Met Particles II - A Pre Big Bang Theory

Some time ago I worked upon a little theory about what might have happend before the big bang. It involved a cascade effect generated by a law of physics dubbed 'law '. The original writing van be found here.

However, I am a man of very little patience and I feared that my flood of text would end up as TL;DR material. thus I decided to create a little video that would explain it. Without further delay, I present you my masterpiece (*cough cough).

reply to post by AncientShade

Before we can understand what happened before the big bang (if that's ever even remotely possible), we first need to understand the big bang, which we don't understand yet.

"Inflation" is a part of the big bang which is not understood. I think we need to explain inflation, to even confirm that the big bang theory is accurate, and to understand the big bang. Lacking that, it might be fun to speculate about "before the big bang" over a beer, but I don't see how we can have any realistic theory about "before the big bang" when we still don't even understand "after the big bang".

www.openquestions.com...

Many of the still open questions about cosmology will be answered by advances in high-energy physics. But not all. In fact, we are reaching the practical technological limits of studying particle physics by means of massive accelerators. In the future, our best sources of observational information for both high-energy physics and cosmology will be telescopes and other sorts of energy detectors that are tuned to observe processes in the universe which happened -- literally -- very far away and very long ago.

The topics covered by other pages under this one (listed and described in the box above) indicate most of the major open questions. But we can make a brief summary. Here are the big questions which we can realistically hope to address specifically in the area of cosmology:

* Is the inflationary hypothesis -- which determines the "initial conditions" that control practically everything we can now observe in the universe -- generally accurate?

Actually that grossly understates the magnitude of the problem in my opinion.

The inflation theory requires that matter travels faster than the speed of light in violation of the laws of physics as we know them, so it's more than just answering if the model is accurate. It's basically re-writing the laws of physics as we know them to enable matter to travel faster than light, something we believe to be impossible. This is really how inflation theory looks to me (It's a cartoon, but I'm somewhat serious):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c62990e15407.gif[/atsimg]

So I'm thinking maybe we need to be more explicit about what happened in step two (inflation), before we can explain what happened prior to step 1. Maybe understanding step 2 will change our thoughts about step 1 and what happened before it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by AncientShade

 

The inflation theory requires that matter travels faster than the speed of light in violation of the laws of physics as we know them, so it's more than just answering if the model is accurate. It's basically re-writing the laws of physics as we know them to enable matter to travel faster than light, something we believe to be impossible.

Inflation, in fact, says no such thing. Inflation is a metric expansion, just as the current expansion of the universe (indeed, the two are one and the same... the current expansion is just a mild, dissipated form of the initial inflation). Metric expansion/inflation does not involve matter moving at faster than the speed of light... if this were true, then even the current expansion would approach a violation of that, as matter very near the CMB are, relative to us, travelling at very near the speed of light. This apparent motion, however, is not a true velocity... it's a result of the expansion of space, and the same is true for the initial period of inflation. Besides, when inflation occurred, matter didn't exist. Current cosmology says that it was the formation of energy, itself, that caused the period of rapid inflation, and matter didn't form until the universe had expanded and cooled significantly.

Originally posted by CLPrime
Metric expansion/inflation does not involve matter moving at faster than the speed of light... if this were true, then even the current expansion would approach a violation of that, as matter very near the CMB are, relative to us, travelling at very near the speed of light.

That's my point. The expansion now is near the speed of light.

But during inflation, according to this source, it was expanding at 300000000000000000000000000 times faster than the speed of light. I'm not saying inflation is wrong, and some observations do support it. But we rally need a lot more confirmation of the model, and how and why it transitioned from expanding 300000000000000000000000000 times faster than the speed of light to the rate it expanded after that, to the rate it's expanding now, which as you said is approaching the speed of light. If you consider our observations that the rate of expansion is accelerating, and project that backwards, then the rate of expansion should have been slower in the past.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


But the point is that metric expansion does not violate the "speed limit" imposed by Relativity no matter how fast that expansion is. It doesn't violate Relativity because metric expansion is not a proper velocity. There's nothing for us to further understand, in that regard, because there is no contradiction.

Originally posted by CLPrime
But the point is that metric expansion does not violate the "speed limit" imposed by Relativity no matter how fast that expansion is. It doesn't violate Relativity because metric expansion is not a proper velocity. There's nothing for us to further understand, in that regard, because there is no contradiction.

I never said it violated relativity.

But there's a lot more to understand about inflation. In fact Wiki lists it as an unsolved problem in physics:

en.wikipedia.org...

Unsolved problems in physics

Is the theory of cosmological inflation correct, and if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation?

So I'd say the inflation field is one major thing we need to understand, but don't.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I never said it violated relativity.

Weeellll...you said, "The inflation theory requires that matter travels faster than the speed of light in violation of the laws of physics as we know them."

In considering that inflation requires matter to travel faster than the speed of light, the "laws of physics" that this violates is Relativity.

Inflation, though, violates no laws of physics, since it doesn't involve matter travelling faster than the speed of light. It's a common misconception, but it's a misconception nonetheless.

Who is to say that the laws of physics even applies to before the big bang, or even if it applies to the big bang it's self. We don't know what set of rules were present to before the universe even being in existence never less what came after.

reply to post by AncientShade


That's an interesting theory. Simplistic, but interesting. I have to ask, though... what causes the "Big Bang" chain reaction to end?

reply to post by CLPrime

Looks like metric expansion has got a bunch of issues on its own: arxiv.org...

reply to post by moebius


I'm not discussing the issues with metric expansion (every current theory has problems). I'm merely pointing out the common misconception that universal expansion/inflation violates Relativity.

reply to post by CLPrime


Essentially empty space. Before the collision of the matter particle and the anti-matter particle all the particles occupy the full amount of space available, thus there is not free space to move. The amount of 'space' grows equal to the amount of particles in it.

Consider it like a package of cookies, in the package they can't move, there simply is no space left to move and there is nothing outside this package to allow movement either.
But when the matter versus antimatter problem occurse due to the dragging of the particlefield two particles dissovle and create empty space.

if we take the cookie package it would be like two cookies are missing.The rest of the package would fall to fill the empty space.
In the new space this happens to, the particles tumble against eachother, and while they do that they lose energy. That energy however, does not go lost like it would in a matter versus anti-matter collision, it stays in that space causing it to charge. The charged space in combination with the moving particles creates a cosmic bomb, the resulting eplosion is known to us as the big bang.

It has to be said that the total amount of energy to make this scenario happen woudl be slightly BIGGER then that of the total amount of energy our universe contains. Why? Well, two particles dissolve each other as they hit each-other in matter and anti-matter state.

it would also explain why matter and anti-matter is unevenly distributed in space. As the big bang occurse it seems to occure very fast, but not fast enough for physics! As the explosion happens the particles can still change in that exact moment for one more time from anti-matter into matter.

So when we look through our telescopes to the center of our universe we see anti-matter, but what we miss with our telescope is that the particles moving outside have become matter. But since space changed and new laws of physics appeared because of it, the can no longer change back as easily as they did in pre-unversal space.

reply to post by AncientShade


Okay. I'm not sure if I followed that explanation, but it's all good... I'll blame it on my cold. I'll have to re-read it when I'm more conscious.

Another question: do you account for the fact that a particle-antiparticle annihilation produces gamma radiation (extremely energetic photons)? Which are particles?

reply to post by CLPrime


I've done some thinking about that. But in reality it doesn't really matter. the gamma radiation is takeing up less space than the particles did before the dissoved in the matter and anti-matter collision. after all, it is the residue left after the collision and not the exact same amount. THat would mean that the structure would still have movable space for the remaining particles despite of the gamma radiation.
Bluntly speaking; gamma radiation changes nothing on the underlying theory.

You seriously got to love scientists.

www2.imperial.ac.uk...

the earliest report of is dates back from the 15th of June...mine was in januari

Well...while they still do the math, enjoy the preview of the endresult right here. Maybe I should explain to the guys in havard why you actually can't travell in time so they can claim it afterwards. Or that listeningbugs are a violation of privacy. Oh wel..