[guest45734]

Please comment on what I have been mulling over below.

I know the original Big Bang term was coined by Fred Hoyle as a joke, as he believed in a static universe at the time, which has also been mostly discredited. The original big bang theory is dead now replaced with an inflationary universe without singularities.

An idea got stuck in my head and the reason for this chat thread is as follows:-

1) space and time at the quantum level only appear in an expanding space, and are thought to be emergent.
2) this is driven by dark energy, likely quantum fluctuations, entangled or not doesn't matter .
3) the expansion of space must have happened before matter came into existence.
4) In a zero energy universe gravity is assumed to be negative energy and mass +ve energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
5) In a vast homogeneous rapidly expanding universe,  disturbances in the dark energy may have happened as they would in a liquid,
6) Disturbances representing -ve energy / gravity may cause matter to come into existence, forming nebulae, such as the horse head nebulae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsehead_Nebula

The thing that got me stuck in a loop was that LIGO detected gravitational waves and it was proven they travelled at the speed of light because they arrived at the same time as radiation from a black hole merger. Is it possible that no radiation escaped the merger could the radiation have been created by the gravitational wave as it passed through our universe. Can gravitational waves create mattter I wondered, could huge amounts of gas swirling around in nebulae create gravity fluctuations and more matter and then the loop was stuck.

Does anyone sane or otherwise have a comment on the above ?? Is the answer in Lindes inflationery universe ??

Edit does anyone have a really good link on Lindes eternal inflationary universe theory.  The following link is an overview http://www.universe-galaxies-stars.com/Chaotic_inflation_theory.html

[guest45734]

I am following a number of ideas that suggest a single big bang is based on ?? also   

A gravitational fluctuation in a expanding space time could give rise to mass, so I am still wondering could ligo have detected the creation of energy via a gravitational wave as a  result of a BH merger. Nothing gets out of a black hole ?? except maybe hawking radiation, or 3 solar masses of gravitational waves.

[guest45734]

Maybe Fred hoyle was right about more than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis . Putting aside the curve fits of the big bang his steady state universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_model sounds quite plausible.

Matter "may" be constantly coming into existence as suggested by Hoyle. Maybe fringe physcists like Lerner have a better explanation of CBR than the Big Bang.

CBR is theorized to be even through out the universe according to Big Bang theory, Big Bang theory cant explain cold spots measured by the plank satellite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

[guest45734]

This search result will give anyone interested in theoretical physics hours of fun, or boredom depending on which lecture you watch, there is something for everyone. Quantum gravity to multiverses all theoretical and beyond the scope of this forum. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Theoretical+Physics+Forums&FORM=RESTAB .

[guest45734]

This chat is rather one sided, so I will simplify what I am thinking to complete Noddy level.

Starting at a point in space before matter existed, quantum fluctuations appeared and disappeared expanding space time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation, and causing space time to advance forward  https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691, as a result of the rapid expansion of space time, fluctuations in space time appeared, as gravitational waves -ve energy, which induced matter to exist +ve energy.

These gravitational waves may have been like those detected by Ligo. Reasoning at the same time as Ligo detected gravitational waves gamma rays were detected, gamma rays are given off when particle anti particle pairs collide and annihilate each other, the gravitational wave could have created them in a zero energy universe.

The expansion of the universe is driven by dark energy due to quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, these virtual particles when they come into existence are entangled, by various theories, matter causes the absorption of entangled virtual particles and the slowing of the expansion of space time.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle predicts quantum fluctuations/virtual particles and is the pillar of quantum mechanics. I have posted enough on other threads for anyone reading my posts to know what I am driving at,  and to show my grammar is crap



 

[guest45734]

Heres 4 possibilities on before a or multiple big bangs http://www.bigbangcentral.com/before_bb_page.html.

Poplawskis ideas are not included in the link above so being one of the most recent here is a link https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.08076.pdf

Rather than a massive quantum fluctuation giving rise to all matter in the universe is it not more logical multiple little ones continually give rise to matter.

Hey ho its fun chatting

Edit there is a russian naked science forum discussing what is inside a BH. https://naked-science.ru/article/nakedscience/singulyarnost-dobro . If a BH destroys matter at a singularity would it not also destroy virtual particles, if virtual particles are the source of gravity, dark energy and the expansion of space then a BH must also be contracting space.

Edit an amusing thought ref a BH and photons, if light loses energy as it tries to escape a BH eventually ceasing to exist, when it enters a BH it must increase its energy, by conservation of energy could a photon gain enough energy as it entersa BH to escape the BH assuming it doesnot hit something in the middle

[guest45734]

This is what I reckon it is not a new theory. Its a noddy level conglomeration of ideas.

Space is a funny old thing with more than just the basic 4 space time dimensions we perceive.

