The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Discussions ranging from space technology, near-earth and solar system missions, to efforts to understand the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 4th, 2016, 11:47 am 

Andrex » 03 Dec 2016, 16:38 wrote:I was talking of considering your picture as being a universe composed exclusively of massless” particles (before inflation).

So you reckon all there was is light?

My picture actually starts with "light only", since in the LCDM model, radiation dominated the energy density for the first ~50 thousand years after inflation. Before inflation? Nobody knows. I very much like deSitter space with a large cosmological constant before inflation, if inflation is needed at all.

https://www.quora.com/General-Relativity-What-is-de-Sitter-space-Why-does-it-matter-for-cosmology wrote:Given these conditions, one can define de Sitter space to be the maximally symmetric solution to the vacuum Einstein equations with positive cosmological constant.


Your impressions of what modern cosmology holds is not quite correct.

Andrex wrote:Those stipulations (dark matter and dark energy) are needed because, we consider our universe being entirely “matter” (E=Mc2); when, in fact, we cannot observe more than 5% of “matter” in that universe. The exact “fact” is that our universe is 100% space-time, which 5% of it, is occupied by “matter”. This is THE “fact”.

Physicists consider the present phase of the universe's energy density to be distributed as ~70% coming from the cosmological constant (Lambda, or something equivalent), ~25% from dark matter particles and ~5% from ordinary (baryonic) matter. These fractions change over time in a predictable fashion - at the time of the CMB (last scattering) we can deduce from observation that radiation made up ~25% of the energy density and total matter (dark and ordinary) ~75%, with the contribution due to Lambda quite negligible at that stage.

Andrex wrote:So what is that imaginary problem of “critical mass” based on? Universe was born “flat” and there’s no more questions about it. It is a “fact”. It was “flat” simply because there was no “mass energy” involved at the time. It is a simple “fact” that cannot be refused.

No, it is not that simple. Space must have been close to flat, but there is no "critical mass", just a critical density to expansion rate ratio. Both of the parameters have changed over time and is dependent on all forms of energy, including radiation and 'vacuum energy', a.k.a. Lambda.

And finally, your discussion of the 'dark matter problem is quite far off the mark. So yes, you are wrong, but I do not quite know where to start to correct it. Have you read some of the recent papers on it? The history is interesting, but not that important. The now and the future are what count.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 4th, 2016, 11:50 am 

Accidental double post :(
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 4th, 2016, 12:06 pm 

Andrex » 04 Dec 2016, 00:59 wrote:The universe is "flat" except where you have "volumes" of "warp or curved" because of the variable scales (decreasing metric) from its edge to its center of gravity. All we have to accept is the simple fact that "gravity" is not a universal "force" (it's not even a "force") but a located volume of space-time with deformed "geometry" cause by the "action" of mass-energy on its center of gravity.
What else can deform space-time than a disturbance in its geometry; I ask you.

As I wrote before, "variable scales (decreasing metric)" is not a good choice of words, but in essence what you have said further on is in line with the current scientific view.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 4th, 2016, 12:17 pm 

I'd say that, in fact, a black hole is a black "sphere"; so you cannot see the "black" before you get to its event horizon.

But I could be mistaken.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 4th, 2016, 12:49 pm 

Andrex » 04 Dec 2016, 18:17 wrote:I'd say that, in fact, a black hole is a black "sphere"; so you cannot see the "black" before you get to its event horizon.

But I could be mistaken.

Yes, I think you are... ;-)

If you could succeed in hovering a little outside the horizon of a non-rotating black hole, the 'blackness' would extend almost completely around you! This comes from the way light is bent around such a hole. See e.g. Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy".

But we are now very far off-topic. The "infinite cosmic lattice" is all about the homogeneous, isotropic large scale universe that sports no black holes.

Please start another thread under Physics if you want to continue exploring black holes.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 4th, 2016, 8:04 pm 

Then, before I admit I am mistaken, we'll wait for further developments. ;-)
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 5th, 2016, 12:21 am 

Andrex » 05 Dec 2016, 02:04 wrote:Then, before I admit I am mistaken, we'll wait for further developments. ;-)

Which further developments do you have in mind? Waiting for more observational evidence? New theories to emerge?
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 5th, 2016, 12:55 am 

The conditions for a new theory to emerge will not be necessary; but cleaning the actual one of the virus it contains is far from being possible for a certain number of years yet. Imaginary solutions won't be completely exhausted for quite a while.
But if ever we meet again on the subject of "rotation of black holes", we will be able to discuss it clearly.

