- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
@Stormer0628
What's your idea of things before Planck Era?
What's your idea of things before Planck Era?
Symbianize Forum
Most of our features and services are available only to members, so we encourage you to login or register a new account. Registration is free, fast and simple. You only need to provide a valid email. Being a member you'll gain access to all member forums and features, post a message to ask question or provide answer, and share or find resources related to mobile phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and multimedia.
All that and more, so what are you waiting for, click the register button and join us now! Ito ang website na ginawa ng pinoy para sa pinoy!
Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place
- Thread starter Robotculator
- Start date
- Replies 12,090
- Views 438,943
- Status
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
At the moment, the only physics model that offers any possible description of the world before the singularity of the Big Bang—that is the Planck Era, when gravity, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and strong nuclear force are unified—is string physics and two direct offshoots: holographic principle, and M or brane theory.
It is still very early at this point (scientists haven't even yet worked out how these three and other models would directly impact current Standard Model, but attempts are not lacking at this point, which keep them busy all over the world at the moment), but they have already come up with a suggestion:
Our Universe May Have Emerged from a Black Hole in a Higher Dimensional Universe
New research from theoretical physicists at the Perimeter Institute proposes that our universe may have emerged from a black hole in a higher-dimensional universe.
The big bang poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it?
Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It’s a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics, testable, and enticing enough to earn the cover story in Scientific American, called “The Black Hole at the Beginning of Time.”
What we perceive as the big bang, they argue, could be the three-dimensional “mirage” of a collapsing star in a universe profoundly different than our own.
“Cosmology’s greatest challenge is understanding the big bang itself,” write Perimeter Institute Associate Faculty member Niayesh Afshordi, Affiliate Faculty member and University of Waterloo professor Robert Mann, and PhD student Razieh Pourhasan.
Conventional understanding holds that the big bang began with a singularity – an unfathomably hot and dense phenomenon of spacetime where the standard laws of physics break down. Singularities are bizarre, and our understanding of them is limited.
“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” Afshordi says in an interview with Nature.
The problem, as the authors see it, is that the big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform, and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity. It seems unlikely.
So perhaps something else happened. Perhaps our universe was never singular in the first place.
Their suggestion: our known universe could be the three-dimensional “wrapping” around a four-dimensional black hole’s event horizon. In this scenario, our universe burst into being when a star in a four-dimensional universe collapsed into a black hole.
In our three-dimensional universe, black holes have two-dimensional event horizons – that is, they are surrounded by a two-dimensional boundary that marks the “point of no return.” In the case of a four-dimensional universe, a black hole would have a three-dimensional event horizon.
In their proposed scenario, our universe was never inside the singularity; rather, it came into being outside an event horizon, protected from the singularity. It originated as – and remains – just one feature in the imploded wreck of a four-dimensional star.
The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound “absurd,” is grounded firmly in the best modern mathematics describing space and time. Specifically, they’ve used the tools of holography to “turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage.” Along the way, their model appears to address long-standing cosmological puzzles and – crucially – produce testable predictions.
Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the event horizon of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don’t know how a four-dimensional “parent” universe itself came to be.
But our fallible human intuitions, the researchers argue, evolved in a three-dimensional world that may only reveal shadows of reality.
They draw a parallel to Plato’s allegory of the cave, in which prisoners spend their lives seeing only the flickering shadows cast by a fire on a cavern wall.
“Their shackles have prevented them from perceiving the true world, a realm with one additional dimension,” they write. “Plato’s prisoners didn’t understand the powers behind the sun, just as we don’t understand the four-dimensional bulk universe. But at least they knew where to look for answers.”
Source: http://scitechdaily.com/universe-may-emerged-black-hole-higher-dimensional-universe/
OR HERE:
http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
The Standard Model pretty much stops at the Planck Scale, which is given by the following:
Quantity SI equivalent
Planck time 5.39121 × 10−44 s
Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg
Planck length (ℓP) 1.616252×10−35 m
If we assume that the big bang or the whole existence of matter/energy rests on quantum fluctuation, or matter-antimatter parity violations, we already assume that the fabric of spacetime is fluctuating rather than stable. Question: what is the underlying state of spacetime—stable or unstable? Specifically, did it start from stable to unstable, or just eternally unstable? If it started out as stable, what caused it to be unstable in the first place?
In the parlance of string theory, true space is embodied in the Calabi-Yau manifolds, that configuration of space that shows more dimensions than we know of in our corner of the universe. If so, wouldn't this manifold speak of a deeper relationship with amplituhedron and configurations like it, which suggest that spacetime itself is merely an emergent facet of reality...?
More later....
@rueryuzaki: how is it going so far at this point?
==============================
Continued....
We must remember that the Planck era/epoch is the earliest period of time in the history of the universe, as given above. The previous speculative discussion, though backed up by some measure of math and science, uses AdS/CFT (Anti de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory) formalities to jump from our local universe to something else that might have caused it.
On the other hand, we are still faced with what could possibly come before the Planck era—or the Planck scale? The answer: NONE. The Planck Scale is the very limit of universe in time and size, the ultimate zero starting point.
Now note that the strings (0, 1 or close and open configuration—but see below about the nature of pixels postulated by the holographic principle) posited by string theory exist at the exact scale of Planck limits: 1.616252×10−35 m, which means that strings are the ultimate fundamental units of the universe, whose actions define the atoms as we know them as protons, electrons, and so on.
An interesting thought at this point is how does the "floor" of this Planck scale look like? Answer: pixelated.
