The Alternative to the Big Bang

[DarkStar7]

In the seemingly empty void of space it has been discovered that at deep in the sub atomic world way down at the quantum level particle and anti particle pairs briefly and then annihilate themselves in a very short time this is the product of heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and the probability nature of the quantum world.With any particle the more we know about it's location the less we know about it's momentum.the result of this is that if we slow time down at this quantum level a particle can seemingly pop out of nothing along with it's anti matter companion and pocess briefly nearly an infinite amount of energy before being annihaleted again with it's antimatter companion. Slow time down and the emptiness of space becomes a seething cauldron of high energy and anti particle pairs. I propose that this is the true big bang. Instead of the universe popping out of nothing 13.7billion years ago as a one off event. I propose that is this quantum foam is the true big bang it is happening all around us at every point in space and always has always done so. Instead of a one off event it is happening now, today in the subatomic.At our scale we only see the averaged out consequence of all this with new space being produced in space that over time spreads out pushing old space away.this is the real nature of inflation and appears as this mysterious dark energy which produces universal expansion. What happened before the big bang... I have a fantastic answer which is related to Stephen Hawkins blackhole information paradox which I can go in detail later. *

[ollypenrice]

But if we run the Hubble flow backwards we see the galaxies converge. How does your suggestion account for this?

Olly

[ScubaMike]

particle and anti particle pairs briefly and then annihilate themselves in a very short time this is the product of heisenbergs uncertainty principle

I thought Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle dealt with the accuracy & certainty of simultaneously measuring the position & velocety (hence momentum) of a subatomic partice. Have not heard anything in that theory regarding the creation & annihalation of particles.

a particle can seemingly pop out of nothing along with it's anti matter companion and pocess briefly nearly an infinite amount of energy

Surely the amount of energy these particles possess is limited by the obvious E=MC squared?

Instead of the universe popping out of nothing 13.7billion years ago as a one off event. I propose that is this quantum foam is the true big bang it is happening all around us at every point in space and always has always done so.

How does this square with the background radiation detected as the remenant of the Big Bang? Would this radiation not be "hotter" in your scenario?

As always, it is far easier to point out potential flaws in theories than produce "fresh ideas", so please don't take my points as criticism.

[DarkStar7]

Scubermike

Heisenburg uncertainty principle is related to how accuracy you can measure a particle. The more you know about a particles position the less you know about momentum. Another way to describe this is in relation to time and energy. The smaller the amount of time measured the greater the potential energy you can borrow from nothingness. Antiparticles and particles are produced in equal numbers balancing energy conservation. These particles are real and have already been measured. The void of space is nearly neutral because of production of particles and antiparticles in pairs. Any inbalance is seen as the CBR. It is so smooth because it is all around us.

olly

Hydrogen is being produced in the void of space. As time goes by all objects are accumalating more mass. As the universe expands all objects within are getting more massive. Run time backwards and what are superclusters were once small clusters of galaxies, further back globular clusters, further back small groups of stars, further back stella systems, all the way back to quantum variations in void.

[DarkStar7]

Stephen Hawking recently had a bet that information is lost in a blackhole which goes against energy conservation...

All black holes of all sizes have at their heart a singularity. In another thread I questioned whether the entire universe is a blackhole. Now the singularity is a quantum sized object and if all blackholes from quantum sized ones, through stella sized ones, galactic supermassive types, and the universe itself have all their singularities entangled together then effectively they, the singularies are all the same object. Any two particles entangled together may be on different sides of the universe yet in another sense are connected together. Since we are all within the universe, any information that falls into any blackhole anywhere is contributing to quantum uncertainty..for quantum foam is the universes singularity. So all blackhole that exist are contributing to quantum uncertainty and the production of particle/antiparticle pairs.

