Speed of light

[Chris Peterson]

How much energy would it take, to squeeze every particle in the known universe into something smaller than an atom?

How is this relevant to the BB? First of all, there were no particles in the t=0 Universe. Nothing was squeezed in, the entire Universe itself was tiny. That's quite different. And at t=0, it was energy only. I don't know of anything that puts constraints on energy density. It doesn't take energy to squeeze energy into a small space. I don't think that even means anything.

[The Code]

hi Chris..

How is this relevant to the BB? The thread is about, Before the bb mate....trying to understand something from nothing.

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

How is this relevant to the BB? The thread is about, Before the bb mate....trying to understand something from nothing.

Aside from the fact that the idea of "before" the BB is probably meaningless, because there was no time, that doesn't change the fact that nothing was "squeezed" at t=0. So your question about energy makes no sense to me.

[The Code]

How is this relevant to the BB? The thread is about, Before the bb mate....trying to understand something from nothing.

Aside from the fact that the idea of "before" the BB is probably meaningless, because there was no time, that doesn't change the fact that nothing was "squeezed" at t=0. So your question about energy makes no sense to me.

So why is every mass, in the hole universe pointing to the t=0 ---- >O<----- that,s where it came from? That,s where its going back too? energy can not be created, or destroyed... but there are things you can not explain with your laws,, such as physics breaks down after the event horizon...this also tells me that, physics cant not predict matter/energy/from bb theory because of the first reason. half a story don,t make a full picture...

mark

[Chris Peterson]

So why is every mass, in the hole universe pointing to the t=0 ---- >O<----- that,s where it came from?

That is what the best theories say. But that matter was in the form of energy at the beginning.

That,s where its going back too?

The best evidence says not. It looks like the Universe will expand forever.

but there are things you can not explain with your laws,, such as physics breaks down after the event horizon...

I doubt that. What breaks down is the theories we are currently using. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the theories, just that we have to restrict using them to where they are valid (very much like we use Newtonian mechanics to navigate most spacecraft, but need to use relativistic mechanics for GPS satellites). We don't currently have very good theories to describe what's going on inside an event horizon; that doesn't mean we won't develop them.

this also tells me that, physics cant not predict matter/energy/from bb theory because of the first reason.

Again, there is no reason to think that there are any physical limitations on this. The theory simply isn't that well developed. And that is precisely why the standard BB theories make no attempt to describe the conditions before t=0 (and in fact, the concept of t<0 isn't even defined), and it is why they are unable to describe the Universe in the first fraction of a second. That doesn't mean the theories are bad. They seem to do an excellent job of describing the Universe from that first fraction to now.

[JimJast]

See discussion at Asterisk Café: MOG.

Thanks for directions, but none of the posts there answers my question wich is: "why John Moffat doesn't like Einstein's theory of gravitation that seems not to have those problems that JM tries to solve?

Einstein's theory has already a non symmetric metric tensor (see Einstein's "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", "Scientific American", April 1950), doesn't contain in it neither "black holes" nor "dark energy", etc.) and Einstein is not responsible for axioms added to general relativity by others, like eg. assumption of expansion of space and violation of conservation of energy that is just the necessary result of the expansion of space, but none consistent with Einstein's theory since "Einstein's universe" of 1917 and 1985 is stationary.

[JimJast]

I wonder why Moffat doesn't like Einstein's theory of gravitation that seems not to have those problems that Moffat solves? Einstein's theory has already a non symmetric metric tensor (see Einstein's "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", "Scientific American", April 1950), doesn't have neither black holes nor dark energy) and Einstein's theory is not responsible for axioms added to general relativity by Wheeler (see MTW, "Gravitation", 1973, p.411) like the assumption of expansion of space and the invalidity of conservation of energy that is just the necessary result of the expansion of space (apparently MTW liked better violation of conservation of energy than Einstein's cosmological constant). So Einstein's theory might be still right, especially after a viable reason for the universe being stationary has been found, which Moffat is ignoring, apparently not checking the literature available to him, before writing his book).