At the beginning of time before any matter or space time dimensions existed there could be no time dimensions or x y z dimensions as we perceive them. A dimensionless dimension existed which today still exists and has the ability to connect all points in space time together a bit like a membrane. This dimensionless dimension allows near instantaneous transfer of information between entangled particles, like an EPR bridge. Within this dimensionless dimension quantum fluctuations occurred causing the expansion of space time (governed by the HUP). This expansion was not uniform at the early stages of the universe. Gaps between clumps of space time(quantum fluctuations) appeared as singularities, this caused matter to be pulled into existence, which swirled around other gaps in space time, which are also known as BH's today. etc etc When looking into a BH you are looking at a dimensionless place, which could be connected to all of space time via ER bridges. Geons are interesting to look at, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

Whether or not any of the theories above ref exploding black holes Big Bangs etc are likely occurrences is interesting to think about. In a zero energy universe quantum fluctuations gave rise to gravity which caused matter to come into existence, gravity did not manifest itself after some big bang, which ignores the laws of thermodynamics.

Gravity is explained by Prof Verlinde as I wanted to discuss on other threads. Dark matter is complete nonsense and a result of pushing Einsteins Field Equations  beyond breaking point. Gravity is governed by an inverse square law, near to the centre of galaxies and by an inverse law as you approach the outer parts of galaxies.

Whilst LIGO detected the gravitational waves being emitted from the black hole merger, when it occurred 3 solar masses of energy was lost from the BH's as gravitational waves. As the gravitational waves was detected radiation assumed to have escaped the BH's also arrived, apparently confirming gravitational waves travel at light speed, could that radiation have been created by the gravitational fluctuation or was it more likely from the accretion discs around the BH's. 

An amusing thought ref space time and the aether and every other theory, they are all entangled They are all governed by the HUP and the basics of Quantum theory. 

Apologies for the crap grammar, and brief explanation. As you can see by the chat I have unanswered questions, but hey ho, its nice to have time to think about these things. 

[guest45734]

Another random thought occurred to me, the answer is not clear.

Can a photon spontaneously WITHOUT reacting with another particle, decay into a particle. I know particles can annihilate each other producing gamma rays. Can the opposite happen, it is required for theories like the Big bang, but has it ever been shown to happen.

In the beginning there was light, is a key requirement of some BB theories. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/570-where-did-the-matter-in-the-universe-come-from-intermediate .

I can not find any experimental evidence showing a photon can change into a particle. However there is tons of stuff saying a photon cant convert into a particle. Electron positron collision results in 2 gamma rays can the reverse happen, could two gamma rays be made to convert into a particle in way other than reversing time to the big bang.
 

[Kryptid]

could two gamma rays be made to convert into a particle in way other than reversing time to the big bang.

Yes. A pair of gamma ray photons of the right energy can interact to form an electron-positron pair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

[guest45734]

could two gamma rays be made to convert into a particle in way other than reversing time to the big bang.

Yes. A pair of gamma ray photons of the right energy can interact to form an electron-positron pair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

Thanks for the reply  

I am aware of such things as photons interacting with other particles creating electron positron pairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production. However what I am specifically looking for is photons interacting with photons to produce particles. I can find nothing showing this can happen, A photon must interact with a particle with enough energy to produce positron electron pairs and some wreckage.

Matter can be transformed via interaction with high energy photons, but photon + photon interaction on its own does not produce particles as far as I can see from all the links I have followed.

Solar radiation produces unstable particles like muons but this must again be through interaction with other particles.

Inside a BH photons become trapped and circle around in ever decreasing circles until perhaps they disappear up their own ass like the usalem bird. Could Black holes convert photons into particles. Again the Geon is vaguely interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

In a state before the big bang and the HUP was only just starting out in the observable universe, could planck sized BHs have caused Hawking radiation of sufficient energy to create the fundamental particles of the universe.

Inside a BH space time dimensions dont exist, before the expansion of the universe space time dimensions did not exist.

Could the absence of quantum fluctuations be regarded as a BH??? 

[guest45734]

I just trawled up this Interesting PDF on particle physics that might be of interest to others on the forum https://www.nikhef.nl/~t58/BSM.pdf Beyond the standard model.

[guest45734]

I just trawled up this Interesting PDF on particle physics that might be of interest to others on the forum https://www.nikhef.nl/~t58/BSM.pdf Beyond the standard model.

This pdf beats the crap out of talking sh1t on politics, it raises lots of little why questions, no one likes to answer or even speculate about.

[guest45734]

The idea of white holes appearing out of higher dimensional black holes or collapsing stars has been around for a while. https://phys.org/news/2013-09-goodbye-big-black-hole-theory.html https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1487.pdf . The idea still does not address where the original matter in the universe comes from.

An understanding of what space is (how many dimensions it has) and how gravity works at the quantum level, which must include entanglement according to a number of the new theories on gravity.

Bye for now
 

[guest45734]

@Kryptid photon photon interactions haven't been experimentally proven to produce particles. HOWEVER there is a experiment proposed  to try and do exactly that http://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2014.95.epdf?referrer_access_token=gtnstu76jAKS6TQAZQTsddRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NXHSbPuQX-DuvNS6MIB4iiqnzPlMfPSXVHLrQ1kqbCsCTkZ_vvCRij5jyXT4yp4SSHxI8fIJrN_rOYp20tF-iorbqgsMlgy1HsSlpVyiLitSoTTAYw-QpOUdRpq4ORit5gIXV1pIcxeuyLQH7yjo6fFAjodlrkMIJ-e_jZqcjY5R6u9XHaQtMqMuIlKGMReGhNUmNJxfJ9YYr48ljaUnuh-8q38JT_9LjceSihXkWDjw%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.universetoday.com

It might interest you a little
----------------------------------------

In a version of QLG I have just had the misfortune to read it, indicates that singularities in BH's dont exist but wormholes to other universes or locations in our own universe might exist. As if anyone would believe or even suspect that might be possible. 

[Kryptid]

However what I am specifically looking for is photons interacting with photons to produce particles. I can find nothing showing this can happen,

Then you must not have read the link I provided:

Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons.

[guest45734]

Quote from: dead cat on Yesterday at 11:12:16However what I am specifically looking for is photons interacting with photons to produce particles. I can find nothing showing this can happen,Then you must not have read the link I provided:

Yes I did, it lacks experimental evidence etc etc. Quoting from it  "it is not possible to change the net number of leptons or of quarks in any perturbative reaction among particles. This remark is consistent with all existing observations. "

Even regarding photons as particles they are not made of quarks or leptons. I understand it makes theoretical sense that if a electron positron pair collision can produce gamma rays/photons with 511eV of energy, then in some way the process should be able to be reversed, it has NOT been done as yet.

Photons are not made of quarks they have spin 0 and no charge whereas quarks have spin + or -. and have charge. The proposed experiment I linked to is the only one which attempts to create particles from bosons, and it is still theoretical and still hasn't been done yet.

I don't buy the big bang does any one else, except the catholic church? All energy in the universe appeared from a singularity, where did it come from in the first place. Nothing gets out of a black hole except by hawking radiation or gravitational waves.

Hoyle pretty much covered everything from after the assumed big bang or expansion of the universe as I linked to above. If nothing gets out of a BH and we live in a zero energy universe. Do we live in a higher dimensional black hole in a lower dimensional space time white hole.

I have just taken delivery of a book by Kip Thorne which is going to amuse me for a week or so. So I will stop waffling on for a while.
 

[David Cooper]

Is it useful to compare the big bong with black holes when the former isn't sitting in Spacetime (or a yet-to-be-extended fabric of space) while the latter are? Nothing can get out of a black hole (or leave the event horizon in an outward direction) because the speed of light in the space there is limited to zero, but with the big bang, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it - there is nothing imposing a zero speed of light limit to the stuff coming out of there because it doesn't need to move relative to the fabric to spread outwards. The fabric simply explodes out and takes all that content to the point where its density is no longer strong enough to reduce the speed of light through the fabric to zero, freeing it all up to start moving under gravitational attraction.

[guest45734]

Is it useful to compare the big bong with black holes when the former isn't sitting in Spacetime (or a yet-to-be-extended fabric of space) while the latter are? Nothing can get out of a black hole (or leave the event horizon in an outward direction) because the speed of light in the space there is limited to zero, but with a black hole, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it - there is nothing imposing a zero speed of light limit to the stuff coming out of there because it doesn't need to move relative to the fabric to spread outwards. The fabric simply explodes out and takes all that content to the point where its density is no longer strong enough to reduce the speed of light through the fabric to zero, freeing it all up to start moving under gravitational attraction.

I read your post a number of times from different angles, confused myself and the following emerged 

A Big bong black hole singularity or wormhole still connecting all points to an expanding space time via another dimension may not need to allow things to escape a BH singularity. We may still be inside a BH connected firmly to a singularity in another dimension.  Nothing is being thrown or accelerated outwards away from a singularity, the space time dimension itself is expanding independant of a higher dimensional singularity connecting all points in space time. (Idea ripped off from EPR=ER bridges)

Im still reading my new book by Kip Thorne its good.

[David Cooper]

Sorry about the confusion there - I used the words "black hole" instead of "big bang" in the middle of my post - it was supposed to say "but with the big bang, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it".

[guest45734]

but with the big bang, it's the fabric of space that's being thrown outwards and it can drag content with it".

Understood: but nothing is being accelerated, space time is expanding from the notional singularity (other connecting dimension) of the big bang. Modern theories don't have a singularity in the big bang, its more like a region.
Galaxies at the outer edges of the visible universe are moving away from us at an increasing rate. Those galaxies are not accelerating away from us. The space time between us and them is expanding. Effectively other galaxies are in free fall away from us, as we are from all other galaxies point of view.

A political solution to the notional big bang singularity and the black hole singularity is to say they are both correct-ish. The big bang singularity evolves via expanding space time dimensions whereas the black hole singularity contracts space time dimensions back to a notional singularity (dimension) . ie space time dimensions do not exist in a singularity only another dimension remains. With an eye on entanglement this underlying dimension exists in all of space time connecting all points of space time. ie wormhole or dimension where space time dimensions do not exist. Quantum entanglement (spooky action) Wave particle duality are all be connected via this political dimension, distance doesn't matter when entangled matter is involved(FTL transmission of information is possible). All things are (may be) entangled to a certain extent via a dimension outside of space time. However who believes in political solutions to anything
 
If Popolawsi is right we might exist inside a wormhole https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm