The Alternative to the Big Bang

[NeutrinoWave]

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.

Rotating black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The awe of science :-)

[Marmite]

The awfulness of pseudoscience :-(

[ScubaMike]

If a star collapsed on itself it would shrink and is does so it's angular momentum, it's spin rate increases.

So, the law of conservation of angular momentum does not hold in this universe?

Please provide the proof of this as it seems that your statement is contrary to empirical evidence.

[DarkStar7]

So, the law of conservation of angular momentum does not hold in this universe?

Please provide the proof of this as it seems that your statement is contrary to empirical evidence.

Sorry, I thought I was quoting conservation of momentum.

Perhaps you have an alternative understanding of the concept.

[DarkStar7]

The awfulness of pseudoscience :-(

Do you understand the meaning of the word?

I am quite clear that I express my views as a hypothesis.

pseu·do·sci·ence/ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/

Noun:A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

hy·poth·e·sis(h-pth-ss)

n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz) 1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

What is the purpose of this forum? Is it to debate only one narrow view of scientific conjecture? Sounds... really exciting...

ok.. lets start debate;

Big band Theory is 100% Correct

Inflation 100% correct. Yep Theory of everything good enough

No need to discuss anything further.... End of Subject.. Right riviting discusion cheers... now off down the pub. lol

[Marmite]

Good grief, are you just making this rubbish up as you go along?

[DarkStar7]

Good grief, are you just making this rubbish up as you go along?

Grow up. If you are incapable of having a proper scientific debate then don't bother replying to my posts. Obviously you can not fault my hypothesis or you wouldn't get so personal. Got back to school and learn something.

[ScubaMike]

If a star collapsed on itself it would shrink and is does so it's angular momentum,

So, the law of conservation of angular momentum does not hold in this universe?

Please provide the proof of this as it seems that your statement is contrary to empirical evidence.

Sorry, I thought I was quoting conservation of momentum.

Perhaps you have an alternative understanding of the concept.

You may have thought you were quoting momentum, but you certainly typed angular momentum.

Perhaps you have a different understanding of English to the rest of the population?

But of course, you will find a quote from Dr Jim, or Wikipedia which will prove that the other 50 Million inhabitants of the UK are wrong and the "angular" you type is silent due to negative quantum superpostioned foam, and you are right.

You try to blind with science, using words as smoke & mirrors. You quote selectively, then ignore questions where you are asked for clear and simplistic explainations. You deflect from questions which you cannot answer, You rubbish others opinions whilst extoling your own.

Please.... If your ideas are so ground breaking and radical, if they would hold up to scrutiny, most of all, if they are original and not just re-hashed trash sci-fi, write them down and send for peer review or proper scrutiny by people who understand the mathematics instead of trying to impress members of a forum.

I would love to put my real thoughts, but as this is a family orientated forum, with ladies & children reading, I will refrain.

[Marmite]

Obviously you can not fault my hypothesis or you wouldn't get so personal.

Well let's see. All you're doing is taking various PopSci concepts out of context and then tossing in other mangled and completely irrelevant concepts and hoping they sound scientific.

Got back to school and learn something.

I'm at school all day as it is. A break from it would be nice. On the other hand, you should probably take a break from reading 'Popular Bong' magazine all day.

[Macavity]

Crikey, guys - Noone DIED? I'd prefer to illustrate it with an example:

Hawking (5/9) - YouTube

This seems a more LIKELY way that "revolutionary" theories develop?

I think both the media AND latterly popular science are guilty of projecting the idea that theories are developed and debated in the total absence of mathematics. I remember a cartoon stuck to the door of a leading mid-80's CERN physicist, captioned: "Theorists settle a dispute". It showed two SUMO wrestlers. LOL. Oh to return to the days where the internet was still in the hands of a few. People still had a sense of humour etc.

[DarkStar7]

Einstein used thought experiments that's where good ideas come from.

If you let me know specifically which part of the hypothesis you require mathematic formulae for I'm quite happy to quote some.

The Dirac equation is a good one. It shows that negative energy is mathematically possible. Or how about one for conservation of energy and quoting the laws of thermodynamics.

For example, if as most of you would believe that only positive masses are possible then the vacuum energy within the void of space would not cancel. The antimatter and matter virtual particles would annihilate everywhere and make the night sky light up like a nuclear explosion .Indeed if it did light up the sky, it would, along with the big bang model violate the basic laws of thermodynamics. Without dark energy the entire universe would not cancel to zero. We have to have dark energy to balance the matter. Energy can not be made or destroyed. Not unless it is balanced by negative energy.The Dirac equation allows for this.

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

Ok mathematics is not my strong point,but I understand the concept of energy conservation. My complete hypothesis serves to show a possible mechanism for this. Matter and antimatter produced in equal amounts which eventually via blackholes returns back to the quantum foam for a new cycle. A continual process rather than a specific one of event 13.7billion yrs ago. It has all the best parts of the big bang theory, but it is dynamic simple, elegant. And does not need faster than light inflation. It has no problem with the horizon problem of the CMBR. I can also make prediction that can be tested.

The problem in science today is that it is treated like a religion. The big bang theory is not allowed to be criticised at all. Perhaps its because those in a certain country like things that go BANG! Is that the view of the standard model of big bang has been held for so long.Or is the scientific method tarnished by those who control the funding.Anyway whether what I say is a load of sh*** doesn't matter because more people will ask more difficult questions as the more observations are made.

So I have no friends on this site. Never mind. I know how Galileo felt lol. Nature is on my side. It's all there if you look hard enough and think, and have an open mind.

[Marmite]

With all the sites and forums out there for raving lunatics and people who do not want to understand even the most basic of science concepts and facts, why do you have to come here and waste our time?

[JulianO]

The Dirac equation is a good one. It shows that negative energy is mathematically possible. Or how about one for conservation of energy and quoting the laws of thermodynamics.

Lots of things are mathematically possible, but not real. Take negative numbers, mathematically I can have negative money (I sometimes do!) but it doesn't mean I can hold a negative pound coin in my hand, or a negative egg, or a negative lump of cheese. Its a very useful mathematical concept, but there is no real life object that represents negative cheese/

For example, if as most of you would believe that only positive masses are possible then the vacuum energy within the void of space would not cancel. The antimatter and matter virtual particles would annihilate everywhere and make the night sky light up like a nuclear explosion .

They don't though, they appear in pairs and then cancel each other out again. It takes energy/mass to make them, and they give back that energy/mass when they disappear.

The problem in science today is that it is treated like a religion. The big bang theory is not allowed to be criticised at all.

People criticise it all the time, there are plenty of people criticising it. Look up the ekpyrotic universe for instance. It removes inflation - a very well supported concept and removes a lot of the single point big bang. There is a very good book on it. However it has a solid mathematical underpinning, has been published and subject to peer review and all that jazz. Its not well supported at present as there needs to be more evidence to support it.

String theory is an undermining of conventional quantum mechanics. Another "holy cow" being overturned. Theories are being overturned every day, but using the scientific method and subject to peer review.

[DarkStar7]

You may have thought you were quoting momentum, but you certainly typed angular momentum.

My understanding of conservation of angular momentum is for example when a spinning skater pulls in their arms they spin up.

What's the problem? What's your problem?

No.. Don't answer. Don't bother mate, as your clearly upset about something. Don't want you having a Sean Connery lol

[ncjunk]

The problem is that most regular people are bombarded with the big bang theory as if it is the definitive answer to how the universe is formed. They then take it as basic fact that it has happened with an inability to argue out its finer points and no detailed knowledge. (i am a case in point i have no knowledge of the mathematical under pinnings)

So, for me at least, it becomes difficult when someone challenges that but i lack the knowledge to make a decent fist of the argument.

Threads like this make you think at least, thats got to be good.

[ScubaMike]

If you let me know specifically which part of the hypothesis you require mathematic formulae for I'm quite happy to quote some.

I asked previously, you conveniently ignored my requests for explaination of each point in turn, instead going into some monologue about how Dr Jim said this, and quantum foam represented that.

For example, if as most of you would believe that only positive masses are possible then the vacuum energy within the void of space would not cancel.

You mention vacuum energy as if it is a proven fact. It is conjecture that you proceed to try to build an argument upon.

Start with proven facts, not hypothetical mathematical models.

Ok mathematics is not my strong point,but I understand the concept of energy conservation.

But you appear not to understand conservation of angular momentum, have you conveniently forgotten to answer my previous question? Again you ignore those questions that you feel don't support your argument.

I know how Galileo felt lol. Nature is on my side. It's all there if you look hard enough and think, and have an open mind.

No you don't. Galileo was a genius, a persecuted genius. You are nothing of the kind.

I take your intimation that if I cannot understand your ramblings, I am somehow thick as a direct insult.

Your delusions of grandeur suggest to me that you should really take a hard look at yourself, and wake up to the fact that you are just another anonymous member of an online forum.

You have spectacularly failed to impress me. You appear not to understand a scientific approach, and ignore those observations that contradict your "hypothesis". Sounds like cold fusion all over again.

As has been said before, find some University professors that will listen to you, and explain your theories to them.

However, give them some seriously strong drugs first if you don't want them to laugh.

[ScubaMike]

You may have thought you were quoting momentum, but you certainly typed angular momentum.

My understanding of conservation of angular momentum is for example when a spinning skater pulls in their arms they spin up.

What's the problem? What's your problem?

No.. Don't answer. Don't bother mate, as your clearly upset about something. Don't want you having a Sean Connery lol

Stop selectively quoting me.

Your original post stated that the angular momentum would shrink. That to me indicates yet another serious shortcoming in your understanding of basic scientific principles.

Please don't call me "mate", I object to your condescending tone.

Now, go away and think up some more technical sounding phrases and stitch them together in another pile of pseudo-science.

[DarkStar7]

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 ...

What is seen depends on what rate of time you choose to observe the void. The uncertainty principle says that any energy borrowed from the void has to given back in a certain amount of time. If time is slowed then we can observe greater energies both positive an negative. At a faster rate of time in flat space we would appear neutral. But particles produced that are sufficiently massive such as the Top Quark would be so unstable that it would decay quicker than it could annihilate with its antiparticle companion. The weak force would allow for a zoo of particles and antiparticles to be flung out in all directions. This process could happen at such a rate that protons and antiprotons would be build up and be distributed in such a way that the mass of each opposing particle would prevent annihilation due to opposing gravitational forces. As more particles are produced neutral negative energy space would expand outwards with high energy sub atomic particles zipping all over the place. Eventually most particles would decay to the Proton and Electron. Antiparticles would decay and remain in a superposition state.. The Dark energy which gradually accelerates as more particle condense out of the void. Well... Thats what I think.

[DarkStar7]

Scuba mike,

The feeling is quite mutual and unnecessary.I too was offended by your tone and others on this site. Vacuum energy is a proven fact. One example is the Casimir Effect.

You twist and distort my comments in an aggressive and thoughtless manner. If I come over as over bearing and condescending then so do you. Quotes about Galileo are tongue in cheek. But what is a genius,Is is someone who can see things where most others can't? Galileo was not considered a genius in his day. He was persecuted by people like you with a closed mind to new ideas.

[ScubaMike]

He was persecuted by people like you with a closed mind to new ideas.

My mind is not closed, it's just I can smell snake oil at 100 miles.

[DarkStar7]

Scuba mike

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?

A particle can have a huge amount of energy if balanced by negative energy of its partner

Scuba mike

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.