That picture is better explained by the holographic principle of Maldacena:
"From our zoomed out vantage point, the universe seems to be a perfectly formed enclave of 4D spacetime. Look around you: Everything is as it should be. What happens if you keep zooming in, though? Past microbes, past protons, past electrons… until you get down to the smallest possible unit that can exist in the universe. Moving closer to an old-style TV until you can see the individual pixels is a very good analogy. The holographic principle suggests that, if you zoom in far enough, we will eventually see the pixels of the universe. It’s theorized that these universal pixels are about 10 trillion trillion times smaller than an atom (the Planck scale, in physics terms)."
If these universal pixels exist, then everything we see, feel, and experience in the universe is actually encoded in these 2D pixels.... [If this is so] it would mean that spacetime itself is a quantum system, just like matter. The theory that the universe consists of matter and energy would be annulled, replaced with the concept that the universe is made of information encoded into these universal pixels, which in turn create the classical concepts of matter and energy.
Now, think of the funny (or hairy, depending on your temperament) implications of the holographic principle....
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Still on the subject of "things before the Planck Era"
Earlier I had discussed features of the holographic principle that in a way gives a picture of the Planck scale/epoch—ie, down to the barest fluctuating pixels that could account for the open and close strings of string physics, which in turn resulted in the big bang and our common standard model and cosmology. As well there was that bit about a black hole from a higher dimension creating a simulated illusion of our own 3D/4D world.
Now here is another speculative take about time before the Big Bang. It is called "Ekpyrotic Universe."
Its main features? It achieves the same results as that of the Standard Model cosmology but without the problem of singularity and dispatches of the need for gravitational waves:
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:33 pm ET
18 April 2001
Faster than you can say "Ekpyrotic Universe", a movement has taken hold—albeit like fingers on a ledge of eternal skepticism—that would blow one of the basic tenets of the Big Bang to smithereens. Think "parallel branes" and "5 dimensions". Science never sounded so cool. The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the Universe began and evolved. But instead of a Universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our Universe was created when 2 parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in 5-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.
These membranes —or "branes" as theorists call them—would have floated like sheets of paper through a 5th dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space along with time make up the 4 known dimensions.)
"It's almost crazy enough to be correct."
~Michael Turner, University of Chicago cosmologist
The idea—put forth earlier this month at a Space Telescope Science Institute meeting in Baltimore—is based on other theories about possible multiple dimensions that are growing in acceptance. It was developed by Neil Turok of Cambridge University, Burt Ovrut of the University of Pennsylvania, and Paul Steinhardt and Justin Khoury of Princeton University.
"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current Universe is [a] 4-dimensional membrane embedded in a 5-dimensional 'bulk' space —something like a sheet of paper in ordinary 3-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat, and leading to the expansion of our Universe."2
Crazy, but viable
"It's almost crazy enough to be correct," says Michael Turner, a longtime University of Chicago cosmologist who is familiar with the theory. He added that "when you're trying to crack a really hard problem, you need a crazy idea."
Turner said astronomers have reacted with great excitement to the new theory in part because the idea of alternate dimensions is largely new to most of them. Cosmologists tend to welcome the idea as a healthy potential alternative to certain aspects of the Big Bang, but are cautious about the theory's
prospects.
Mario Livio—who heads up the science division of the Space Telescope Science Institute—said it's way too early to predict whether the theory will withstand scrutiny by other researchers. But he called the concept very important and exciting. "We're talking about a new idea about the origin of our Universe."
The Ekpyrotic Universe draws its name from the ancient Greek word ekpyrosis, meaning "conflagration" (disastrous fire or conflict). According to an ancient cosmological model with this name, the Universe was created in a sudden burst of fire. The modern-day theorists say this ancient idea is not unlike the collision proposed in the new model.
While the new theory is full of complex math and obscure concepts, it is a somewhat soothing idea for anyone who has ever wondered what-the-heck lies beyond our Universe. C'mon, admit it! At least once you thought about the edge of the Universe and mumbled, prayed, dreamed, or asked: "But what is
beyond that."
So, what is beyond the edge of the Universe?
The 5th dimension is what is beyond the edge of the Universe, say the creators of the idea. Though they argue that there is in fact no "edge". "There is only one Universe," Ovrut said in a telephone interview. "It does not have a boundary. It's just one large extended brane that has been hit, heated up, and is expanding."
The mind-bending concept does not involve multiple or parallel universes, as have been suggested by other researchers.
Instead, Ovrut explains, the 5th dimension is all there, is out there, and embedded in it are multiple branes. Each end of the 5th dimension is bounded by an infinite brane. Our visible Universe is one of those. And before the collision it may or may not have contained normal matter. At the other end of the 5th dimension is a brane with physics unlike ours. The branes in between—while they may contain matter—are not universes, and they do not resemble the brane we inhabit.
"There is no reason to assume—given this conceptual framework—that there are any other universes out there," Ovrut said.
Alternative to explain Inflation
A paper on the concept has been submitted to the journal Physical Review D. While the paper has not yet been accepted for publication, surprised and thrilled physicists who are familiar with it are describing the Ekpyrotic Universe as exciting, plausible, and a worthy competitor to a problematic aspect of the Big Bang known as "inflation".
Inflation attempts to account for the seeming uniformity of the Universe. Look in any direction of the sky, and there are features in the Universe—galaxies and clusters of galaxies—that very much resemble those in any other direction. The theory of Inflation accounts for this by putting all matter in one spot at the beginning, then shooting it outward faster than the speed-of-light in a period of inflation whereby everything developed under similar rules regardless of where it was headed.
Ovrut said that in modeling a collision of branes, his group found that the result would be a Universe that fits neatly with predictions of the Big Bang. It produces similar temperatures and causes the resulting universe to expand, for example, and creates matter with the same uniformity predicted by inflation.