Although the Solar wind is preventing the Earth attracting newly produces hydrogen from the void of space, eventually given enough time all objects in the universe will accumulate more mass. All 'old' space and the objects within the universe will increase in mass until they turn into blackholes or are consumed by blackholes whilst the space inbetween is continually renewed with production of 'new' space' and the cosmic void expands. So the universe expands, objects get larger and the old universe is eventually returned back in to the quantum foam repeating a new cycle. Oh..Stephens blackhole paradox.. energy is conserved

[ScubaMike]

Scubermike

Heisenburg uncertainty principle is related to how accuracy you can measure a particle. The more you know about a particles position the less you know about momentum.

Or put another way, the act of measurement affects the particle. I understand this, this is not the point of the question.

Another way to describe this is in relation to time and energy. The smaller the amount of time measured the greater the potential energy you can borrow from nothingness.

This I don't see. Can you elaborate? How can a pair of particles possess, for even one unit of Planck time, a nearly infinate amount of energy?

Antiparticles and particles are produced in equal numbers balancing energy conservation. These particles are real and have already been measured.

The existance is not the question. Have they been detected "in the field" - Being created out of *nothing* rather than as the product of interactions between particles and high energy electromagnetic radiation, or of radioactive decay?

The void of space is nearly neutral because of production of particles and antiparticles in pairs. Any inbalance is seen as the CBR. It is so smooth because it is all around us.

I understand the production/mutual destruction of these in pairs, but if they mutually destruct, where does the *hot* energy go? why is the background radiation *cold*? Surely the radiation produced from such processes would not be in the microwave range, but at the high energy end of the spectrum.

Hydrogen is being produced in the void of space. As time goes by all objects are accumalating more mass.

If the matter/anti-matter pairs mutually destruct, where does the hydrogen come from?

Forgive me if my questions are naive, my education did not extend into quantum physics.

[ncjunk]

I propose that is this quantum foam is the true big bang it is happening all around us at every point in space and always has always done so. Instead of a one off event it is happening now, today in the subatomic.At our scale we only see the averaged out consequence of all this with new space being produced in space that over time spreads out pushing old space away.this is the real nature of inflation and appears as this mysterious dark energy which produces universal expansion. *

Are you talking Chaotic inflation here where new universes are continually created causing inflation of ours with the universes in a fractal structure?

[Capricorn]

Wouldn't this be the Fred Hoyle Steady State Universe of the late 40's early 50's ?

[DarkStar7]

ScubaMike, Momentum of a particle produces energy. If you listen to BBC programme Everything and Nothing, specifically the second part 'Nothing'Professor Al Kahlili gives a very good demonstration of what I'm saying with a snooker table.

Perhaps I am not clear in expressing myself. If we go back to the Standard Model of the big bang and specifically on how using quantum physics to explain how the universe pops out of nothing. Then my hypothesis uses the same process.. but without inflation that spreads out rapidly faster than light. Instead of one specific time which had 'no before' My hypothesis uses lost information within the universe to recreate itself eternally, and suggests that creation is still occuring out of nothing all around us now, which has been proven by measurement.

It is beginning to become apparant that the furthest Gallaxy clusters may not have enough time to evolve with the current standard model. These galaxies should be proto galaxies, On the contrary my hypotheses suggests that Galaxies far away should be huge and powerful, fits in well with Quasars and huge Gamma Rays bursts now being detected from deep in space.

NcJunk,

This is neither Chaotic inflation or steady state. It is a fractal model that is dynamic but does not have a beginning. The universe is continually creating itself evolving and changing, and then recreating itself within itself, somewhat reminicent of a propagating species does in nature.

[ncjunk]

Wouldn't this be the Fred Hoyle Steady State Universe of the late 40's early 50's ?

Ohh with the creation of hydrogen to keep the density of matter over time....a theory thats mostly been discredited..sounds the same to me.

Nice theory from mr Hoyle.

Although here we are saying the increase in hydrogen is causing the increase in mass of the stars galaxies etc. In Hoyles the hydrogen is just balancing out the density of the universe as it expands...but its a very tiny amount.

So if the hoyles system has been discredited i assume a system were more hydrogen is produced will suffer exactly the same observational failings.

I like the idea of infinite fractal universes though.

