$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 88.46

5,793 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
36.5% of Goal | 26 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
52 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: My own favored physical model of cosmology rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
We get so many cranks trying to deny big bang etc, I thought we need a good thread on the topic.
Quote:
For technical and nontechnical references on cosmology and quantum cosmology, I refer the reader to the following:

1. NASA's site intended for a non-technical audience Clearly this is non-quantum stuff.

2. A tutorial based out of UCLA Again this is non-technical but less so.

3. The stuff on quantum cosmology is inherently technical and so here are two papers:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0101003v2.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.04899v1.pdf

Now here's my paper which most obviously applies to cosmology (so far).

Central to cosmology is the concept of look-back time. The speed of light in vacuum is invariant in any frame of reference, and we have a ridiculously huge amount of empirical evidence backing this up. While there is speculation that lightspeed doe in fact vary on cosmological scales, that notion does not in my professional opinion hold water. (Indeed a paper I'm currently working on argues exactly that point.) So the farther away a light source may be, the farther back in time we're viewing that light source. This look-back time gives us a picture of the physical universe all the way back to about a Planck time ~10^-43 seconds from the cosmic singularity.

Now I tend to the view of Vilenkin which casts big bang as a quantum pair production event on a massive scale. Physically the world arises out of quite literally nothing. Now I also subscribe to the null energy hypothesis. In other words, the only meaningful total mass-energy of the universe is identically zero. This is not at odds with hot big bang because simultaneously at every single point in the universe potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy in amounts the universe has literally never had occur since.

Now I differ from the majority of my colleagues in that I think that cosmic inflation in the very early universe and cosmic acceleration in the current universe are physical manifestations of the same process. Moreover I think that mini-big bangs are happening simultaneously at every point in the universe all the time.

Be that as it may, the expansion of the universe is uniformly accelerating and to at least a very good approximation the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Since I interest myself more on the side of fundamental processes, I do not deal so much with nucleosynthesis but the paper of mine linked above does strongly suggest that baryogenesis also occurs outside of stars and supernovae.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Obligatory but the eath is only 6000 years old. devil
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I see no religion, sex or politics. Perhaps we should ask Octavian to move it.

(Seriousness to be guessed.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So, your assumption is homogeneity and that we don't inhabit a place near the center of the universe because that would make us special, so there's no center at all.

If you changed your assumption, that we did inhabit an area close to the center of the universe and there was an extant white hole near by effecting our gravity and thus time, it's quite possible that the age of the stars is quite old and the earth is still quite young. The age of the universe is not constant as we might claim that the speed of light is. Time depends on velocity and gravity at least.

[The obiligatory non-straw man young earth argument Not that I really believe this but I find it more interesting that saying, stupid young earth creationists are so stupid.]
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
So, your assumption is homogeneity and that we don't inhabit a place near the center of the universe because that would make us special, so there's no center at all.

If you changed your assumption, that we did inhabit an area close to the center of the universe and there was an extant white hole near by effecting our gravity and thus time, it's quite possible that the age of the stars is quite old and the earth is still quite young. The age of the universe is not constant as we might claim that the speed of light is. Time depends on velocity and gravity at least.

[The obiligatory non-straw man young earth argument Not that I really believe this but I find it more interesting that saying, stupid young earth creationists are so stupid.]

Homogeneity is not an assumption but an observation. The universe is big and overwhelmingly empty. Even where clumps of matter exist, their effect on dynamics is remarkably limited.

Isotropy is what you would be arguing against. Again it's an observation that we can treat any arbitrary point as the center and we will see the universe receding from it accordingly. One might say that it's not the case that the universe has no center but rather that every single point in the universe could be equally meaningfully viewed as its center.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't be bothered to quote Ironcates.

Essentially on this subject you've got two choices: accept the experts, or be an expert. You can test out the experts on simpler things, even discussing local applications of GR (and qualitative understanding of why space is curved can be explained simply) but when it comes to the universe as a whole, you're just not qualified. And that you includes me. I have taken a course of I think it was 24 lectures on GR, most of which I've forgotten in the last 30+ years, but even when it was fresh, cosmology was beyond me. (We basically got to the Schwarzschild solution that gives you a simple back hole. I even still have my notes, unread for that long.)

Hypothesising just made up stuff like was done is meaningless unless you have a clue what it would do. Which as I said, needs expertise. How's your tensor maths (just to start with, you'll need more)?

Moshe I believe plays (that's not meant pejoratively) with ideas that might or might not be so. But from a foundation that does understand this stuff.

Essentially it's popular in some quarters to try to rescue the indefensible with the made up stuff. It doesn't work.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
ironcates wrote:
So, your assumption is homogeneity and that we don't inhabit a place near the center of the universe because that would make us special, so there's no center at all.

If you changed your assumption, that we did inhabit an area close to the center of the universe and there was an extant white hole near by effecting our gravity and thus time, it's quite possible that the age of the stars is quite old and the earth is still quite young. The age of the universe is not constant as we might claim that the speed of light is. Time depends on velocity and gravity at least.

[The obiligatory non-straw man young earth argument Not that I really believe this but I find it more interesting that saying, stupid young earth creationists are so stupid.]

Homogeneity is not an assumption but an observation. The universe is big and overwhelmingly empty. Even where clumps of matter exist, their effect on dynamics is remarkably limited.

Isotropy is what you would be arguing against. Again it's an observation that we can treat any arbitrary point as the center and we will see the universe receding from it accordingly. One might say that it's not the case that the universe has no center but rather that every single point in the universe could be equally meaningfully viewed as its center.

Homogeneity has come into question due to the observations from 3 years ago.
Summarizing, there is a structure that is 4 billion light-years long and if the observable universe is 13 billion light-years across. To call it homogeneous is a bit of a stretch, when something is taking up a third of it.

Isotropy, we do see the universe receding away from us. There's no way (currently) to observe from somewhere else to confirm no center. Observations at a center and observations from a place with no center would be the same.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Another thought that perhaps the universe is not homogeneous. He even brings up the possibility of the center although, he says that it's not in favor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
You're trying to call something a third of the universe; that's laughable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
if the observable universe is 13 billion light-years across.

it's not though, currently the diameter of the observable universe is thought to be about 93 billion light years.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
1. To ague the universe has a center, isotropy is the issue, not homogeneity.
2. WMAP data strongly confirms that departures from homogeneity are at most second order effects. To excellent approximation they can be entirely ignored.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob
United States
30° 12′ 38″ N, 95° 45′ 2″ W
flag msg tools
You can't rob Peter, Paul and Mary to pay yourself.
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Moreover I think that mini-big bangs are happening simultaneously at every point in the universe all the time.


I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you expand on this idea a bit more?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
This look-back time gives us a picture of the physical universe all the way back to about a Planck time ~10^-43 seconds from the cosmic singularity.


I assume you mean that look-back time takes us to the surface of last scattering, about 300,000 years after the cosmic singularity?

Considerations based on the Standard Model (well, unification of the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model) take us back from the surface of last scattering to the Planck time.

whac3 wrote:
Moreover I think that mini-big bangs are happening simultaneously at every point in the universe all the time.


That's what I think, as well.

whac3 wrote:
Now I tend to the view of Vilenkin which casts big bang as a quantum pair production event on a massive scale. Physically the world arises out of quite literally nothing. Now I also subscribe to the null energy hypothesis. In other words, the only meaningful total mass-energy of the universe is identically zero. This is not at odds with hot big bang because simultaneously at every single point in the universe potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy in amounts the universe has literally never had occur since.


I haven't been involved in Cosmology for a very long time, my life choices having taken my career in a different direction (towards engineering rather than theoretical physics), but I look forward to reading your paper!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
I see no religion, sex or politics. Perhaps we should ask Octavian to move it.

(Seriousness to be guessed.)


But... but... science is religion!

And for some, science is very sexy! (Colloquially speaking).

And science-based tricks make the best parlor tricks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
if the observable universe is 13 billion light-years across.

it's not though, currently the diameter of the observable universe is thought to be about 93 billion light years.

Sorry, I was just quoting the physics professor at the University of Nottingham, I didn't check him on it. I figure he knows what he's talking about.

Did you watch the video? It's not a Young Earth Creation source it's just a channel called sixty symbols where they discuss physics in academia. It's pretty educational for those that enjoy documentary shorts I highly recommend it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
You're trying to call something a third of the universe; that's laughable.

Well here's the paper.
Quote:
A structure in the early universe at z ~ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology

Roger G. Clowes, Kathryn A. Harris, Srinivasan Raghunathan, Luis E. Campusano, Ilona K. Soechting, Matthew J. Graham
(Submitted on 27 Nov 2012)
A Large Quasar Group (LQG) of particularly large size and high membership has been identified in the DR7QSO catalogue of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. It has characteristic size (volume^1/3) ~ 500 Mpc (proper size, present epoch), longest dimension ~ 1240 Mpc, membership of 73 quasars, and mean redshift <z> = 1.27. In terms of both size and membership it is the most extreme LQG found in the DR7QSO catalogue for the redshift range 1.0 <= z <= 1.8 of our current investigation. Its location > = 1.28, which is itself one of the more extreme examples. Their boundaries approach to within ~ 2 deg (~ 140 Mpc projected). This new, huge LQG appears to be the largest structure currently known in the early universe. Its size suggests incompatibility with the Yadav et al. scale of homogeneity for the concordance cosmology, and thus challenges the assumption of the cosmological principle.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
if the observable universe is 13 billion light-years across.

it's not though, currently the diameter of the observable universe is thought to be about 93 billion light years.

Sorry, I was just quoting the physics professor at the University of Nottingham, I didn't check him on it. I figure he knows what he's talking about.

Did you watch the video? It's not a Young Earth Creation source it's just a channel called sixty symbols where they discuss physics in academia. It's pretty educational for those that enjoy documentary shorts I highly recommend it.

I watched up until the guy said the universe was only 13 billion light years across. Consider that even if you discount inflation and say that the universe only ever expanded at the speed of light, it would have a diameter of 26 billion light years, not 13.

So no, this guy does not know what he's talking about. Perhaps he was trying to dumb it down or something, I don't know.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
1. To ague the universe has a center, isotropy is the issue, not homogeneity.

Yes, I know. I used the word "and" in my first post(?)
The existence of a white hole would be counter to homogeneity.
whac3 wrote:

2. WMAP data strongly confirms that departures from homogeneity are at most second order effects. To excellent approximation they can be entirely ignored.
See previous post.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
bob_santafe wrote:
whac3 wrote:
This look-back time gives us a picture of the physical universe all the way back to about a Planck time ~10^-43 seconds from the cosmic singularity.


I assume you mean that look-back time takes us to the surface of last scattering, about 300,000 years after the cosmic singularity?

Considerations based on the Standard Model (well, unification of the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model) take us back from the surface of last scattering to the Planck time.…

You're quite right. I was being at best imprecise with language and at worst stating essentially correct ideas in such a way that hey became simply wrong. Thank you for the correction.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
whac3 wrote:
You're trying to call something a third of the universe; that's laughable.

Well here's the paper.
Quote:
A structure in the early universe at z ~ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology

Roger G. Clowes, Kathryn A. Harris, Srinivasan Raghunathan, Luis E. Campusano, Ilona K. Soechting, Matthew J. Graham
(Submitted on 27 Nov 2012)
A Large Quasar Group (LQG) of particularly large size and high membership has been identified in the DR7QSO catalogue of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. It has characteristic size (volume^1/3) ~ 500 Mpc (proper size, present epoch), longest dimension ~ 1240 Mpc, membership of 73 quasars, and mean redshift <z> = 1.27. In terms of both size and membership it is the most extreme LQG found in the DR7QSO catalogue for the redshift range 1.0 <= z <= 1.8 of our current investigation. Its location > = 1.28, which is itself one of the more extreme examples. Their boundaries approach to within ~ 2 deg (~ 140 Mpc projected). This new, huge LQG appears to be the largest structure currently known in the early universe. Its size suggests incompatibility with the Yadav et al. scale of homogeneity for the concordance cosmology, and thus challenges the assumption of the cosmological principle.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256

I'm simply disputing your claim of its implications.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Well here's the paper.

Here's a much more recent follow up paper by one of the same authors that now says there is no problem:

Quote:
Compatibility of the Large Quasar Groups with the Concordance Cosmological Model

Gabriel E. Marinello, Roger G. Clowes, Luis E. Campusano, Gerard M. Williger, Ilona K. Söchting, Matthew J. Graham
(Submitted on 10 Mar 2016 (v1), last revised 22 Jun 2016 (this version, v2))
We study the compatibility of large quasar groups with the concordance cosmological model. Large Quasar Groups are very large spatial associations of quasars in the cosmic web, with sizes of 50-250h^-1 Mpc. In particular, the largest large quasar group known, named Huge-LQG, has a longest axis of ~860h^-1 Mpc, larger than the scale of homogeneity (~260 Mpc), which has been noted as a possible violation of the cosmological principle. Using mock catalogues constructed from the Horizon Run 2 cosmological simulation, we found that large quasar groups size, quasar member number and mean overdensity distributions in the mocks agree with observations. The Huge-LQG is found to be a rare group with a probability of 0.3 per cent of finding a group as large or larger than the observed, but an extreme value analysis shows that it is an expected maximum in the sample volume with a probability of 19 per cent of observing a largest quasar group as large or larger than Huge-LQG. The Huge-LQG is expected to be the largest structure in a volume at least 5.3 +- 1 times larger than the one currently studied

http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03260
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
Sinister Dexter wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Moreover I think that mini-big bangs are happening simultaneously at every point in the universe all the time.


I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you expand on this idea a bit more?

At every point in the universe, a quantum pressure exists which tends to expand so that the energy state of that point becomes lowered. This produces field/particles out of the vacuum. That's the same essential process as big bang.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
ironcates wrote:
Well here's the paper.

Here's a much more recent follow up paper by one of the same authors that now says there is no problem:

Quote:
Compatibility of the Large Quasar Groups with the Concordance Cosmological Model

Gabriel E. Marinello, Roger G. Clowes, Luis E. Campusano, Gerard M. Williger, Ilona K. Söchting, Matthew J. Graham
(Submitted on 10 Mar 2016 (v1), last revised 22 Jun 2016 (this version, v2))
We study the compatibility of large quasar groups with the concordance cosmological model. Large Quasar Groups are very large spatial associations of quasars in the cosmic web, with sizes of 50-250h^-1 Mpc. In particular, the largest large quasar group known, named Huge-LQG, has a longest axis of ~860h^-1 Mpc, larger than the scale of homogeneity (~260 Mpc), which has been noted as a possible violation of the cosmological principle. Using mock catalogues constructed from the Horizon Run 2 cosmological simulation, we found that large quasar groups size, quasar member number and mean overdensity distributions in the mocks agree with observations. The Huge-LQG is found to be a rare group with a probability of 0.3 per cent of finding a group as large or larger than the observed, but an extreme value analysis shows that it is an expected maximum in the sample volume with a probability of 19 per cent of observing a largest quasar group as large or larger than Huge-LQG. The Huge-LQG is expected to be the largest structure in a volume at least 5.3 +- 1 times larger than the one currently studied

http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03260
Cool. Thanks for posting it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Sinister Dexter wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Moreover I think that mini-big bangs are happening simultaneously at every point in the universe all the time.


I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you expand on this idea a bit more?

At every point in the universe, a quantum pressure exists which tends to expand so that the energy state of that point becomes lowered. This produces field/particles out of the vacuum. That's the same essential process as big bang.

Would the difference be that our Big Bang experienced a period of inflation and mini-bangs do not?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Sinister Dexter wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Moreover I think that mini-big bangs are happening simultaneously at every point in the universe all the time.


I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you expand on this idea a bit more?

At every point in the universe, a quantum pressure exists which tends to expand so that the energy state of that point becomes lowered. This produces field/particles out of the vacuum. That's the same essential process as big bang.

Would the difference be that our Big Bang experienced a period of inflation and mini-bangs do not?

I think they do. I think that's what cosmic acceleration is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.