"We are not attacking the Theory of Inflation," Ovrut said. "We're just presenting an alternative."
Turner—the University of Chicago cosmologist—said Inflation theory has been so successful that it has killed all competing theories. But Inflation doesn't address the idea that there might be other dimensions. Interest in this wild notion has grown among cosmologists in recent years.
In textbooks a century from now, Turner believes there will be one of the following 2 paragraphs:
"A hundred years ago, people were so desperate to try to understand how to put it all together that they invented additional spatial dimensions. What were they smoking?" Or: "A hundred years ago, people were so provincial that in spite of much evidence that there should be extra dimensions, they refused to accept it."
Details of the Ekpyrotic Universe theory
The following technical description was provided to SPACE.com by the authors (Justin Khoury, Princeton; Burt Ovrut, UPenn; Paul Steinhardt, Princeton and Neil Turok, Cambridge): Our paper proposes a new theory of the very early universe that resolves the famous puzzles of the hot Big Bang picture—the horizon, flatness and monopole problems—and that generates fluctuations in energy that seed galaxy formation and produce temperature variations in the cosmic microwave
background. The model is based on the idea that our hot Big Bang universe was created from the collision of two 3-dimensional worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension.
The Inflationary model of the Universe—developed in the 1980's by Alan Guth (MIT), Andre Linde (Stanford), Andreas Albrecht (UC Davis), and Steinhardt—was designed to resolve these very same problems, relying on a period of exponential hyper-expansion or "inflation".
Conceptually, the eEkpyrotic model is very different. There is no inflation or rapid change happening at all. The approach to collision takes places very slowly over an exceedingly long period of time. It is quite fascinating that rapid change and very slow change can produce nearly the same effects.
The difference results in one distinctive observational prediction, though. Inflationary cosmology predicts a spectrum of gravitational waves that may be detectable in the cosmic microwave background. The Ekpyrotic model predicts no gravitational wave effects should be observable in the cosmic microwave background.4
In the Ekpyrotic model, when the two 3-dimensional worlds collide and "stick", the kinetic energy in the collision is converted to the quarks, electrons, photons, etc. that are confined to move along 3 dimensions. The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot Big Bang phase begins without a 'singularity'. The Universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the Big Bang phase occurs nearly simultaneously everywhere. The energetically preferred geometry for the 2 worlds is flat, so their collision produces a flat Big Bang universe. According to Einstein's equations, this means that the total energy density of the
Universe is equal to the critical density. Massive magnetic monopoles—which are over-abundantly produced in the standard Big Bang theory—are not produced at all in this scenario because the temperature after collision is far too small to produce any of these massive particles.
Quantum effects cause the incoming 3-dimensional world to ripple along the extra-dimension prior to collision so that the collision occurs in some places at slightly different times than others. By the time the collision is complete, the rippling leads to small variations in temperature which seed temperature fluctuations in the microwave background and the formation of galaxies. We have shown that the spectrum of energy density fluctuations is scale-invariant (the same amplitude on all scales). The production of a scale-invariant spectrum from hyper-expansion was one of the great triumphs of Inflationary theory. And here we have repeated the feat using completely different physics.
The building blocks of the Ekpyrotic theory are derived from superstring theory. Superstring theory requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. In most formulations, 10 dimensions are required. In the mid 1990s, Petr Horava (Rutgers) and Ed Witten (IAS, Princeton) argued that under certain conditions, an additional dimension opens up over a finite interval. 6 dimensions are presumed to be curled up in a microscopic ball called a "Calabi-Yau" manifold.
The ball is too small to be noticed in everyday experience, and so our Universe appears to be a 4- dimensional (3 space dimensions and one time dimension) surface embedded in a 5-dimensional spacetime. This 5-dimensional theory—called heterotic M-theory—was formulated by Andre Lukas (Sussex), Ovrut, and Dan Waldram (Queen Mary and Westfield College, London). According to Horava-Witten and heterotic M-theory, particles are constrained to move on one of the 3-dimensional boundaries on either side of the extra dimensional interval.
Our visible Universe would be one of these boundaries. The other boundary and the intervening space would be hidden because particles and light cannot travel across the intervening space. Only gravity is able to couple matter on one boundary to the other sides. In addition, there can exist other 3-dimensional hyper-surfaces in the interval which lie parallel to the outer boundaries and which can carry energy.
These intervening planes are called "branes" (short for membranes). The collision that ignites the hot Big Bang phase of the Ekpyrotic model occurs when a 3-dimensional brane is attracted to and collides into the boundary corresponding to our visible Universe.
The term ekpyrosis means "conflagration" in Greek and refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model. According to the model, the Universe is created in a sudden burst of fire—not unlike the collision between 3-dimensional worlds in our model. The current Universe evolves from the initial fire. However in the Stoic notion, the process may repeat itself in the future. This, too, is possible in our scenario in principle if there is more than one brane and, consequently, more than one collision. We plan to discuss this possibility in future work, along with further speculations about what preceded the collision that made our present Universe.5
As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that Inflationary theory is based on Quantum Field theory—a well-established theoretical framework—and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for 20 years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment.
Source:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html
or
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/BigBang_1.pdf
Earlier I had discussed features of the holographic principle that in a way gives a picture of the Planck scale/epoch—ie, down to the barest fluctuating pixels that could account for the open and close strings of string physics, which in turn resulted in the big bang and our common standard model and cosmology. As well there was that bit about a black hole from a higher dimension creating a simulated illusion of our own 3D/4D world.
Now here is another speculative take about time before the Big Bang. It is called "Ekpyrotic Universe."
Its main features? It achieves the same results as that of the Standard Model cosmology but without the problem of singularity and dispatches of the need for gravitational waves:
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:33 pm ET
18 April 2001
Faster than you can say "Ekpyrotic Universe", a movement has taken hold—albeit like fingers on a ledge of eternal skepticism—that would blow one of the basic tenets of the Big Bang to smithereens. Think "parallel branes" and "5 dimensions". Science never sounded so cool. The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the Universe began and evolved. But instead of a Universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our Universe was created when 2 parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in 5-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.
These membranes —or "branes" as theorists call them—would have floated like sheets of paper through a 5th dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space along with time make up the 4 known dimensions.)
"It's almost crazy enough to be correct."
~Michael Turner, University of Chicago cosmologist
The idea—put forth earlier this month at a Space Telescope Science Institute meeting in Baltimore—is based on other theories about possible multiple dimensions that are growing in acceptance. It was developed by Neil Turok of Cambridge University, Burt Ovrut of the University of Pennsylvania, and Paul Steinhardt and Justin Khoury of Princeton University.
"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current Universe is [a] 4-dimensional membrane embedded in a 5-dimensional 'bulk' space —something like a sheet of paper in ordinary 3-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat, and leading to the expansion of our Universe."2
Crazy, but viable
"It's almost crazy enough to be correct," says Michael Turner, a longtime University of Chicago cosmologist who is familiar with the theory. He added that "when you're trying to crack a really hard problem, you need a crazy idea."
Turner said astronomers have reacted with great excitement to the new theory in part because the idea of alternate dimensions is largely new to most of them. Cosmologists tend to welcome the idea as a healthy potential alternative to certain aspects of the Big Bang, but are cautious about the theory's
prospects.
Mario Livio—who heads up the science division of the Space Telescope Science Institute—said it's way too early to predict whether the theory will withstand scrutiny by other researchers. But he called the concept very important and exciting. "We're talking about a new idea about the origin of our Universe."
The Ekpyrotic Universe draws its name from the ancient Greek word ekpyrosis, meaning "conflagration" (disastrous fire or conflict). According to an ancient cosmological model with this name, the Universe was created in a sudden burst of fire. The modern-day theorists say this ancient idea is not unlike the collision proposed in the new model.
While the new theory is full of complex math and obscure concepts, it is a somewhat soothing idea for anyone who has ever wondered what-the-heck lies beyond our Universe. C'mon, admit it! At least once you thought about the edge of the Universe and mumbled, prayed, dreamed, or asked: "But what is
beyond that."
So, what is beyond the edge of the Universe?
The 5th dimension is what is beyond the edge of the Universe, say the creators of the idea. Though they argue that there is in fact no "edge". "There is only one Universe," Ovrut said in a telephone interview. "It does not have a boundary. It's just one large extended brane that has been hit, heated up, and is expanding."
The mind-bending concept does not involve multiple or parallel universes, as have been suggested by other researchers.
Instead, Ovrut explains, the 5th dimension is all there, is out there, and embedded in it are multiple branes. Each end of the 5th dimension is bounded by an infinite brane. Our visible Universe is one of those. And before the collision it may or may not have contained normal matter. At the other end of the 5th dimension is a brane with physics unlike ours. The branes in between—while they may contain matter—are not universes, and they do not resemble the brane we inhabit.
"There is no reason to assume—given this conceptual framework—that there are any other universes out there," Ovrut said.
Alternative to explain Inflation
A paper on the concept has been submitted to the journal Physical Review D. While the paper has not yet been accepted for publication, surprised and thrilled physicists who are familiar with it are describing the Ekpyrotic Universe as exciting, plausible, and a worthy competitor to a problematic aspect of the Big Bang known as "inflation".
Inflation attempts to account for the seeming uniformity of the Universe. Look in any direction of the sky, and there are features in the Universe—galaxies and clusters of galaxies—that very much resemble those in any other direction. The theory of Inflation accounts for this by putting all matter in one spot at the beginning, then shooting it outward faster than the speed-of-light in a period of inflation whereby everything developed under similar rules regardless of where it was headed.
Ovrut said that in modeling a collision of branes, his group found that the result would be a Universe that fits neatly with predictions of the Big Bang. It produces similar temperatures and causes the resulting universe to expand, for example, and creates matter with the same uniformity predicted by inflation.
"We are not attacking the Theory of Inflation," Ovrut said. "We're just presenting an alternative."
Turner—the University of Chicago cosmologist—said Inflation theory has been so successful that it has killed all competing theories. But Inflation doesn't address the idea that there might be other dimensions. Interest in this wild notion has grown among cosmologists in recent years.
In textbooks a century from now, Turner believes there will be one of the following 2 paragraphs:
"A hundred years ago, people were so desperate to try to understand how to put it all together that they invented additional spatial dimensions. What were they smoking?" Or: "A hundred years ago, people were so provincial that in spite of much evidence that there should be extra dimensions, they refused to accept it."
Details of the Ekpyrotic Universe theory
The following technical description was provided to SPACE.com by the authors (Justin Khoury, Princeton; Burt Ovrut, UPenn; Paul Steinhardt, Princeton and Neil Turok, Cambridge): Our paper proposes a new theory of the very early universe that resolves the famous puzzles of the hot Big Bang picture—the horizon, flatness and monopole problems—and that generates fluctuations in energy that seed galaxy formation and produce temperature variations in the cosmic microwave
background. The model is based on the idea that our hot Big Bang universe was created from the collision of two 3-dimensional worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension.