Oopps posted at the same time as the previous post here... Rereading it now!

[DarkStar7]

In empty space, for an infintesimal small amout of time there should be such uncertainty in the energy within the quantum foam that there should be enough energy to produce a top quark and anti quark pair that are totally unstable and would decay rapidly in a shower of anti particle particle pairs until such time that up and down quarks hadronise into stable protons and antiprotons together with a shower of other particles as found in cosmic rays. If large numbers of protons gravitationally oppose antiprotons we are left with occasional hydrogen atom that slowly accumalates over time.

Rem Sir Fred Hoyles theory was discredited because he could not explain why Quasars exist far out in space and why the Universe is expanding. Non of this is relevant with this suggested hypothesis.

[Macavity]

I think one has to be careful with the (Energy-Time):

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and it's specific application to:

Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not entirely sure re. some of that stuff!

I.E. whatever the equation: Delta(E).Delta(T) ~ h(cross) suggests, it seems commonly held that the lifetime of virtual particle pairs in the vacuum is "VERY short" - Around the "Planck Time" or ~10^-44 sec? I sense too, the more massive a particle the shorter it's lifetime, or the less it's contribution to the "sea" of virtual pairs?

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My thought: Unless, during an "infinitesimally small" Planck time something is "done" to one half of the virtual particle pair (to render it *physical*) they simply mutually annihilate back to a vacuum. Moreover the thing "done" needs energy - A particle accelerator, huge electric fields, proximity of atomic nuclei, black holes etc.

The top quark lifetime (10^-25s) - Even though short for an elementary particle, is still vastly longer than the Planck time. I'm not sure if an unstable virtual particle can or cannot decay? Now, there's a thought!

Experimentally (thankfully!) the vacuum doesn't seem to (spontaneously) decay into conventional matter.

[ScubaMike]

DarkStar,

Rather than trying to answer all of my questions in one, perhaps you could address them individually, because I cannot see your response addressing any of the questions I put forward.

I don't understand all the top quark, quantum foam stuff. To me it is just wafffle, and your addressing each question individually might enable me to see through this to what you are proposing.

[JulianO]

I.E. whatever the equation: Delta(E).Delta(T) ~ h(cross) suggests, it seems commonly held that the lifetime of virtual particle pairs in the vacuum is "VERY short" - Around the "Planck Time" or ~10^-44 sec? I sense too, the more massive a particle the shorter it's lifetime, or the less it's contribution to the "sea" of virtual pairs?

I think that is what the above equation says in essence. You can steal energy to make matter, for a short time. The more you steal, the shorter time you can have it for. hcross is a constant, so it has to balance.

However you are out on the time, as I said it depends how big it is. So it would seem that an electron and positron can pop into existence and hang around for about 4 × 10^-21 s, but a pair of radio photons with wavelengths of 600 000 km could last for up to one second. This is much bigger than the planck time, which is sort of a lower limit on time.

My thought: Unless, during an "infinitesimally small" Planck time something is "done" to one half of the virtual particle pair (to render it *physical*) they simply mutually annihilate back to a vacuum. Moreover the thing "done" needs energy - A particle accelerator, huge electric fields, proximity of atomic nuclei, black holes etc.

Well actually all you need is to stop the two particles coming together and annihilating each other.

One of these things is Hawking radiation, where one of the pair of particles falls into a black hole and the other is radiated away - so is made physical.

[DarkStar7]

I'd love to listen and discuss all this stuff with you guys at a beer festival and get into a real quantum state. All my mates are muppets, and know nothing. Lol

[Macavity]

I think that is what the above equation says in essence. You can steal energy to make matter, for a short time. The more you steal, the shorter time you can have it for. hcross is a constant, so it has to balance.

However you are out on the time, as I said it depends how big it is. So it would seem that an electron and positron can pop into existence and hang around for about 4 × 10^-21 s, but a pair of radio photons with wavelengths of 600 000 km could last for up to one second. This is much bigger than the planck time, which is sort of a lower limit on time.

Well actually all you need is to stop the two particles coming together and annihilating each other.

One of these things is Hawking radiation, where one of the pair of particles falls into a black hole and the other is radiated away - so is made physical.

Hi Julian - If in doubt, this ex-experimentalist would usually ask a (friendly!) theorist.

Armed with the notion "h cross" = 6.6^-16 eV.s(!), I put in a few masses (Melectron: 0.5Mev, Mproton: 938Mev, Mtop quark: 173Gev!) and doubled them (pair production) for luck! (Like you?) I got lifetimes of order: ~10^-21, 10^-25, 10^-27 sec resp. Unless I got it wrong.

Interestingly (obviously!) considerably longer than the "Planck time". ODD, that noone ever quotes these numbers and mumbles vaguely about (presumably lower limit) Planck time? <G> Lots of interesting stuff... Hawking Radiation, the Casimir effect, the "Near Field" even? (A new one on me!)

Aside: I fear (genuine) "Stump the Scientist" threads [teasing]. If one wants to radically reform current theories, I sense one need a LOT of accompanying Maths. <G> I think SGL is one of few forums where I don't (overly) mind "coming out" and admitting I don't know stuff. LOL. Such is the advantage of being "retired from the field"...

[ncjunk]

I'd love to listen and discuss all this stuff with you guys at a beer festival and get into a real quantum state. All my mates are muppets, and know nothing. Lol

I like all this stuff and it´s great fun reading some of these comments and then reading up on some of the topics. A will do a physics degree when I has some spare cash and learn it a bit more in depth.

[Macavity]

...will do a physics degree when I has some spare cash and learn it a bit more in depth.

Hope you do! Science isn't "Cox & Nobbers" (Though notoriety is de riguer these days?)

Sometimes not even politics and underfunding... Science (scientists?) can be FUN too...

[NeutrinoWave]

So the universe expands, objects get larger and the old universe is eventually returned back in to the quantum foam repeating a new cycle. Oh..Stephens blackhole paradox.. energy is conserved

Can you explain this, my understanding was that Quantum Foam was a fuzzy logic mesh structure at sub Planck Scales, allowing for particle-antiparticle pairs to be produced through the mesh hole structure within Planck Timescales. What happens to these virtual particles post annihilation around the boundary of the mesh structure of Quantum Foam is very much thought provoking ...

Like to see more on this ...

[DarkStar7]

If we assume our universe is a black hole, then it's centre, its singularity would lie at the smallest scales within the quantum world at every point in space. It would be the quantum foam. If quantum foam is equivalent to a singularity in superposition it is likely to be entangled with the singularities in all other black holes that have formed within it. If this were the case then information would not be lost in a black hole but would be returned to the quantum foam using the method of entanglement. I think there must be some correlation to the number of blackholes and the level of instability in the quantum foam. These statements are based on my hypotheses and using my understanding of quantum theory.

I think it is likely that any matter that falls into a large black hole is broken down to it's fundamental constituencies and reintroduced to it's antiparticle partner, and then radiated away as a gamma ray jet at right angles to the accretion disc of the black hole.

It is my opinion that this process also happens in the the vacuum of space with quantum sized black holes which produce the CMB radiation, and is why it is so thermally smooth all around us. In another thread I suggested that if the antiparticle in a meson remained in superposition then it could not be annihilated. One particle contributes to normal matter while the other remains as a field of negative mass spread out over the universe... Dark energy?

[DarkStar7]

jim al khalili said in a recent BBC documentary 'Everything and Nothing' That the quantum uncertainty principle causes nothing to be full of energy. In my line of thinking I can explain why. If we mean by 'nothing' an infinitesimal small point of no size.Well I can't imagine that, but I can imagine an infinitesimal small point.