As for the "infinite cosmic lattice" being all about the homogeneous, isotropic large scale universe, I agree it existed as you've shown it during the "radiating period", before the start of the inflation where mass energy started to manifest itself, and installed 5% of "disrupted lattices" in the picture. You have there the perfectly exact description, I believe.

Thank you for our exchange; it was very instructive.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 5th, 2016, 1:21 am 

Andrex » 05 Dec 2016, 06:55 wrote:As for the "infinite cosmic lattice" being all about the homogeneous, isotropic large scale universe, I agree it existed as you've shown it during the "radiating period", before the start of the inflation where mass energy started to manifest itself, ...

Minor correction: In the standard LCDM/"cold inflation" model there was no radiation before inflation, but possibly during inflation, because inflation has to end with a radiation-dominated energy density. My analogy starts after inflation.

Before inflation? I have no fixed ideas, but that would be off-topic in this thread.

You are welcome to continue questioning the standard cosmological model here. After all, this thread is a sort of tutorial on large scale cosmology.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 5th, 2016, 2:00 am 

I was thinking of the results of Plancks satellite.

Inflation having to end with a radiation-dominated energy density isn't very bothersome; what interest me more is how could inflation start if there has never been added energy after the BB? How can we explain inflation without added energy to the universe?
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 5th, 2016, 5:20 am 

I don't think anyone is sure how inflation got started, but there are theories that make some sense. I don't know much more than anyone can find on Google/Wikipedia/popular press...
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 5th, 2016, 12:14 pm 

but there are theories that make some sense


Since you can say this, could you tell me which one?
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 5th, 2016, 1:08 pm 

Yes, one that I mentioned before as my favorite, a thermal fluctuation in a background de Sitter spacetime.

Here is a reference: "Does Inflation Provide Natural Initial conditions for the Universe?" by Sean M. Carroll and Jennifer Chen.

Direct pdf.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 5th, 2016, 5:16 pm 

Thank a lot BurtJordaan ;

This is going to give me "work" for tonight, since I've just finish reading Chris L. Fryer and Kimberly C.B. new "Gravitational waves from Gravitational Collapse". I've got work on that one; but I'll read yours before starting it.

I'll come back to you on it.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 5th, 2016, 6:59 pm 

Well! That was not very long to read; and I almost laughed at many portions of it :-)

Here is some notes I took:

Abstract = This presentation is far from “clear”. But lets continue maybe...

As far as we know, there is only one universe

By its definition being “everything that exists”.

There is an irresistible temptation to try to explain the state in which we find our universe as the practically-inevitable outcome of some dynamical processes

Which is perfectly natural.

The most celebrated attempt along these lines has been the theory of inflation [1, 2, 3], which purports to explain the flatness, homogeneity, and isotropy of our universe through an early period of accelerated expansion.

I don’t agree. Because if the BB was an “expansion of space-time" without presence of mass- energy, the universe at the time was unconditionally “flat”, homogeneous and isotropic.

Once inflation begins, that small patch can grow to the size of our observable universe

And then the original definition of the universe is kaput and you get more than one universe. This is not logical.

However, this notion of “natural” cannot be right.

Ouf! (This is a part where I laughed)

Therefore, if inflation is to help explain the conditions of our universe, there must be some reason why it started.

Who could say "no"?

In the absence of gravity, high-entropy states tend to become homogeneous. But in the presence of gravity, the Jeans instability can lead to increased inhomogeneity, and eventually to black holes.

This is what support the non presence of gravity (mass-energy) before inflation; otherwise the universe would have disappeared rapidly into a black hole (or nothingness). So "expansion" had to appear before "contraction" (gravity).

Therefore, unless the state is arranged so that the entire universe crunches into a future singularity

Which doesn't seem to be the case.

space-time will tend towards a state which is nearly empty

A least, flat” empty space-time will be more important than “curved” full space-time. Which is exactly what is shown by the distribution of matter on the large scale view of the universe.

General relativity allows us to increase the entropy of nearly any state by increasing the volume of space and scattering the constituents to the far corners of the universe

I call that "expansion"; and it's not caused by GR.

The arrow-of-time puzzle can be simply stated

There’s no puzzle since entropy is a “fact”

To my point of view, our universe was a de Sitter universe before inflation. Simply because there was no mass-energy in the universe at the time. Inflation was produced by the adding of mass-energy in the universe from 10^-36 sec to 10^-32 sec).( Furthermore, the actual portion of our universe which is “flat” space-time is still a de Sitter portion of the universe; while the “curved” portion of space-time is in a Minkowsky state.

