Hadron collider CERN

[astrolabe]

Hello apodman

Yeah, I know what you mean. One can always use a little Mother Goose now an then but NTYMI communicate as a description IS a little prestodigitatious (word?). Anyway, sloppy or not, your clarification worked fine. Whaddya think, seems like a major step between rules that apply and ones that don't. maybe not in time but surely in the splitting up of the fundamental forces underlying the mechanics of what we seem to know, macro and micro.

[Chris Peterson]

Still though, singularity is a tough one and I try to squirm my way out of it but to no avail. Mainly because the questions are hard to formulate and the answers are even harder if one exists at all. Like for instance: At what point does a singularity arrive at the point of not being a singularity and why.

I think it is best to avoid thinking too deeply about it. This is something that makes sense mathematically (although in an incomplete sense with respect to the details of the beginning of the Universe), but probably can't make sense in an intuitive fashion, at least not to people whose brains work normally. Physicists are willing to accept that there are realms where physics as we know it doesn't work; we can take a lesson from that and extend that acceptance to the idea that we simply can't make sense of some things yet.

[apodman]

This is one of my images of the universe.

All the vegetables at the open end of the horn represent the contents of the present day universe.

As we go back toward the pointed end of the horn, we are going back in time. The diameter of the horn at any point along its course represents the size to which the universe had expanded at that point in time, and the contents within a cross-sectional slice of the horn at that point represent the contents of the universe at that time. The point at the end of the horn represents the BB singularity at the beginning of time.

Maybe "the beginning of time" sounds like Mother Goose, too, but this is what I have been led to believe.

[astrolabe]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the the intimation that I may be thinking normally. WHEW! for a minute there.......... wait a minute....... yes, yes, the headaches are diminishing now. All kidding aside the concepts of the moment before THE BANG can be somewhat alluring but all in all you are correct in directing ideas toward rules that apply and work at it that way.It is interesting reading here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/hph.html

and I'm spending a little more time at it, and trying to think normally of course.

[astrolabe]

Hello apodman,

Naaaahhh, no Mother Goose for you there. I do think your analogy interesting with regard to the fact that the Horn curls as it goes back in time. You may be on to something. Anyway the demonstration isn't lost on me. Where do you guys get this stuff? It's kind of like how the Joker in the first Batman movie remarked that Batman "has the most marvelous toys."

[apodman]

... the concepts of the moment before THE BANG can be somewhat alluring ...

According to my horn-of-plenty image, thinking about the moment "before" the bang is like asking how wide the horn is beyond its end. I see no answer. My mind can't come up with an image for "before" the "beginning of time", since there is no time frame in which to set the concept of "before". I can conceive that there could be some sort of predecessor to the bang, but whether that predecessor is set in a time-like dimension or along some other kind of track is information hidden beyond the singularity, and I'm not comfortable saying "before" until I'm convinced the predecessor, if it exists, "occurred" in a time-like manner.

I thought the curl and the stripes were just artistic license, like the choice of vegetables.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Chris

It seems you have some info on the universe.

But! Before you explain the universe first understand the working parts.

Where did the matter come from and form and become infinite?
What is the process?

Rather than going round and round, maybe an explanation of how stars evolve or maybe how galaxies evolve.
To expalin the ongoing universe is to explain its ongoing processes.


You said

The Universe has a center in spacetime, the 4D manifold it's embedded in. But it has no 3D center; didn't at the start, still doesn't.

Where did you get this form of logic?

A centre in spacetime?

Have you got your own version of BBT?


You said

Well, if you were basing your thinking on Harry's comments, I can see why you would get confused. His description of the BBT is not remotely accurate. Galaxies didn't pop into existence "everywhere at the same time"; there's no need for some hypothetical compact matter; there's no need for some sort of special communication between parts of the Universe.

I did not give a description of the BBT and If I did the ad hoc ideas that support it should be shot out as being non science.

Regardless here are some notes and links on the BBT.

Big Bang Theory - An Overview
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

A Brief History of the Universe
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/publ ... story.html

Creation of a Cosmology:
Big Bang Theory
http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

THE BIG BANG:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

WMAP's Universe
Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang model of cosmology rests on two key ideas that date back to the early 20th century: General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle. By assuming that the matter in the universe is distributed uniformly on the largest scales, one can use General Relativity to compute the corresponding gravitational effects of that matter. Since gravity is a property of space-time in General Relativity, this is equivalent to computing the dynamics of space-time itself.

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

1) The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
2) By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
3) It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:
a) Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
b) Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
c) Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
d) Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.

[Chris Peterson]

Where did the matter come from and form and become infinite?

The question of whether the Universe is infinite remains unanswered. Matter, of course, came from energy. There is currently no scientific explanation for the source of the energy that seeded the Universe. The question itself may have no meaning, as the idea of "before" the BB has no basis, and may never have. So for now, all we can do- from a scientific standpoint- is accept that t=0 is, and may always be, beyond analysis.