The quantum foam is somewhat different to what goes on in a particle accelerator. The void is in balance with on average to zero energy.Any excess energy without negative energy would go against the law if thermo dynamics. Energy and Negative energy = 0

In a particle accelerator the momentum of the particle contributes to the energy seen. What goes in must come out. Rem energy conservation.

Scuba mike

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

When very massive particle forms it may decay quicker than it can annihilate with its anti particle partner. The different mass particles produced will do there very best to return to the original state of complete annihilation, but it may take along time depending on the process. Why particles remain in the void and are being continually produced the universe expands. One method of the particles returning back to the void is through blackholes.

[ScubaMike]

I have taken the liberty of correctly formatting this section.

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?

A particle can have a huge amount of energy if balanced by negative energy of its partner

So now we have two particles of nearly infinate energy? The "standard" particle, and, an as yet undetected "negative energy" particle.

I asked how a particle can have a nearly infinate amount of energy and you answer by saying there is another particle of the same amount but negative energy.

How does that answer my question?

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.

The quantum foam is somewhat different to what goes on in a particle accelerator. The void is in balance with on average to zero energy.Any excess energy without negative energy would go against the law if thermo dynamics. Energy and Negative energy = 0

In a particle accelerator the momentum of the particle contributes to the energy seen. What goes in must come out. Rem energy conservation.

So energy is 0? what happened to the "Vacuum energy?

Again, your "answer" does not address my question. Why is the energy from all these mutual annihalations not hot?

I didn't mention particle accelerators, why is reference to this now in your answer?

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

When very massive particle forms it may decay quicker than it can annihilate with its anti particle partner. The different mass particles produced will do there very best to return to the original state, but it takes along time. Until it forms or falls into a black hole.

So some of the anti-particles decay? into what? regardless of what they decay into, be it "anti-quarks" or something akin to that, they would still mutually annihalate with their normal particle pairing.

Why does the mutual annihalation take a very long time?

Why have you brought black holes into the discussion? You said this was happening all around us, not just around black holes.

Again, where does the interstellar hydrogen come from?

[DarkStar7]

I have taken the liberty of correctly formatting this section.

So now we have two particles of nearly infinate energy? The "standard" particle, and, an as yet undetected "negative energy" particle.

I asked how a particle can have a nearly infinate amount of energy and you answer by saying there is another particle of the same amount but negative energy.

How does that answer my question?

So energy is 0? what happened to the "Vacuum energy?

Again, your "answer" does not address my question. Why is the energy from all these mutual annihalations not hot?

I didn't mention particle accelerators, why is reference to this now in your answer?

The quantum foam is a fluctuating void of virtual particle that average out to on average nothing. Depending on the mass of the particles produced and how quick they decay effects this. Sometimes two positive energy particles do not have time to annihilate producing if you like a little bang in the void. There is your matter particles, your CMBR and your dark energy.Is that any clearer? If you understand big bang theory the process is not too dissimilar.negative mass and positive mass annihilation is not hot

Why does the mutual annihalation take a very long time?

Because large distributions of protons and antiprotons repel.

Why have you brought black holes into the discussion? You said this was happening all around us, not just around black holes.

Because mass accumulates over time. That Supermassive blackhole in the centre of our galaxy will get bigger. Blackholes are necessary to return particles such as protons back to the void

Again, where does the interstellar hydrogen come from?

Protons are a an extremely stable particle. The proton does not decay so it slowly has to get through the Stella nuclear synthesis process.

[Marmite]

The proton does not decay so it slowly has to got through the Stella nuclear synthesis process.

Ahh, those nutty Kowalskis!

[JulianO]

Because large distributions of protons and antiprotons repel.

Under what laws does this happen?????? :)

They are oppositely charged so attract each other. The also gravitationally attract (although far less strongly) . I think you'll have to produce considerable evidence for this.