We therefore believe that inflation does provide natural initial conditions for the universe we see, once we place it in the proper context of a larger space-time that is stubbornly trying to increase its entropy

On the other hand, if “entropy” is only a “complexification” (definition) of a previous simpler state, like decaying particles shows, it isn’t augmenting “chaos” but is rather augmenting “specifics” or, if you wish, more precise informations.

It is hard to think of any directly observable consequences of this scenario, but understanding the conceptual underpinnings of inflation is an important part of making sense of the universe we do observe.

But I liked reading it anyway.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 6th, 2016, 1:33 am 

Andrex » 06 Dec 2016, 00:59 wrote:But I liked reading it anyway.


There were many papers leading up to this one, but the previous (2004) one by the same authors, "Spontaneous inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time" was an equally enjoyable read. Covers some of the same stuff in a little more detail. As always with scientific papers, in order to comprehend, one must be up to date, or else you have to read many of the (101 in this case) references quoted in the paper.

This is one of the reasons why I'm not really into quantum gravity; I'm getting too old to start from scratch... ;)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 6th, 2016, 2:33 am 

And I suspect that I'm older than you are :-)

Which doesn't mean that we can't be logical. The perfect proof is your cosmic lattice. :-)
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 6th, 2016, 2:47 am 

Andrex,

I'm not quite comfortable with this view of yours:
Andrex » 06 Dec 2016, 00:59 wrote:To my point of view, our universe was a de Sitter universe before inflation. Simply because there was no mass-energy in the universe at the time. Inflation was produced by the adding of mass-energy in the universe from 10^-36 sec to 10^-32 sec).( Furthermore, the actual portion of our universe which is “flat” space-time is still a de Sitter portion of the universe; while the “curved” portion of space-time is in a Minkowsky state.

I agree with de Sitter before inflation, but it has vacuum energy, which contributes to the stress–energy tensor and sports positive energy density, but negative pressure, casing a slow expansion. As I understand it, this is not classified as "mass-energy", because it was incredibly smooth, isotropic and with low entropy. But I do not see any Minkowski-state applicable.

Carrol & Chen wrote:However, in the presence of a positive vacuum energy and an appropriate inflaton field, the resulting de Sitter phase is unstable to the spontaneous onset of inflation, instigated by the thermal fluctuations of the inflaton. If the inflaton fluctuates sufficiently high that eternal inflation can begin, it will continue forever, and new pocket universes will be brought into being in those places where the field rolls down the potential and reheats.

As I understand, quarks and higher particles originated from a phase transition during inflation, when some of the energy of the inflaton field is dumped into particles. Not that I fully understand this quantum stuff.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby vivian maxine on December 6th, 2016, 7:14 am 

Burt Jordaan wrote:This is one of the reasons why I'm not really into quantum gravity; I'm getting too old to start from scratch... ;)


Andy Rooney (now, who's old?) once said: (paraphrasing a partially forgotten line) "It isn't that we are too old to learn new things. It's that our heads are already so stuffed with all the wonderful things we learned years ago that there is no room for anything more.

[quote="Andrex"]I don’t agree. Because if the BB was an “expansion of space-time" without presence of mass- energy, the universe at the time was unconditionally “flat”, homogeneous and isotropic.[quote]

You sound so certain. You were there, maybe? :-) By the way, great analysis you did, Andrex.

All right. I'm gone. But, before I go, surely is good to be reading classic science.

Good morning. Enjoy the day.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2745
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 6th, 2016, 11:24 am 

You were there, maybe


Effectively, I was there; but not in my actual state though. I was in a much "simpler" one. I've got to admit: Entropy does wonders. :-)

I agree with de Sitter before inflation,


So, then, maybe we agree that, at the beginning we have "something" radiating that "creates" space-time (space-time starts to expand) (any massless particle is needed to manifest that radiating process, but irrelevant for the moment. Note that from this moment on, you can use your cosmic lattice idea).

but it has vacuum energy, which contributes to the stress–energy tensor and sports positive energy density, but negative pressure, casing a slow expansion.


Slow expansion is not possible at the time; since the only process existing was expansion with the same amount of energy actually present in the universe. The energy density was at its maximum I agree. I also agree that "matter = energy" like "ice = water"; but just as water isn't actually ice, energy isn't actually matter. So the original energy didn't provoque "pressure" or stress-energy tensor (which appeared with gravity). Energy was "exploding" without restraint (must I specify that explosion is kinetic? And must I repeat that energy doesn't disappear but only transforms itself in another kind of energy?).

Now, we mustn't forget that this expansion process could start only when there was something that could expand. Meaning: the smallest "volume" possible. Which is a "sphere" that has a diameter of 10^-33 m (Planck's length). Impossible to have anything smaller physically (and space is physical).

