[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

In contrary to the hot big bang, the universe can be modelled from a supercool degenerate region all liquid irreversible matter phase. This is a new interpretation I developed where I take older ideas that once explored this type of model which attempted to explain a more valid picture of early cosmology. A hot big bang phase with low entropy appears to violate thermodynamics, but if our universe began in a supercool condensed mattter phase which heated up, it would solve this theoretical problem and I developed the first quantum model for this. Some relevant articles you need to know about is the following:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_production#:~:text=Entropy%20production%20(or%20generation)%20is,any%20irreversible%20thermodynamic%20cycle%2C%20including

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang

https://www.google.com/search?q=planck%27s+law&oq=plancks+la&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.3877j0j4&client=ms-android-americamovil-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#:~:text=Zero-point%20energy%20(ZPE),by%20the%20Heisenberg%20uncertainty%20principle.&text=All%20these%20fields%20have%20zero-point%20energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_gas

So let's begin. I was not the originsl proposer of such a model, but I was the first to develop a semi-classical Friedmann equation so satisfy irreversible particle production that implemented the ground state fields for an early cosmology.

In this post, we will show how in principle that temperature can only approach zero, which is best understood when we model the fluctuations into an expanding model, and they can even generate cosmic seeds - before I have done this to accommodate the Sakharov gravitational correction, this time we will accommodate the Planck Law. To ''put in'' the laws of thermodynamics is relatively easy. So I did some calibrating of the modified equation to show Plancks law will hold.

Instead of a fluid expansion coefficient of



We make use of a temperature gauge for the Friedmann equation where



  ∴



The final equation I derived was



We integrate over the frequency to get an energy density



Where entropy can be defined as



Integration over the volume element of the primordial universe will give



We notice in our approach we have combined the gas laws



For the internal energy. The Planck law including a corrective zero point field per oscillator of the ground state for temperatures near T=0



And we invoked a particle expected number as



And has a unique solution for the density volume product in



As the ratio of zeta values



A simple equation of state that will satisfy a particle number creation associated to the temperature and scale invariant



Is



Where is the particle creation number and here, is the thermal wavelength, then when



It will follow the Bose statistics, or if modelled as



Then it will follow Maxwell statistics.

Summary; We rewrote the Friedmann equation, with a temperature gauge directing the fluid expansion while incorporating the entropy production for both reversible and irreversible dynamics to satisfy a Helmholtz irreversible thermodynamic phase transition. It's irreversible because our Friedmann equation has an extra time derivative as opposed to the ordinary Friedmann equation. We incorporated Plancks law and the zero point correction term, invoked the usual gas laws associated to it and then applied statistical thermal particle distances to talk about how the universe evolved from a cold state rapidly heating as it expands to produce the background temperatures we observe today.

[Bored chemist]

How does you model avoid this issue?
"The mainstream version of the Cold Big Bang model predicted an absence of acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation[1] and was eventually explicitly ruled out by WMAP observations.[2]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

How does you model avoid this issue?
"The mainstream version of the Cold Big Bang model predicted an absence of acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation[1] and was eventually explicitly ruled out by WMAP observations.[2]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang

Believe it or not, but accoustic peaks will only happen if the heating phase was not homogeneous. In this model we avoid such interpretation by stating that all fluctuations began in exactly the same states, which is allowed from the Bose condensation where photons where created into the same energy states. This avoids any inconsistency in accoustic signalling of the primotdial seeds.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

Sorry about typos, fixed now.

[Bored chemist]

Did you read the excerpt from wiki ?

It says the problem with a cold BBT is that you don't get acoustic peaks.
You said how your model avoids having acoustic peaks.
The issue is that the universe does show acoustic peaks.

So I think you just confirmed that your model is unphysical.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

It's hard to explain. But not impossible.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

The early phase had no peaks, but entropy allows peaks to evolve in  a natural way.

[Bored chemist]

It's hard to explain. But not impossible.

We aren't in any rush.
Perhaps you could start by explaining why the previous considerations of the problem didn't find a solution.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

Okay, let's explain why. We should first challenge the mainstream view saying that the universe began in a hot primordial state with low entropy.

This violates the principles of thermodymamical  laws, since only systems which approach near absolute zero retain a minimal entropy.

"In an attempt to understand the origin of atoms, Georges Lemaître proposed (by 1927) that before the expansion of the universe started all the matter in the universe, it formed a gigantic ball of nuclear liquid at very low temperature. This low temperature was required to provide an adequate cohesion within the Lemaître's primeval atom. In 1966, David Layzer proposed a variant on Lemaître's cosmology in which the initial state of the universe was near absolute zero. LamaItre argued that, rather than in an initial high entropy state, the primordial universe was"

The solution was not considered seriously because of a bias that that the universe began in a hot soup. This idea, as far as I can tell, was only adopted by a backward thinking, where ths origin of the background temperature was the absolute origin, when in fact, it's origin could have come from a super cool, liquid region.

