0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A Cold Big Bang would need to start very close to infinite entropy
Waves can overlap, add, subtract and cancel, but particles have a very definitive space requirement due to the exclusion principle.
If we compare two space-time references side-by-side, using a third normalize reference, if one reference has time moving faster, that reference will age faster.
Rather mass does not exist and one can move in time apart from space,
Yeah I'm not sure why puppy was saying
The picture in a pre big bang phase is...
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 01/09/2021 04:12:26The picture in a pre big bang phase is...... guesswork and untestable.
what's your point?
Besides, the cold big bang doesn't differ from the evolution of the hot big bang
. Saying silly things like, "Well we can't see it,"
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 01/09/2021 11:12:29what's your point?The destruction of any information about what (if anything) happened before the big bang; by the big bang.
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 01/09/2021 11:12:29Besides, the cold big bang doesn't differ from the evolution of the hot big bangIf I put a cold cup of tea in front of you would you expect it to spontaneously warm up?Or do you realise that cooling down does, in fact, differ from heating up?
Let's take a look at the numerical coefficients. When N is absorbed into the general energy of a gas, wiki says we retrieve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gasIt says the particle number adjusts itself in a volume that it has a constant overall photon density. The picture in a pre big bang phase is ever-so-slighly more complicated in our given equation of the universe. There is no conservation of photons ib the pre big bang phase because we invited the notion of a particle nucleation event which was irrecersible. We can say the moment it began to heat up, from a liquid phase to a gas phase, was an isothermal phase transition, depending on how quickly the primordial state heated up. Regardless, it is to say that the overall density in the pre big bang phase remains the same just after leading into the Helmholtz gas phase.For an ultra relativistic gas, the law is quite simpleAnd Iv'e shown previously how that factor of 3 enters the theory, not in the OP but in a later post where I corrected it for one inverse factor of speed of light squared. The wiki article says you combine the formulas, presumably for U and N to produceHow ot did this is not all too clear to me, but it's nice that the equation I derivedOn the RHS, so happens to encode it. Then there's the issue of entropy, in the wiki article it has it written asMight be just h, Iv'e adopted the reduced Planck constant, for arguments sake I'm not too bothered about these details, only the numerical coefficients. One thing we do have to be ultra careful with, is the fact wiki has for the dimensions of entropy S as k, the Boltzmann constant. In our model the entropy in fact is dimensionless, which is more true of entropy, so we really haveSo a slight modification there. If we ignore the complexities in the square brackets of entropy production, the RHS of my equation in a simple form says, adopting also the zeta function interpretation of the ideal gas asAnd/or Now, trying to keep track of these coefficients can be pretty wild. There's loads of possibilities I could consider. For instance, the simple version of entropy isThe more complicated version isWe also take into consideration Einstein'sIf you have any idea why this pops up in his equations, is a good start. It was plugged in like this because Newton incorrectly predicted the value of G off by a factor of and is related to him not putting in the surface area correctly. The formulae for the area of a sphere is , then the 4π is obviously derived from the ratio of the circumference of the sphere. This is how it enters the Friedmann formula and is itself a solution from Einsteins equations, just as not just a convenient way to correct it, but it also serves a purpose of simplifying the equations. Some argue that is even more fundamental, but I'm not a true expert on this matter. If Newton had arrived at the right constant though, I'm sure of at least one thing, instead ofWe would haveSo we might consider factors of 2/3, 8/3 and even 16/3 for the Friedmann equation depending on how you look at it. Binding the possibilities together with entropy, we get some possible coefficientsFor the other case if thd entropy definition we would have, including those extra factors of pi,Then there's the issue of how you calibrate the exact number for the gas for the zeta functions.
Except you ignored spacetime instabilities.
Also, by your reasoning then we shouldn't believe the big bang, since no one knows what initially caused it to expand either?
This was a phrase coined by Fred Hoyle as a joke about the model.
I usually like to begin closer to the beginning, but this may be easier for everyone to see, since it is closer to the BB; day before the person comes to work.
Quote from: puppypower on 08/09/2021 13:31:16I usually like to begin closer to the beginning, but this may be easier for everyone to see, since it is closer to the BB; day before the person comes to work.What I see is completely ignorant guy pretending to have a clue.
Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 02/09/2021 00:04:27Also, by your reasoning then we shouldn't believe the big bang, since no one knows what initially caused it to expand either?It's a matter of record that your idea is more or less the opposite of what I think.Quote from: BilboGrabbins on 02/09/2021 00:04:27This was a phrase coined by Fred Hoyle as a joke about the model.I seem to recall that he wasn't particularly pleased that his joke backfired so spectacularly.However, nobody here has said it was an explosion and "big" is a matter of perspective.The radius was small, but the energy was big.