Consequently, that moment when expansion started was at 10^-43 sec after time = zero. Which indicates that, if the story of our universe started at "point 0" (Time, space, energy), the energy needed for starting expansion was "cumulated" (from 0 to total actual energy) between time= zero and 10^-43 sec (after =0). No other simple explication is possible (says Occam).

Now let's tangle with the "inflaton" problem. That particle doesn't exist. It erupted from Hawking's mind somewhere when he needed it for is black holes theory. Inflaton is exactly the same imaginative type of "creation" as graviton. It's a "vector" of inflation as graviton is the vector of gravitation. But gravity is not a "force" and inflation isn't a "force" either. They are both "consequences"; so they don't need any "vectors". Since inflation is a "consequence", it's a consequence of "something" previous to it. But we know that it's not a consequence of "expansion" because it's something completely different from expansion. So it has to be the consequence of something "before" expansion. There's only one possibility: it's the consequence of the same "cumulated" energy that provoked expansion, that came from Planck's era.

Expansion is a "movement" intrinsic to our universe. A "movement" is the "labor" produced by "kinetic energy". So now we've just found what kind of energy was "cumulated" during Planck's era (eventually, part of it will transform in other kinds of energy).

After the end of inflation, we find "mass-energy" in the universe. which wasn't there before.

Like we've just saw, mass-energy, just like expansion, has to be kinetic energy from Planck's era; so it has to produce "movement". And effectively, it does produce a movement, but contrary to expansion; it produces "gravitational movement" which is a movement directed toward "one single direction" (center of gravity) instead of in every direction (expansion).

What we really know in astrophysics and physics starts at this point.

Even Occam told me it couldn't be simpler. :-)

And this is the reason I love so much your cosmic lattice idea.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 6th, 2016, 1:15 pm 

Andrex » 06 Dec 2016, 17:24 wrote:So, then, maybe we agree that, at the beginning we have "something" radiating that "creates" space-time (space-time starts to expand) (any massless particle is needed to manifest that radiating process, but irrelevant for the moment. Note that from this moment on, you can use your cosmic lattice idea).

No, I disagree with all of this. Vacuum energy, as manifested by the cosmological constant does not radiate anything. Gravity is all that existed, but it was uniform, so not even gravitons (gravitational waves) were emitted. Only virtual particles popped in and out of existence. All standard stuff, as you can find in many peer-reviewed publications. Do have sources that say otherwise? I think we must first clear this up before we go any deeper into your reply.

I appreciate your confidence in the infinite lattice analogy, but sadly, it is not applicable to the time when the energy density was even close to the Planck scale - actually I'm quite sure the analogy only works from the beginning of the "photon epoch", some 10 seconds after the end of the Planck epoch, with lots of possibilities lying in-between.

Sean M. Carroll and Jennifer Chen's de Sitter era under discussion lies before 10-43, seconds, possibly in negative time, because a vacuum de Sitter solution to Einstein's field equations is symmetrical around T=0. Even if time is quantized, because T=-10-43 is available.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 6th, 2016, 3:26 pm 

No, I disagree with all of this. Vacuum energy, as manifested by the cosmological constant does not radiate anything.

This is not what I said. I said that the energy cumulated during Planck's era manifested itself by an explosion; which is "motion", at 10^-43 sec after time = zero. Motion has to be manifested by "something" and in the absence of "mass energy", the only thing possible is a massless particle.

Now if you accept the exlusive presence of an "inflaton" during inflation, you have to accept that the same inflaton was not present before inflation, since inflaton is a "vector" of inflation.

On the other hand, you accept that inflation started at 10^-36 sec after "time = zero".
You also accept that it was "added" to existing expansion (at least I hope you do; otherwise we never appened to be).
So before 10^-36 sec (between 10^-43 and 10^-36 sec) there was expansion without inflaton which was the only particle existing starting a 10^-36 sec, until 10^-32 sec.

What then, was there in motion during that part of expansion? There was no matter whatsoever and no inflaton particle present. But there had to be a "kind of something" to concretise the expansioning motion that is described as a "radiating" motion.

Gravity is all that existed


Sorry; in that case, our universe never existed being instantly contracted into "nothingness" by uniformed gravity. It was nice exchanging with you in such a brief instant. :-)

so not even gravitons (gravitational waves) were emitted.


The vector "graviton" doesn't exist and never did, since gravity is not a "force" and not even an "interaction"; it's simply a "consequence" of deformed space-time. It's not "active", it's "passive". it doesn't have "energy". What can I say more to make understand what a "consequence" is? A ball you push on the floor starts roling. It doesn't push itself; it only put up with what you did to it. It "endures" passively. Even the "rolling" of the ball is not "energy"; it's the manifestation of the "energy" YOU deployed against it. The rolling of the ball is a "consequence".

