. a measure of distance, in a way.

 

Agreed.  This is a very difficult thing to grasp.  But please bear with me while I have a go at explaining it.

As I mentioned before, inflation is an on-going process, that once begun, continues unabated.  It's true beginning cannot be known by us, but we use the Copernican Principle to guide us in the working assumptions we can make along the way.  Please familiarize yourself with the CP by going here... 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

 

Now, since we cannot presume that 'our' Big Bang was the one that began the entire inflationary process, we must assume that it wasn't.

Therefore, all we can realistically say is that the inflationary process of 'pocket' universe creation has been in action for an unknown duration.  Please note Ravenstar, that I use the word 'duration' advisedly.  Duration implies time and as you quite correctly point out "before" inflation, there were no such things as space and time.

 

A helpful way to understand this is to see where Inflation and our universe separate from each other.

A car factory makes more than one car in an on-going process.  It makes many cars, but each car only becomes a finished product at the end (the creation event) of it's particular part of that process.  Each completed car is driven off the production line and is therefore separated from the process and from all the other cars.  The car-making process carries right on, but each and every finished car plays no further part in the process.  They have separated for good.

 

The point of separation between the Inflationary process and our universe was our local Big Bang.

Our particular 'pocket' of space-time came into existence at that separation point.  'Before' then the production line (inflation) was in full swing, making separate pockets of space-time (separate universes like ours) and then carrying merrily on after our separation.  

 

So, there are TWO ways of understanding time and space (and therefore causality, events and duration), when it comes to Inflationary theory.

LOCALLY and GLOBALLY.  In the Local sense, space and time came into existence for us at our Big Bang, when our pocket universe separated from the Inflationary process.  In the Global sense, because inflation has been and is still considered to be making universes, separation events are occurring and therefore some kind of duration can be said to be in effect.

 

Confused, Ravenstar...?  I hope not.  Just think about cars and production lines.  That image should help.

 

BAA refers to brane theory, I think. Another very neat mathematical theorem that corresponds with inflationary theory and seems, so far, to work…the math points to multiple universes.. like a bubble bath, sort of. Each universe that inflates is discrete from the others, and may have it's own set of properties.. according to the probabilities.

 

Yes, the discrete separation of universes is why the Global and Local views of causality, space and time are necessary.

 

BAA.. am I making sense?

 

About 50/50, Ravenstar.

.

.

.

Sorry, but I wasn't actually referring to brane theory in this thread.

Brane theory, like String theory can be made to correspond with inflation - but to do so requires a successful merging of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.  That merging has only been done on paper.  The main difference between Brane and String theories and inflation is that the latter is very-well supported by many ultra-precise measurements and hard evidence.  Whereas, the former remains firmly in the realm of attractive, but as yet unverified theory.

 

I go with inflation because of it's supporting evidence.

I'm still interested in things like the Brane, String and Ekpyrotic theories of our cosmic origins.  But I draw a sharp line of distinction between what is supported by evidence and what is not.  That ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

p.s.

I've also got some time for the Hawking-Simpson Cosmic Torus model too!  wink.png

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff, and I will look at it all!  :D

 

Yes.. the important distinction for me is that we can only interact with our universe, therefore space/time did not exist before inflation. I am aware of the problems between quantum physics and Newtonian physics… from what I remember it made Einstein crazy and he then rejected quantum theory, because it could not be reconciled. The great search for the unifying theory continues!  

 

I also wait with bated breath on new discoveries in quantum mechanics.

 

Will reply again after I peruse your links!

 

Thanks  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the link on the Hawking-Simpson Cosmic Torus model of the universe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Saved_Lisa's_Brain

 

Enjoy!

 

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torus_Positive_and_negative_curvature.pnsimpson_donut.gif03-donutgravity.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.