Let's do a thought experiment. This point still has size.So let's shrink this point to try and get rid of it.What ever we do we still have a point.So let's keep shrinking it... In order to get as close to nothing as possible we have to continuously move to smaller scales. If we imagine scale as a direction and imagine this point moving away from us then to get it a small as possible it has accelerate. This is momentum, this is energy! Nothing has infinite energy! Applying the rules of relativity then accelerating a point towards the infinitely small is bounded by a limit to momentum, the speed of light. You can't have infinite momentum towards the very small and hence you can't have nothing. Nearly nothing contains an almost limitless amount of energy, but it's not infinite.

Nearly nothing = nearly infinite energy.

Nearly infinite size= nearly zero energy.

Inflation is supposed to surpass the momentum limit of light. This is impossible because quantum foam would be too flat, zero energy! All momentum in all directions has it's limit. Without the limit of light the universe would not be in equilibrium.

My theory is in equilibrium. Every particle is born from the quantum foam along with it's antiparticle partner. If the antiparticle remains in superposition then there is a direct relationship between the amount of mass out there and the expansion rate of the universe.The universe is in perfect balance in my theory and has to exist because of the limit to momentum.

Please please can someone check for a relationship between size of galaxies and expansion rate of the universe at different distances to test my theory. I'm a good thinker but need help in getting my ideas tested.

[NeutrinoWave]

jim al khalili said in a recent BBC documentary 'Everything and Nothing' That the quantum uncertainty principle causes nothing to be full of energy. In my line of thinking I can explain why. If we mean by 'nothing' an infinitesimal small point of no size.Well I can't imagine that, but I can imagine an infinitesimal small point.

Let's do a thought experiment. This point still has size.So let's shrink this point to try and get rid of it.What ever we do we still have a point.So let's keep shrinking it... In order to get as close to nothing as possible we have to continuously move to smaller scales. If we imagine scale as a direction and imagine this point moving away from us then to get it a small as possible it has accelerate. This is momentum, this is energy! Nothing has infinite energy! Applying the rules of relativity then accelerating a point towards the infinitely small is bounded by a limit to momentum, the speed of light. You can't have infinite momentum towards the very small and hence you can't have nothing. Nearly nothing contains an almost limitless amount of energy, but it's not infinite.

Nearly nothing = nearly infinite energy.

Nearly infinite size= nearly zero energy.

Inflation is supposed to surpass the momentum limit of light. This is impossible because quantum foam would be too flat, zero energy! All momentum in all directions has it's limit. Without the limit of light the universe would not be in equilibrium.

My theory is in equilibrium. Every particle is born from the quantum foam along with it's antiparticle partner. If the antiparticle remains in superposition then there is a direct relationship between the amount of mass out there and the expansion rate of the universe.The universe is in perfect balance in my theory and has to exist because of the limit to momentum.

Please please can someone check for a relationship between size of galaxies and expansion rate of the universe at different distances to test my theory. I'm a good thinker but need help in getting my ideas tested.

Like your abstract thinking ... however

Like to see some more units ie Planck Scale, String Scale etc in your thought and the vision of the topology of the underlying structure of space time as you approach nothingness.

ie

[1] Approaching Quantum Foam level

[2] At Quantum Foam level

[3] Beyond Quantum Foam level (are there any units for this?)

Philosophical discussion is nice, but even better if supported by tangible and quantifiable units

[DarkStar7]

Expansion rate is in perfect balance to all the mass within it. Blackholes get bigger or more numerous. Try to imagine the universe to be of fixed size and we the observers are shrinking within it and you might get the idea, which is mathematically equivalent.

[DarkStar7]

Ignore this post.. Error

[DarkStar7]

The plank limit is more the limit to acceleration (in direction of scale)rather than a specific level. If a star collapsed on itself it would shrink and is does so it's angular momentum, it's spin rate increases. There is a maximum limit to this at the boundary of the ergoshere where the spin rate is the speed of light.Inside this the laws of nature seem inverted.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole

The quantum foam is formed of many of these at the plank limit. These blackholes literally turns spacetime inside out on itself particles antiparticles can exchange roles, mass combined with its antiparticle partner is converted into pure gamma ray energy, light. Mass is converted to negative mass and forms a magnetic field spread out everywhere in a superposition state.