The Inflationary model of the Universe—developed in the 1980's by Alan Guth (MIT), Andre Linde (Stanford), Andreas Albrecht (UC Davis), and Steinhardt—was designed to resolve these very same problems, relying on a period of exponential hyper-expansion or "inflation".
Conceptually, the eEkpyrotic model is very different. There is no inflation or rapid change happening at all. The approach to collision takes places very slowly over an exceedingly long period of time. It is quite fascinating that rapid change and very slow change can produce nearly the same effects.
The difference results in one distinctive observational prediction, though. Inflationary cosmology predicts a spectrum of gravitational waves that may be detectable in the cosmic microwave background. The Ekpyrotic model predicts no gravitational wave effects should be observable in the cosmic microwave background.4
In the Ekpyrotic model, when the two 3-dimensional worlds collide and "stick", the kinetic energy in the collision is converted to the quarks, electrons, photons, etc. that are confined to move along 3 dimensions. The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot Big Bang phase begins without a 'singularity'. The Universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the Big Bang phase occurs nearly simultaneously everywhere. The energetically preferred geometry for the 2 worlds is flat, so their collision produces a flat Big Bang universe. According to Einstein's equations, this means that the total energy density of the
Universe is equal to the critical density. Massive magnetic monopoles—which are over-abundantly produced in the standard Big Bang theory—are not produced at all in this scenario because the temperature after collision is far too small to produce any of these massive particles.
Quantum effects cause the incoming 3-dimensional world to ripple along the extra-dimension prior to collision so that the collision occurs in some places at slightly different times than others. By the time the collision is complete, the rippling leads to small variations in temperature which seed temperature fluctuations in the microwave background and the formation of galaxies. We have shown that the spectrum of energy density fluctuations is scale-invariant (the same amplitude on all scales). The production of a scale-invariant spectrum from hyper-expansion was one of the great triumphs of Inflationary theory. And here we have repeated the feat using completely different physics.
The building blocks of the Ekpyrotic theory are derived from superstring theory. Superstring theory requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. In most formulations, 10 dimensions are required. In the mid 1990s, Petr Horava (Rutgers) and Ed Witten (IAS, Princeton) argued that under certain conditions, an additional dimension opens up over a finite interval. 6 dimensions are presumed to be curled up in a microscopic ball called a "Calabi-Yau" manifold.
The ball is too small to be noticed in everyday experience, and so our Universe appears to be a 4- dimensional (3 space dimensions and one time dimension) surface embedded in a 5-dimensional spacetime. This 5-dimensional theory—called heterotic M-theory—was formulated by Andre Lukas (Sussex), Ovrut, and Dan Waldram (Queen Mary and Westfield College, London). According to Horava-Witten and heterotic M-theory, particles are constrained to move on one of the 3-dimensional boundaries on either side of the extra dimensional interval.
Our visible Universe would be one of these boundaries. The other boundary and the intervening space would be hidden because particles and light cannot travel across the intervening space. Only gravity is able to couple matter on one boundary to the other sides. In addition, there can exist other 3-dimensional hyper-surfaces in the interval which lie parallel to the outer boundaries and which can carry energy.
These intervening planes are called "branes" (short for membranes). The collision that ignites the hot Big Bang phase of the Ekpyrotic model occurs when a 3-dimensional brane is attracted to and collides into the boundary corresponding to our visible Universe.
The term ekpyrosis means "conflagration" in Greek and refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model. According to the model, the Universe is created in a sudden burst of fire—not unlike the collision between 3-dimensional worlds in our model. The current Universe evolves from the initial fire. However in the Stoic notion, the process may repeat itself in the future. This, too, is possible in our scenario in principle if there is more than one brane and, consequently, more than one collision. We plan to discuss this possibility in future work, along with further speculations about what preceded the collision that made our present Universe.5
As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that Inflationary theory is based on Quantum Field theory—a well-established theoretical framework—and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for 20 years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment.
Source:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html
or
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/BigBang_1.pdf
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
OMG, si Michael Turner hahaha. 
Ang kulet nyan sa Arizona Lectures regarding Dark Matter.
Ang kulet nyan sa Arizona Lectures regarding Dark Matter.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
^ Imagine that...I'm not even familiar with the guy, perhaps until now....
So how's the materials I have presented so far...?
In my case, I'm more inclined to consider a brane with BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate)-like characteristics, where all the negative and positive forces (read: gravity and the other 3 fundamental forces, and dark/negative energy) equal, or cancel out, to zero. The beauty of such a condensate is that it could give you the same spontaneous, branewide explosion after a fluctuation, since the whole brane acts as one entity.
So how's the materials I have presented so far...?
In my case, I'm more inclined to consider a brane with BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate)-like characteristics, where all the negative and positive forces (read: gravity and the other 3 fundamental forces, and dark/negative energy) equal, or cancel out, to zero. The beauty of such a condensate is that it could give you the same spontaneous, branewide explosion after a fluctuation, since the whole brane acts as one entity.
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
^ Imagine that...I'm not even familiar with the guy, perhaps until now....
So how's the materials I have presented so far...?
In my case, I'm more inclined to consider a brane with BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate)-like characteristics, where all the negative and positive forces (read: gravity and the other 3 fundamental forces, and dark/negative energy) equal, or cancel out, to zero. The beauty of such a condensate is that it could give you the same spontaneous, branewide explosion after a fluctuation, since the whole brane acts as one entity.
Well, it compels me to know more.
Could we do a 101 video of that for newbies? Btw, is your skype working?
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
oh, not in the office right now, man. nagtatago ako ngayon so no skype muna!!
let you know pag nasa haus na ako later, hehe.
eto magandang introduction sa fundamental ideas ng string theory:
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/hyperspace-a-scientific-odyssey/
or here:
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
may bonus kay michio sa sites na yan: he also gives the standard string take to the question of the big bang and the origin of the universe, essentially of time before the big bang....
let's talk about the video then!
let you know pag nasa haus na ako later, hehe.
eto magandang introduction sa fundamental ideas ng string theory:
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/hyperspace-a-scientific-odyssey/
or here:
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
may bonus kay michio sa sites na yan: he also gives the standard string take to the question of the big bang and the origin of the universe, essentially of time before the big bang....
let's talk about the video then!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
oh, not in the office right now, man. nagtatago ako ngayon so no skype muna!!
let you know pag nasa haus na ako later, hehe.
btw, i would suggest you start with the standard string fare of such concepts as "branes' and "strings' at least; yung extra dimensions only figure in the maths anyway, so you only need to wrap around the basic concept of dimensions. i could suggest michiu kaku for this:
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/hyperspace-a-scientific-odyssey/
or here:
http://mkaku.org/home/articles/m-theory-the-mother-of-all-superstrings/
let's talk about the video then!
I have a little grasp on Strings -- been watching Brian Greene's Documentary for a year.
)))About the video, we could just use our voices then I'll make the animations just to substitute our faces. It adds to the presentation as well
What do you think bro?
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
^ Sige pag-usapan natin later yung video. Sounds good at this stage though.
Yun naman pala familiar ka pala kay Brian Greene, the Elegant Universe string advocate, hehe. With all the current technologies (esp. the latest crop of telescopes), latest findings about the Higgs, LHC, all these clues about dark matter and energy (eg, those dwarf galaxies that suddenly emerged in the vicinity of the Milky Way hinting of dark matter), I could picture the whole scientific community holding its collective breath where all these would be leading humankind.
Cheers!
Yun naman pala familiar ka pala kay Brian Greene, the Elegant Universe string advocate, hehe. With all the current technologies (esp. the latest crop of telescopes), latest findings about the Higgs, LHC, all these clues about dark matter and energy (eg, those dwarf galaxies that suddenly emerged in the vicinity of the Milky Way hinting of dark matter), I could picture the whole scientific community holding its collective breath where all these would be leading humankind.
Cheers!
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Bukod sa laman ng external drives ko ay pyorn videos ... madami dami din akong scientific documentaries.
I make it a point na I watch one kahit paulit-ulit every night.
Lunch time
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Bukod sa laman ng external drives ko ay pyorn videos ... madami dami din akong scientific documentaries.
I make it a point na I watch one kahit paulit-ulit every night.
Lunch time
so you're telling me you're not unlike richard feynman, eh: science and women are the greatest things to happen on earth...??? lmao
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Shhhh baka mabasa ni jowa. Hahahhaa
---
Bagong Topic:
Hello televiewers
Welcome to the Quanta Patola Show... If you kids stumble upon these statements, make sure your brain is in high gear.Bata pa lang ako nagbabasa na ako ng bible. At nadiscover ko sa mga portion doon, may konting pyorn. Heard about Lot, David and Esther?
Oh cmon mamon. sino kaya dun.... wait, baka nasa answersingenesis.com o kaya sa creationwakekeke. Ay may dragons pala na nakasulat doon sa bible.. Fact... so... may dragons?
May nagwawala na sigurong atheist the moment na mabasa nya ito. lol.
Try mo idaan sa scientific peer review. One time lang. O kaya patunayan sa korte.
I can tell that...
1. The earth will be swallowed by the outer envelope by the sun during the red giant stage 7 billion years from now. Sure na mga scientists dito.
2. Big Rip, Big Crunch at Big Freeze. Walang definite date. Baka may idea si Stormer.
Thank you guys for watching the Quanta Patola Show. See us on youtube, malapit na.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
I can tell that...
1. The earth will be swallowed by the outer envelope by the sun during the red giant stage 7 billion years from now. Sure na mga scientists dito.
2. Big Rip, Big Crunch at Big Freeze. Walang definite date. Baka may idea si Stormer.
Thank you guys for watching the Quanta Patola Show. See us on youtube, malapit na.
Here's a little interesting development about #2. Big Rip, Big Crunch at Big Freeze:
Summary
1. Before the Big Bang, the universe existed forever in a state of quantum potential: meaning to say, the universe neither had a beginning nor an end
2. There was a Big Bang to usher the universe as we know it
3. Although there was a Big Bang, it did not come about through a singularity, that monstrosity of a single dense point where spacetime and matter originated. Rather than starting from a single point, this Big Bang was spontaneous and wide, effectively covering the whole space in question.
4. All the evidence of the Big Bang remains: cosmic background radiation, nucleosynthesis period, liberation of photons, etc.
5. The singularity vanished by using de Broglie/Bohmian trajectories (noted in my previous posts) that use straight line geometry of flat surfaces rather than geodesic, Riemannian curved spaces.
6. Why straight line geometry: Because it offers an alternative solution to the classical Raychaudhuri equation, which Einstein used for his general relativity theory.
7. Why should there be no singularities in Bohmian/de Broglie trajectories? Because of a simple fact in Euclidean geometry: parallel lines do not meet/intersect. Thus, forces along the lines never converge. Singularities only arise in geodesic (curved) lines, where parallel lines meet, and where those lines meet, we have convergence of forces, and thus singularity.
8. Although this is a compelling work, do not get your imagination run away from the ground. At this stage, this is still a strictly speculative work in transition that awaits final verdict. For example, it is easy to believe in the following drawing from the findings of this study:
Implications of quantum potential (cosmological constant), de broglie/bohm pilot wave non-curved, non-geodesic space (thus parallels do not meet=no singularities where those parallel lines meet)
The universe existed forever in a state of quantum potential; now if we assume quantum fluctuations as an eternal companion feature of such a state, then we have bubbles permeating such a sea of quantum potential, each bubble representing a big bang to usher in multiple universes within a larger universe setting—or branes within branes if you like. Many of the physical properties of our own universe/brane must appear in many of them too. In string parlance, such main group universe might also be viewed as the original home of full extra dimensions, where each fluctuation generates the symmetry breaking that compactifies the other dimensions in those individual bubbles, creating our own unique universe of 3D/4D as we know it. The higher dimension brane/universe is the mother of all branes/universes. Moreover, we assume such mother brane/universe has the unique property where all the positive and negative forces effectively cancel out to zero, accounting for a stable, condensatelike, quantum potential state where only the strength of each fluctuation determines the original size of the emerging brane/universe before it sets off to its life of expansion.
That said, here's an article about the said work:
Big Bang, dark matter and black holes killed by math
By Karen Hardison Feb 22, 2015 in Science
Straight lines in the universe eradicate a big-bang beginning to the universe. Without a Big Bang beginning, there are no black holes. Without black holes, there is no dark matter and no dark energy. There is, instead, an infinite stable, universe.
Envision energy trajectories that curve and cross each other. Now envision energy trajectories that are straight lines and do not cross. Now see an explosion of energy at the points where the curved energy trajectories cross. There you just created an infinitely dense point in space-time. You have created a singularity at the meeting point of multiple curved energy trajectories. In creating a singularity, you have created a black hole. Black holes absorb whatever crosses their event boundary. In theory, that is.
What if Singularities Are Created by Math Alone?
But what if black hole singularities are the result of the math applied to curves? What if different math applied to straight lines eradicates black hole singularities? In that event, we would lose theoretical black holes; we would lose the Big Bang, which originated from a singularity that cannot be defined or explained; and we would lose dark matter and its dark energy, which account for the universe's inexplicably missing density.
We would also gain a few things. We would gain a universe with no missing density because it would have a stable state. The universe would be stable because there would be no black hole singularity marking its origination point (What would be its origination point, then? Well, there wouldn't be an originating point in space or in time). We would gain a universe that is infinite with no need for dark matter and dark energy to explain missing density, which is only a problem in an unstable, expanding state (expanding from the force of the Big Bang, which is now eradicated).
Present Model and New Model of the Universe
Present model
The present model of the universe theorizes a beginning point and an age for the universe. It theorizes that the universe came after the explosion of an infinitely dense point in space-time (a singularity) that produced a very big bang projecting the universe outward in all directions. Theorists can attempt to explain and predict conditions up to the Big Bang, that is what CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is attempting to do (and it is due to start hurling protons again soon), but theorists cannot explain the singularity (the infinitely dense point) from which the big bang originated.
The present model is weakened by this inability to explain the beginning point (some suggest a fourth dimensional singularity that erupted into our three dimensional reality) or the cause for the big bang that resulted in a finite universe, which is still expanding from that propulsion but which will ultimately lose force so the universe collapses back in on itself to form another black hole singularity (an infinitely dense point).
The theoretical model is disrupted by the observation that the universe is continuing to expand. Enter dark energy and dark matter as the sources of this expansionary push and as the explanation for why the universe is not as dense as the model predicts.
New model
The new model opposes this theoretical view in its entirety. There is no beginning. There will be no end. The universe has no age. There was no singularity. There was no big bang. There was no initial explosive expansion. There are no black holes. There is no missing density. There is no dark matter. There is no dark energy. There is an infinite universe with stable density.
All This Happened Because of a Switch from Curved Lines to Straight Lines?
Curved lines and their trajectories are called geodesic lines and geodesic trajectories. Geodesic lines are an element of the geometry of curved surfaces, which posits that lines extending from curved surfaces are themselves curved. Random curved geodesic trajectories (of geodesic lines) will eventually cross each other because they are not parallel since they curve in response to a curved surface.
Straight lines and their trajectories are called Bohmian lines and Bohmian trajectories for David Bohm and describe quantum particle wave functions. Bohmian lines reflect straight line geometry of flat surfaces. Random straight Bohmian trajectories (of Bohmian lines) cannot cross each other because they are parallel across a flat surface.
Cosmological equations forming the foundation of the present model of the universe — singularities, Big Bang, black holes, dark matter/energy — use geodesic trajectories (curved) that assume space-time as a curved surface; these equations assume the curvature of space-time.
Cosmological equations forming the foundation of the new model of the universe — no age, no beginning, no end, no black holes or dark matter/energy — use quantum trajectories (straight) that assume a non-curved quantum space-time; these equations disregard the accepted nature of a curved space-time.
Singularities appear at the points where the trajectories cross in equations applying geodesic (curving) trajectories. If trajectories cross, singularities appear in the equations. If trajectories do not cross, no singularities appear in the equations.
Singularities do not appear in equations applying Bohmian (quantum wave) trajectories because there are no points where trajectories cross. If there are no crossing trajectories and no singularities appearing in the equations, then there is a new model of the universe that does not encompass a beginning and an ending, which originate and culminate in singularities (big bang beginning and big crunch ending are gone).
The Detailed Stuff
Ahmed Farag Ali and coauthor Saurya Das applied these Bohmian quantum trajectories to the Raychaudhuri equation (significant in Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems). This gave quantum-correction to the Raychaudhuri equation (the foundation of singularity physics) making it responsive to quantum, rather than geodesic, trajectories. This resulted in quantum-correction to Friedmann equations (significant in representing the expansion of space at the time of and following — but not before — the Big Bang) as a consequence of correcting geodesic to Bohmian trajectories.
Why Undertake This?
The model proposed by Ali, of Egypt's Benha University and Zewail City of Science and Technology, and coauthor Das, of the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, confirms the work by physics professor Laura Mersini-Houghton, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, that was published in September 2014.
Mersini-Houghton sought to resolve the Einstein information loss paradox. In the process she mathematically proved that collapsing stars cannot collapse to an infinitely dense point to form black hole singularities. She proved that in a star's last gasp, it swells then explodes eliminating any chance of being compressed by its own gravity into a black hole. Her work's results left her "shocked": Black hole singularities cannot exist. She concludes that since singularities cannot form, the fabric of space-time needs to be reexamined and the model of the origin of the universe needs to be rethought.
These are the two things Ali and Das achieve. They approach space-time as flat, not curved, and they propose a model of the universe without a beginning, without a singularity that explodes. As UNC-Chapel Hill News reported:
The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
“I’m still not over the shock,” said Mersini-Houghton. “We’ve been studying this problem for a [sic] more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/scien...s-killed-by-math/article/426725#ixzz3UEPo2Vsf
Last edited:
First topic: Kailan ka naging Atheist o Agnostic?
Ako, galing ako sa Catholic family, then naging Agnostic ako last November, then this January naging Atheist na ako ng tuluyan. Dahil sa pag-aaral ng BS Physics at dumagdag pa ang Philosophy kaya ako naging Atheist.
Kumusta ang mga enlightened diyan!
House Rules
- Hindi maaaring magdebate ang Atheists at Agnostics.
- Atheists igalang mo ang pananalig ng mga Agnostics
- Agnostics huwag mong personalin ang mga Atheists
- Mabuhay tayo ng may katibayan. Yehey!
Alin ang pwede
SQUARE SOCRATIC ARGUMENT LANG ANG PWEDE! NO FALLACY KUNG HINDI I-REREPORT NAMIN KAYO! Logical and Philosophical Analysis should also work, Scientific evidence must be provided with logical explanations too.
Thread Purpose
Upang magkaroon ng lugar at diskusyon ang mga Atheists at Agnostics.
For Our Visitors
If you have to ask anything, feel free. btw, we have apple juice on the frigged.
atheist agnostics
so you all don't believe in God
so you all are claiming that you all CAME FROM A MONKEY/APE
so mga unggoy kayo?
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
I'm too lazy to answer this basic biology question over and over again. It has already been answered in a court of law. [dover]
Okay.. starts with the S.
Let's say your claims, whatever it is, are correct --- provide me/us some compelling evidences.
We are ready to switch sides if we find it cool.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
I knew you'd get to it soon as I saw it This line of attack gets so old faster than you could say...mama mia! Can't blame those poor people who think they suddenly found something to earn them heavenly points and the right to float around cloud nine and bow their humble heads for eternity, can we....?
This line of attack gets so old faster than you could say...mama mia! Can't blame those poor people who think they suddenly found something to earn them heavenly points and the right to float around cloud nine and bow their humble heads for eternity, can we....?
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
I knew you'd get to it soon as I saw it
I'm pretty much annoyed to those people that are pretending to know.
I'm still gathering more details and stuff with our incoming youtube video... Say, within this month, when our sched's not too tight?
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Well, dead smack right to the point of your signature, then, first line
Within this month, scheds allowing....
Within this month, scheds allowing....
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
One question, I think you should have meintioned this already in your posts
Just correct me though.
We know that the energy from the BBT can convert into matter, ie , atoms based on e=mc^2
Is there stuff that it converted into strings first then quarks then atoms? Curious. But please don't kill me because I'm not a cat.
Just correct me though.
We know that the energy from the BBT can convert into matter, ie , atoms based on e=mc^2
Is there stuff that it converted into strings first then quarks then atoms? Curious. But please don't kill me because I'm not a cat.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
One question, I think you should have meintioned this already in your posts
Just correct me though.
We know that the energy from the BBT can convert into matter, ie , atoms based on e=mc^2
Is there stuff that it converted into strings first then quarks then atoms? Curious. But please don't kill me because I'm not a cat.
Sorry, should have made it clearer earlier. Here's a complete, simple chronology of events based on string theory (the only theory out there that successfully combines relativity of einstein and quantum physics):
1.0 n dimensions (11 or 5 original, perfect dimension—still not definite at this point;quantum potential)>>
2.0 quantum fluctuations>>
3.0 symmetry breaking of perfect dimensions (where presumably, +/- forces = 0 [our limited view of "nothing"])>>
4.0 compactification of extra dimensions (read: calabi-yau space/manifolds); release of energy from symmetry breaking creates strings, the most fundamental unit of particles>>
5.0 strings combine to form quarks, atoms, and later, figure in what we know as BBT
still not definite at this point: whether there was a singularity, which necessitates dark energy and dark matter OR whether there was no singularity, just an eventwide, spontaneous explosion, so that there is no dark energy, just the push of the cosmological constant (bohm's/de broglie's pilot wave) that counteracts against gravity....
Again, strings and all that matter/energy in the universe came from the initial collapse—due to quantum fluctuations—of the n dimensions, the collapse releasing the energy required to seed the formation of our universe. There is excess matter (around 4-5%) because of what we call charge parity violations in these initial events, of which scientists now suspect the Higgs particle/field plays a critical role....
Hope I made a simple, clearer picture/snapshot of the roots of the universe.
- Status