[Bored chemist]

The big problem is that it's easy to see how the universe started hot, and cooled down.
But it it started cold, what warmed it up?
Lemaitre's answer would probably have been " an act of God", but that won't work on a science site.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

The big problem is that it's easy to see how the universe started hot, and cooled down.
But it it started cold, what warmed it up?
Lemaitre's answer would probably have been " an act of God", but that won't work on a science site.

A degenerate space phase.

[Origin]

A degenerate space phase.

Could you expound on that statement?

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

A degenerate space phase.

Could you expound on that statement?

Not with great degree I'm afraid. It's the one aspect of this theory I haven't been able to complete, but from talking with other scientists, the ideas of instabilities of spacetime was actually a well-researched subject. Just googling "spacetime phase instabilities," or "spacetime instability," yields a rich field of papers on such subjects. Here's one I came across

https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02186

To understand the correct kind of degeneracy for this pre big bang model would explain how the Helmholtz liquid all-matter phase space transitioned into a radiation vapor dominated phase (aka. The radiation era).

[Kryptid]

Is it sensible to treat the observable universe as being filled with an extremely diffuse gas, or is it too close to a vacuum for that to work? If so, you could use the gas laws to estimate the average temperature of the Universe at arbitrary points in the past. Or is that too much of a simplification?

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

Is it sensible to treat the observable universe as being filled with an extremely diffuse gas, or is it too close to a vacuum for that to work? If so, you could use the gas laws to estimate the average temperature of the Universe at arbitrary points in the past. Or is that too much of a simplification?

It's possible.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

Let's quickly demonstrate the "cosmic seeds" I spoke about in the OP. It just takes our pseudo desitter space which is non-conserved in a new form. Let's retain my principle of adding in the entropy production and we take Sakharovs lovely equation for ground state oscillations. One thing we note is that regardless of the big bang happening in a warm or cold environment, one principle never changes. Both conditions still permit a high curvature phase.



It is this part



Specifically we identify as an origin to cosmic seeds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-01-cosmic-seeds-black-holes.amp

As you will see from here, Sakharov argued how the background curvature contributes to the flucuations of the ground state field. It's just a fancy way of saying that the gravitional field "boosts" virtual seeds/particles inti real ones.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82910.0

If the Hubble constant can smear a virtual particle into its own length, it is a well established idea they played a fundamental role in the formation of galaxies in our universe.

[evan_au]

the mainstream view saying that the universe began in a hot primordial state with low entropy.
This violates the principles of thermodymamical  laws, since only systems which approach near absolute zero retain a minimal entropy.

We can see how the expansion of the universe turned a hot, dense mass into a cooler, diffuse universe, without violating thermodynamics or entropy.

The Hot Big Bang theory doesn't say that the universe was in the lowest possible entropy - it just says it had less entropy than it does now (and we expect this trend to continue into the future).

A black hole has pretty low entropy - but a black hole which has radiated away all of its mass via Hawking radiation (over enormous periods of time) has slightly lower entropy again. So we expect that (in the extremely long term view), the universe will be colder than it is now, and energy will be spread even more diffusely.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

the mainstream view saying that the universe began in a hot primordial state with low entropy.
This violates the principles of thermodymamical  laws, since only systems which approach near absolute zero retain a minimal entropy.

We can see how the expansion of the universe turned a hot, dense mass into a cooler, diffuse universe, without violating thermodynamics or entropy.

The Hot Big Bang theory doesn't say that the universe was in the lowest possible entropy - it just says it had less entropy than it does now (and we expect this trend to continue into the future).

A black hole has pretty low entropy - but a black hole has radiated away all of its mass via Hawking radiation (over enormous periods of time) has slightly lower entropy again. So we expect that (in the extremely long term view), the universe will be colder than it is now, and energy will be spread even more diffusely.

Yet entropy under quantum mechanics is reversible. It's not an intrinsic case of reversible dynamics quantum fields. In fact, quantum theory is a time-symmetric theory.

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

There is some nice information in here which I might be using to "expand" the model mind the pun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_thermodynamic_equations

[BilboGrabbins (OP)]

This equation isn't exactly right, so I've fixed it here. We can either have



Notice the last expression would be the part which makes up the effective density parameters, which usually has the form of (iff)  has units of an energy density. So the above equation isn't quite true it requires  (iff) is a mass density. So we're missing a wee factor of speed of light squared in there... but who noticed? Since we're not dealing with a mass density in this case, we can just plug the inverse speed of light squared to the coefficient on the RHS.