You said

The Universe has a center in spacetime, the 4D manifold it's embedded in. But it has no 3D center; didn't at the start, still doesn't.

Where did you get this form of logic?

A centre in spacetime?

Have you got your own version of BBT?

Not at all. This is simply the standard model. It is precisely as is given in your long quote at the end of your post.

[bystander]

Harry gave a very good reference earlier in this thread about the BBT. It was from an article in Scientific American. I found it well stated in terms a layman, as myself, can understand. Astrolabe, if you haven't read, take a look, it might help.

Misconceptions about the BBT
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST ... igBang.pdf

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello Chris

May I ask you to research compact matter and its formation.

Its a start in understanding.



http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+20 ... /0/all/0/1

and

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+qu ... /0/all/0/1

You can also search via ADS

http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/

[Chris Peterson]

May I ask you to research compact matter and its formation.

I fail to understand what the existence of highly dense matter in neutron stars and (possibly) black holes has to do with anything we're discussing, including the BBT.

It isn't hard to understand, since it consists of nothing more than normal particles highly constrained by a strong gravitational field.

[harry]

G'day Chris

You said

I fail to understand what the existence of highly dense matter in neutron stars and (possibly) black holes has to do with anything we're discussing, including the BBT

Mate, what do you really want to understand?

You will fail to understand the BBT if you fail to understand the working parts of the universe.

[Chris Peterson]

Mate, what do you really want to understand?

I'd start with a simple explanation on your part of what the compressed matter that makes up neutron stars (which is what I assume you mean by "compact matter") has to the with the Big Bang. I don't know of any connection.

[astrolabe]

Hello bystander,

Very nice link, there's a lot there to absorb but it is written well and, while easy to follow, will require more than one read-through to develope an all-inclusive mental viewpoint (complete with pictures of course!) and the time I believe will be well spent. Faster than light galaxies especially caught my attention. Thanks, good stuff!

[apodman]

I just read this thread again from the beginning to see what it's really about. As some of you may know, I say that more than six open topics usually make a divergent thread while six topics or fewer may possibly be manageable. Discounting short tangents, I count these topics in this thread:

1. Large Hadron Collider and particle physics

2. Big Bang cosmology

3. Black Holes

4. Singular points

5. QCD matter in compact stars

That's only five huge topics, and this thread (despite wandering greatly) is still comprehensible. Not only that, but I see room for a sixth topic (really a common question among the five topics above), so here goes:

6. What is matter like at extremely high density? Is there more than one answer? In particular, are any of the following super-dense environments comparable with or relevant to the understanding of each other? If so, which ones and in what ways?

- super-massive particles lurking within subatomic particles
- quark matter in super-dense stars
- the singularity of a super-massive black hole
- the singularity of the big bang

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

What is high density matter?

Degenerate matter compared to the Sun.

Neutron matter could fit in a 10 Km dia.

Quark matter depending on the type and composite 3 M dia down to about .5M

Preon matter down to a 10 mm to 1mm Dia Very Theoretical getting close to the theoretical singularity.

You are looking at density greater than the centre of an atom.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602017

Statistical mechanics of confined quantum particles

Authors: Vishnu M. Bannur, K. M. Udayanandan
(Submitted on 2 Feb 2006)

Abstract: We develop statistical mechanics and thermodynamics of Bose and Fermi systems in relativistic harmonic oscillator (RHO) confining potential, which may be applicable in quark gluon plasma (QGP), astrophysics, Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC), condensed matter physics etc. Detailed study of QGP system is carried out and compared with lattice results. Further, as an application, our equation of state (EoS) of QGP is used to study compact stars like quark star.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601282
Compact strange stars with a medium dependence in gluons at finite temperature

Authors: Manjari Bagchi, Subharthi Ray, Mira Dey, Jishnu Dey
(Submitted on 13 Jan 2006 (v1), last revised 22 Jan 2006 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The possible existence of strange stars in the universe will help in the understanding of various properties of quantum chromodynamics, like asymptotic freedom and chiral symmetry restoration, which is otherwise very difficult to prove in laboratory experiments. Strange star properties were calculated using large $N_c$ approximation with built-in chiral symmetry restoration. A relativistic Hartree Fock calculation was performed using the Richardson potential as an interquark interaction. This potential has the asymptotic freedom and a confinement-deconfinement mechanism built into it and the present calculation employs an application of this potential with modified two scale parameters $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^{\prime}$, to find a new set of equations of state for strange quark matter. The linear confinement string tension from lattice calculations is 350 $MeV$ and the Coulomb -like part has the parameter 100 $MeV$ from deep inelastic scattering experiments. We also consider the effect of temperature, $T$, on gluon mass in a simple way, in addition to the usual density dependence, and find that the transition $T$ from hadronic matter to strange matter is at 80 MeV, close to the 100 MeV estimated in litarature. Therefore formation of strange stars may be the only signal for formation of quark-gluon plasma with asymptotic freedom and chiral symmetry restoration and this may be observable through many processes -such as for example through delayed $\gamma$ ray afterglow.

[Chris Peterson]

What is high density matter?

Degenerate matter compared to the Sun...

Yes, I understand what high density matter is. What I don't understand is the apparent link you see between it and the BBT. Certainly, the reference you provide don't address this. High density matter doesn't exist outside of very high gravitational fields; it can't exist in some free state in space.

[harry]

G'day Chris

Most of the matter in the universe exists as Ultra dense degenerate matter.

It is critical if you want to understand BBT Nucleosynthesis.

Where do you find it?

Neutron stars, exotic theoretical stars such as Quarks, Neutrino, Preon and the so called black holes.


Do I understand it all?

No way, maybe never, even though I read like bat out of hell.

Neried started me off, now I cannot stop.

I know now that the more I read, the more I know how little we know.

[Chris Peterson]

Most of the matter in the universe exists as Ultra dense degenerate matter.

The observational evidence doesn't support that assertion. Add up all the neutron stars (and even the black holes, although they may not contain dense matter at all), and you have only a small portion of just the visible matter. And the visible matter is just a small portion of the dark matter.

[harry]

G'day Chris

Mate do a bit of research before you put your foot in it.
Before I give you information backing what I said. I want you to discover.

This maybe a link of interest, info to understanding.

Dark Matter in an n-Space Expanding Universe
Authors: Mario Rabinowitz

(Submitted on 12 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 24 Mar 2007 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The total number of degrees of freedom of a d-dimensional body in n-space is derived so that equipartition of energy may be applied to a possibly n-dimensional early universe. A comparison is made of a range of proposals to include free and bound black holes as either a small component or the dominant constituent of dark matter in the universe. The hypothesis that dark matter consists in part of atomic gravitationally bound primordial black holes is closely examined in 3-space, as well as in n-space; and the Chavda and Chavda holeum hypothesis is found to be flawed. Blackbody and Hawking radiation are generalized to n-space, and Hawking radiation is shown to be simply proportional to the black hole density. The importance of quantum gravity in understanding the role of early universe dark matter is undermined because present approaches to a theory of quantum gravity violate the equivalence principle. A general heuristic proof for geodesics on an expanding hypersphere is presented. Classical limits of Einstein's General Relativity are considered. A novel approach to the accelerated expansion of the universe is discussed. An anomalous surprising aspect of 4-space is demonstrated.

[Chris Peterson]

Dark Matter in an n-Space Expanding Universe
Authors: Mario Rabinowitz

The notion that dark matter consists of black holes is not well regarded. Nobody is saying it's impossible, but it certainly is not the most likely explanation given current observations. Definitely a minority opinion. Furthermore, it's not possible using current theory to say with any certainty that black holes contain highly compressed matter at all.

[harry]

G'day Chris

For now just keep on reading, do not be limited by what you think.

Look at the process that black hole forms from supernova the stage after Neutron star.

[Chris Peterson]

For now just keep on reading, do not be limited by what you think.

The problem is, thinking too freely limits our understanding. I allow my reading to focus and limit my thinking (that is, to keep my thinking rational and realistic). As a consequence, my understanding is deeper.

If you don't focus and limit your thinking, you never get anywhere.

[harry]

G'day Chris

Maybe your right, but! humor me for now.

Lets just go on a limb and pick on things that nobody else would dare.

oops darn,,,,have to end here

Have to pick up the kids.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

This maybe of interest to read.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1905
Dark matter and the LHC

Authors: Howard Baer, Xerxes Tata
(Submitted on 13 May 2008 (v1), last revised 29 May 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: An abundance of astrophysical evidence indicates that the bulk of matter in the universe is made up of massive, electrically neutral particles that form the dark matter (DM). While the density of DM has been precisely measured, the identity of the DM particle (or particles) is a complete mystery. In fact, within the laws of physics as we know them (the Standard Model, or SM), none of the particles have the right properties to make up DM. Remarkably, many new physics extensions of the SM -- designed to address theoretical issues with the electroweak symmetry breaking sector -- require the introduction of new particles, some of which are excellent DM candidates. As the LHC era begins, there are high hopes that DM particles, along with their associated new matter states, will be produced in pp collisions. We discuss how LHC experiments, along with other DM searches, may serve to determine the identity of DM particles and elucidate the associated physics. Most of our discussion centers around theories with weak-scale supersymmetry, and allows for several different DM candidate particles.