[bystander]

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang Theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. Until there is good theory of quantum gravity, unifying quantum mechanics and relativistic gravity, any speculation about conditions prior to the Planck Epoch are meaningless.

[aristarchusinexile]

How is this relevant to the BB? The thread is about, Before the bb mate....trying to understand something from nothing.

Aside from the fact that the idea of "before" the BB is probably meaningless, because there was no time, that doesn't change the fact that nothing was "squeezed" at t=0. So your question about energy makes no sense to me.

Ah - so you admit that time was created by cosmological events? Like the spin of spiral galaxies perhaps?

[aristarchusinexile]

The best evidence says not. It looks like the Universe will expand forever.

MOG seems to say the universe is not expanding. And who is to be the judge of what the "best evidence" is .. except to revert to the old adage, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

(very much like we use Newtonian mechanics to navigate most spacecraft, but need to use relativistic mechanics for GPS satellites).

Except for the Pioneer anaomalies, which MOG says did not arise from the sun's influence, but probably from heat on the spaceship. I, however, propose an unknown kind of 'gravity-like' action, a non-local attraction of things for and towards the place of their origin .. perhaps arising even in the affection of those who built the Pioneers, 'imbedding' a desire for it to return 'home', but perhaps also simply inherent in matter. Of course, this will be seen to be absurd by some minds, much like 'if men were made to fly he would have wings'.

[aristarchusinexile]

I wonder why Moffat doesn't like Einstein's theory of gravitation that seems not to have those problems that Moffat solves? Einstein's theory has already a non symmetric metric tensor (see Einstein's "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", "Scientific American", April 1950), doesn't have neither black holes nor dark energy) and Einstein's theory is not responsible for axioms added to general relativity by Wheeler (see MTW, "Gravitation", 1973, p.411) like the assumption of expansion of space and the invalidity of conservation of energy that is just the necessary result of the expansion of space (apparently MTW liked better violation of conservation of energy than Einstein's cosmological constant). So Einstein's theory might be still right, especially after a viable reason for the universe being stationary has been found, which Moffat is ignoring, apparently not checking the literature available to him, before writing his book).

Have you read his book? If not, it would be wise to read it and then comment. Moffat says there is no need for Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, singularities; and in fact, if I read him correctly, he says the universe is not expanding, or at least, not increasing its rate of expansion.

[Chris Peterson]

MOG seems to say the universe is not expanding. And who is to be the judge of what the "best evidence" is...

Good for MOG. Most scientists consider it a weak theory compared with the BBT, because it has much less supportive evidence.

Except for the Pioneer anaomalies, which MOG says did not arise from the sun's influence, but probably from heat on the spaceship.

There are many possible explanations, ranging from prosaic to exotic. With no good way of selecting between them at this point, it is best to not place too much weight on this observation with respect to any theory.

[aristarchusinexile]

See discussion at Asterisk Café: MOG.

Thanks for directions, but none of the posts there answers my question wich is: "why John Moffat doesn't like Einstein's theory of gravitation that seems not to have those problems that JM tries to solve?

Einstein's theory has already a non symmetric metric tensor (see Einstein's "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", "Scientific American", April 1950), doesn't contain in it neither "black holes" nor "dark energy", etc.) and Einstein is not responsible for axioms added to general relativity by others, like eg. assumption of expansion of space and violation of conservation of energy that is just the necessary result of the expansion of space, but none consistent with Einstein's theory since "Einstein's universe" of 1917 and 1985 is stationary.

Bystander, I sent JJ a private message in response to his question, and posted part of it in MOG.

[Chris Peterson]

Ah - so you admit that time was created by cosmological events?

I think it is likely that time began with the Big Bang, and that it is meaningless to talk about "before" the BB.

Like the spin of spiral galaxies perhaps?

I don't remotely believe such a thing. Galaxies didn't form until millions of years after the BB, and time was running along just fine then.

[aristarchusinexile]

MOG seems to say the universe is not expanding. And who is to be the judge of what the "best evidence" is...

Good for MOG. Most scientists consider it a weak theory compared with the BBT, because it has much less supportive evidence.

The place to discus MOG is in MOG. Your sedition is noted.

Except for the Pioneer anaomalies, which MOG says did not arise from the sun's influence, but probably from heat on the spaceship.

There are many possible explanations, ranging from prosaic to exotic. With no good way of selecting between them at this point, it is best to not place too much weight on this observation with respect to any theory.

Moffat was at a meeting in Bern on the PA, much discussion ensued, results are being appraised, the answer is expected 'soon'. But I think it won't be found looking at conventional pysics .. they will have to examine lon-local attraction .. a 'desire' for something to return to its place of origin. It's curious, though, that after three years the spaceship 'heat' factor hasn't been confirmed or ruled out, curious becuase that effect will be easy to determine. I suspect a deliberate delay in releasing information, for the same reason the meeting was held in Bern (and/or Berne), to honour Einstein for what he has done, and to make Relativity's decline a gradual process, so as to not cause trauma in the consensus. Consider this an advance notice, Chris, something to keep in the back of your mind.

[aristarchusinexile]

aristarchusinexile wrote:
MOG seems to say the universe is not expanding. And who is to be the judge of what the "best evidence" is...

Chris Peterson wrote: "Good for MOG. Most scientists consider it a weak theory compared with the BBT, because it has much less supportive evidence."

It seems many of the best brains in the western world's cosmological and physics communities are gathering at the Perimetre Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, where Moffat works. In reading the book, I would say the weight of evidence is hugely on MOG's side, but I find it edifying that Moffat himself is reserving 'final judgement' on MOG, until more test results are in. I also find it edifying that Moffat so clearly involves his assistant and others in development of MOG.

Perimetre Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_Institute
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/
Neil Turok Executive Director, Announced May 9, 2008
Lee Smolin
Laurent Freidel
University of Waterloo
Stephen Hawking Distinguished Research Chair
Leonard Susskind father of string theory, faculty member

[The Code]

Hi

Two different singularities don,t make a hole. One a giver and taker, the other just a taker. its either one or the other? a singularity in a black hole means to me, our hole universe is inside a giant black hole.. or BBT singularity which means to me there is not enough energy in the black hole for the singularity... Did any body consider them both together? There has to be some hidden energy somewhere... It is pretty obvious to me, that the hole universe is not expanding much any more..Hair and the Tortuous story... Hair = Speed, Tortuous = Gravity ... Gravity always wins, no matter how fast your going...

This is my last post on this subject, I have said what i wanted to say.. thanks all....

mark

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Pseudoscience has a foot hold on the direction in which cosmology science is heading.

Journals are written up without a science editor. Evidence is here or there and based on assumptions and hear say.

Are these my thoughts or is this really happening?

This link is interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2415
Introducing doubt in Bayesian model comparison

Authors: Glenn D Starkman, Roberto Trotta, Pascal M Vaudrevange
(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

Abstract: There are things we know, things we know we don't know, and then there are things we don't know we don't know. In this paper we address the latter two issues in a Bayesian framework, introducing the notion of doubt to quantify the degree of (dis)belief in a model given observational data in the absence of explicit alternative models. We demonstrate how a properly calibrated doubt can lead to model discovery when the true model is unknown.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Just because I post these links does not make them right or wrong, just sharing my reading.

You can take it with a pich of salt or a ton of sugar.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3968
Reconnection Electric Field and Hardness of X-Ray Emission of Solar Flares

Authors: Chang Liu, Haimin Wang
(Submitted on 23 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Magnetic reconnection is believed to be the prime mechanism to trigger solar flares and accelerate electrons up to energies of MeV. In the classical two-dimensional reconnection model, the separation motion of chromospheric ribbons manifests the successive reconnection that takes place higher up in the corona. Meanwhile, downward traveling energetic electrons bombard the dense chromosphere and create hard X-ray (HXR) emissions, which provide a valuable diagnostic of electron acceleration. Analyses of ribbon dynamics and HXR spectrum have been carried out separately. In this Letter, we report a study of the comparison of reconnection electric field measured from ribbon motion and hardness (spectral index) of X-ray emission derived from X-ray spectrum. Our survey of the maximum average reconnection electric field and the minimum overall spectral index for 13 two-ribbon flares show that they are strongly anti-correlated. The former is also strongly correlated with flare magnitude measured using the peak flux of soft X-ray emissions. These provide strong support for electron acceleration models based on the electric field generated at reconnecting current sheet during flares.

[bystander]

Glimpse before Big Bang Possible
Space.com - 2009 January 13

• The universe appears to be lopsided, and a new model that aims to explain this anomaly could offer a glimpse of what happened before the birth of it all.
  ...
  A new model suggests this unevenness could be caused by an imprint left over from before the beginning of the universe, that is, before the cosmos ballooned almost instantaneously from less than the size of an atom to about golf-ball size. This process is called inflation.
  ...
  The model also intriguingly hints at what might have come before inflation, since it suggests that the universe's lopsidedness may be an after effect of a great fluctuation that occurred before inflation began.

[aristarchusinexile]

Glimpse before Big Bang Possible
Space.com - 2009 January 13

• The universe appears to be lopsided, and a new model that aims to explain this anomaly could offer a glimpse of what happened before the birth of it all.
  ...
  A new model suggests this unevenness could be caused by an imprint left over from before the beginning of the universe, that is, before the cosmos ballooned almost instantaneously from less than the size of an atom to about golf-ball size. This process is called inflation.
  ...
  The model also intriguingly hints at what might have come before inflation, since it suggests that the universe's lopsidedness may be an after effect of a great fluctuation that occurred before inflation began.

Inflation .. another latter day add-on to help justify the idea of Big Bang. Oh well, we all have our justifications.

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

You can take it with a pich of salt or a ton of sugar.

I'll take that ton fermented please, Harry. I'm reading your stuff and finding it interesting, but I'm incapable of commenting scientifically.

[aristarchusinexile]

Non-local attraction. This topic may be locked as unscientific, but non-locality is demonstrated in the lab, and this peculiarity has wonderful horizons for exploration .. So .. here goes ..

The Pioneer Anomaly .. a possible action possibly slowing the two spacecraft .. Newtonian gravity and Relativity ruled out as causes, the several or many possibilities include a software glitch reporting a false position of the two spacecraft, or course-altering heat generated on board the spacecraft.

I propose a non-local 'desire' for matter, possibly also energy, to return to its place of origin. It will be interesting, if software is ruled out, to see, if the effect is real, to see if our planet is the source of the effect as our planet's gravity is ruled out by its weakness .. as was the sun's gravity because of direction.

Very interesting stuff with wonderful horizons for exploration.

I push the 'submit' button in, 5, 4, 3, 2 - glitch, forgot to include a subject .. corrected ..

3, 2

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Pseudoscience has a foot hold on the direction in which cosmology science is heading.

Journals are written up without a science editor. Evidence is here or there and based on assumptions and hear say.

Are these my thoughts or is this really happening?

This link is interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2415
Introducing doubt in Bayesian model comparison

Authors: Glenn D Starkman, Roberto Trotta, Pascal M Vaudrevange
(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

Abstract: There are things we know, things we know we don't know, and then there are things we don't know we don't know. In this paper we address the latter two issues in a Bayesian framework, introducing the notion of doubt to quantify the degree of (dis)belief in a model given observational data in the absence of explicit alternative models. We demonstrate how a properly calibrated doubt can lead to model discovery when the true model is unknown.

Wonderful! Thanks Harry. Truly Beautiful. Especially as it arrived 'just in time' to consideration of new subject Non-local attraction. Amazing. Wonderful. Beautiful. (Your link to doubt, that is). I will classify my own topic as 'interesting' and 'exciting'.

[Qev]

I think you might've neglected to consider that Earth (or even the solar system) isn't the 'place of origin' for any of the material of which the Pioneer probe is constructed. Any hydrogen in its makeup has likely been around since the beginning, and the rest of the heavier elements would've been manufactured in various stars and supernovae located nowhere near where we are now (and would've found their origins in primordial hydrogen, as well).

All the Earth is is the last somewhat large blob of matter that all its bits happened to be smushed in with.