Only virtual particles popped in and out of existence


And that "event" started during inflation. In fact that's what caused inflation. The same way as the water in Archimedes' bathtub gained volume when he jumped in it. As you can see there was no "pushing" energy coming out of nowhere; but simply added small volumes of another kind of "motion" (virtual particle) coming "late" from Planck epoch.

I think we must first clear this up before we go any deeper into your reply.


Let's be clear then; what I'm saying here is not what other people think; it's what I think, based on scientific informations I gathered during some 60 years (which doesn't make it more valuable but indicates that I live trough all the real questioning period about the universe due to improved technology). Mind you, I'm not saying that I'm right; but I assure you, I kept, in my mind, only informations that seemed to me logicaly explained, excluding what seemed "imaginary" or "illogic".

I appreciate your confidence in the infinite lattice analogy, but sadly, it is not applicable to the time when the energy density was even close to the Planck scale - actually I'm quite sure the analogy only works from the beginning of the "photon epoch", some 10 seconds after the end of the Planck epoch, with lots of possibilities lying in-between.


Whatever "possibilities" you talk about, they must manifest themselves in a structured universe. You're implying that the universe had no "structure" before 10 seconds after Planck epoch. It's difficult for me to agree :-)
On the other hand, if I let go your limited "date", and apply your lattice analogy to the expanding motion of space-time composed of one single kind of massless particle, it explains wonderfully my opinion on expansion space-time at the start of our universe, whitout any "resistence" whatsoever involved.

Sean M. Carroll and Jennifer Chen's de Sitter era under discussion lies before 10-43, seconds, possibly in negative time,


"negative time" is the kind of thing I prevent from taking "space" in my "neurones"; because it's senseless. I agree it's mathematical; just as a bag containing "minus 5 apples" is mathematical. I still have to find one such bag, though, to accept it exists.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 7th, 2016, 1:15 am 

Andrex » 06 Dec 2016, 21:26 wrote:So before 10^-36 sec (between 10^-43 and 10^-36 sec) there was expansion without inflaton which was the only particle existing starting a 10^-36 sec, until 10^-32 sec.

Yup.
What then, was there in motion during that part of expansion? There was no matter whatsoever and no inflaton particle present. But there had to be a "kind of something" to concretise the expansioning motion that is described as a "radiating" motion.

Hypothetical mass-less observers, possessing some technology for determining that they are moving apart. This is exactly the characteristics of de Sitter spacetime. Flat space, but hyperbolic spacetime due to the positive (constant) energy density, but negative pressure. (Normal matter and radiation have positive pressure). The negative pressure is what prevented the proto-universe from collapsing into a micro- or mini-black hole.

Below is a graph that I did many moons ago from an exact simulation of initial pure de Sitter expansion in the observable universe before inflation, plus the simplest form of (inflaton) inflation, followed by standard LCDM expansion. It starts at the Planck time and carries on forever (only shown up to present epoch). The simulation may not be correct in every detail, but it shows the mainstream idea from rather simple math.

Log-Log Expansion.png
Log-Log expansion from Planck time t_P, with r the radius of the observable universe


Einstein's field equations also say that there could have been a collapsing de Sitter spacetime before T=T_Planck, almost like the Penrose model, but since that probably is never observable, I do not bother much about it.

BTW Andrex, it appears as if you are attacking the standard cosmological model and favor some other theory (for which I asked for references and got none). If true, and you cannot come up with credible references, this discussion is not allowed under formal Astro-Cosmo, but should move to Private theories (sadly, but that that's the rule). On the other hand, you may get more discussion there, since guys with own private theories tend to avoid the formal science sections.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 7th, 2016, 4:03 pm 

I have moved the subsequent diversions to a new topic under Private Theories: Andrex hijack of "The Infinite Cosmic Lattice".

You are all welcome to continue the discussion there, but it has gone completely off-topic and off-mainstream here.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 7th, 2016, 5:51 pm 

So I'm a hijacker. Hummmm.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 8th, 2016, 12:29 am 

Andrex » 07 Dec 2016, 23:51 wrote:So I'm a hijacker. Hummmm.


Hmm... It is a term that we use around here, but if you find it offensive, I can change the title, if you can suggest something.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 8th, 2016, 11:10 am 

Hummmm. No it's ok. I respect your choices just as much as your ideas. :-)
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Previous

Return to Astronomy & Cosmology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests