The Alternative to the Big Bang

[DarkStar7]

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.

Can you give me evidence to the contrary? Yes it is speculation, but we are still waiting for evidence either way. Very difficult to measure antigravity.

It is allowed theoretically from Dirac's Equation.

[Marmite]

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

'The Law of making up **** about things you do not understand in the mistaken belief that it will bamboozle and impress your opponents'.

I think you'll have to produce considerable evidence for this.

Good luck with that.

[DarkStar7]

Or your too thick marmite.

[JulianO]

Can you give me evidence to the contrary? Yes it is speculation, but we are still waiting for evidence either way. Very difficult to measure antigravity.

It is allowed theoretically from Dirac's Equation.

They make anti-protons every day in CERN. Keeping them apart is the trick. No one is waiting for evidence, they can prove it every day.

[DarkStar7]

I think it is very difficult to measure whether a mass is positive or negative at this level. Besides in a particle accelerator they probably can only produce positive mass ones. Doesn't mean they do not exist in space. Dirac equation predicts it. Are you scared or negative energy lol. I thought that is the property dark energy requires.

[JulianO]

If it was so easy to measure gravity at this level,don't you think we would have the answer to why particles have mass.

No - because you are confusing measuring an effect with explaining it.

Its easy to measure electricity with a voltmeter, but that doesn't answer why it has charge.

You can measure the inflation rate pretty easily, explaining it is much harder.

I can measure the radius and circumference of a circle and find they are always in a ratio. Explaining why this is pi and what pi is, is again much harder.

[DarkStar7]

That's why I edited it. Yes it didn't sound right. I'll give you credit when it is due.

[DarkStar7]

Although this has been great fun. This old man has got get some sleep as I've got to go work tomorrow.

Sorry to offend you Marmite. I prefer to have my Marmite thick mmm

[ScubaMike]

negative mass and positive mass annihilation is not hot

Again the "negative mass". You have yet to prove negative mass is anything more than a convenient mathematical construction, let alone what it's annihalation would look like. Mutual annihalation of particles and anti-particles as observed and measured emits hot radiation.

How do you explain your "non-hot" radiation?

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.

Can you give me evidence to the contrary? Yes it is speculation, but we are still waiting for evidence either way. Very difficult to measure antigravity.

It is allowed theoretically from Dirac's Equation.

What is allowed? Anti-gravity?

Even if is is allowed, and actually exists in the real world, it has no bearing. The electromagnectic force is far, far stronger and would overcome gravity unless the particles are created at vast distances.

Unless you are now suggesting that gravity at the particle level is a stronger force than gravity at the particle level.

You are missing the point.

You are putting the theory/hypothisis forward, it is you that needs to provide the observational evidence to support your argument.

Saying that it is theoretically allowed is not evidence.

I am still waiting for your evidence that angular momentum gets smaller in breach of the law of conservation of angular momentum. I have posted this several times and only had one response ridiculing the question with an analogy of a spinning skater pulling their arms in. That is an explaination of the law, not how you believe it gets broken.

The problem is that your arguments have little empirical evidence to support them. In fact empirical evident points the other way.

Your "proof" as supplied when asked, depends on further theoretically unproven "facts".

[DarkStar7]

Doesn't the length of the Before the Big Bang thread show that the very concept is fundermentally flawed and flies in the face of the most basic rule in Science... The law of Thermodynamics.

Perhaps this could be explained on that thread in detail... I'm all ears guys.

Oh give it up Scubie I've answered your question regarding annihalation. You prove my above statement with empirical evidence please.

[Marmite]

This old man has got get some sleep

By "This old man..." you really mean "This schoolboy troll...".

[ScubaMike]

Oh give it up Scubie I've answered your question regarding annihalation. You prove my above statement with empirical evidence please.

If you refer to me, please use the complete name unchanged. You would probably not like it if I started calling you "Dumbster7" would you? so either use my forum name in full, or not at all.

I don't have to prove anything, I'm not proposing a wild hypothisis, you are, therefore you have to provide the proof. Its the way it has worked for centuries, it won't change because you want it to.

If you can't prove your statements, you should admit there are flaws instead of just constantly spouting the same things and ignoring questions.

However many times you ignore my questions and then claim to have answered them, you have not answered my specific questions.

Please explain again how you break the law of conservation of angular momentum, explain again how *your* mutual annihalation produces radiation vastly different to that observed in the universe everyone else is living in.

I keep listing the questions, you keep ignoring them. Great way to *prove* your theory. Answer those questions where you feel the answer supports your case, and ignore those that don't.

[JulianO]

I think it is very difficult to measure whether a mass is positive or negative at this level. Besides in a particle accelerator they probably can only produce positive mass ones.

If they produce anti-protons with negative mass (whatever that is), then they aren't anti-protons. They'll have made something else. Its like saying I've made a female man, or a cow made of bananas.

I've no idea how you detect negative mass, if indeed it is anything other than a thought idea. Does it have anti-gravity properties? anti-inertia? anti-energy? Who knows until we find some.

[Macavity]

Lest we stand accused of "religious adherence" to the Big Bang theory, <G> there are also (in addition to stuff previously mentioned) works by Andrei Linde. And no, I don't "understand" it. LOL. But again (like the Hawking film) it seems to illustrate, for better or worse, how science is done...

Aside: Darkstar, I sense you have been modestly "ill-used" here - You may feel you "need no steenkin' friends", but you will lose your remaining audience, if you refuse well-meant advice too. The half-page manifestos in resonse to a three-line "merry quip"? Moreover, quoting Wikipedia links to the "Dirac Equation" etc., may not help your cause...

P.S. Personally, I would like a better (hand-waving) understanding of "Virtual Particles". If the vacuum manifests very UNSTABLE, short-lived particles, at some level, could they decay, before they mutually annihilate, without some external agency putting them "on mass shell" (or something) --- Julian.O? Heck, I'd ask Brian Cox, but I'd probably have to go via his *agent*...

P.P.S. Could the "rationalists" not get the thread closed - Have the last (cuss) word, before it becomes (despite my similar prejudices) vaguely interesting? Just an ex-scientists minor indulgence on this one!

[ncjunk]

P.S. Personally, I would like a better (hand-waving) understanding of "Virtual Particles". If the vacuum manifests very UNSTABLE, short-lived particles, at some level, could they decay, before they mutually annihilate, without some external agency putting them "on mass shell" (or something) --- Julian.O? Heck, I'd ask Brian Cox, but I'd probably have to go via his *agent*...

You can always ask Brian Cox ask via twitter he replies to some (I got a reply after telling him to get a shift on with the new book as I wanted to read it) but a reply of only 140 characters may not be sufficient!

I hope this thread can remain active as I am finding it enjoyable so I am hoping all the replies can remain objective even if the replies aren´t what you had hoped for. I know it´s difficult to remain objective if you don´t agree with something but if you feel so strongly that you can´t remain objective time to move onto another thread.

Now back to the Hawking video!

[JulianO]

Virtual particles exist by a slight of hand. You're not suppose to be able violate energy conservation, but you sort of can if you do it very quickly whilst no one notices.

It starts with heisenbergs uncertainty principle which says you can't know the position AND the momentum of a particle precisely, no matter how good your measuring equipment is. The uncertainy in the two combine to be less than a constant. Its like a pair of scale, you can make one more certain at the expense of the other. if you want to know precisely how fast it is moving you can find this out very accurately but only at the expense of no longer knowing where it is, or vice versa.

It turns out that you can swap position and momentum for time and energy. You can not know the energy of something for a very short time, or vice versa.

This comes out in some real examples - for example a neutron decays into a proton and electron. It does this via the intermediate W- particle, for which the books don't balance. The W is huge and so things don't add up in terms of the energy balance, but it only exists for a tiny tiny fraction of a second (billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second) and then decays to an electron and anti-neutrino. The books balance again and everyones happy. This W is a virtual particle.

This process can be extended to stuff just popping out of existence. Borrow energy for a short time, and pay it back again. In this case it has to be pairs of particles - usually electrons and positrons as they're cheapest to make and preserve charge and other quantities, and then they cancel out as they annihilate paying back the energy. You could do this with bigger particles for shorter times, and its possible they might decay in the meantime, but as everything has to balance it would all even out, the decay products would annihilate. Say for instance a muon/anti-muon pair created, they decay into electron/positrons and then would annihilate themselves. I suspect in this case as muons have quite a long half life, and need to borrow lots of energy they wouldn't have time to decay.

This is all at a fairly simplistic level, as that's all I can understand! The real answers lie in the mathematics of the whole thing, and analogies with quantum mechanics tend to break if pushed too far.

[Macavity]

You could do this with bigger particles for shorter times, and its possible they might decay in the meantime, but as everything has to balance it would all even out, the decay products would annihilate.

I suspect that's it. Even if, the most ephemeral, unlikely... virtual top quark, anti-quark pairs were to materialise, decay (rapidly, without "hadronisation", whatever!) the FINAL products would eventually repay outstanding energies back to the vacuum.

This is all at a fairly simplistic level, as that's all I can understand!

You and me both. Heheh.

But interesting that there do seem to be (unrefuted, current) mechanisms, by which the universe seems neither to need a defined start time - or an end time? That I didn't know.

Randomly: "Runaway Universe" May Collapse In 10 Billion Years, New Studies Predict

[DarkStar7]

Macavity, Juliano ScubaMike

Macavity,

Thank you for calming things down a bit. I apologies for my behaviour,... One of my failings. Any one expressing an alternative view is bound to expect the wrath of all those with an established view to be thrown to the lions. Perhaps I am a looney with a silly idea. I don't know? The probability is I am a lone nut. True science never expresses a belief. All theories and hypothesis should be challenged and scrutinised from Einsteins to my silly posts.Science looks for the truth, but it should be unattainable. Science is about weeding out all ideas which do not agree with observation. Again I apologise for being disrespectful,I truelly wish my hypothesis to be attacked professionally and not personally. I hate negative mass and energy, some of the posts have truelly made me think. I need to prove to myself that I am not a lone looney so please guys attack my hypothesis, but agree to keep personal bias prejudice away from the thread. ScubaMike I have failed to answer some of your questions.I again apologise. It wasn't through avoiding them, it because I am a novice in this forum medium and can only cope with one question at a time. Let's have a fresh start.My hypothesis is here to test myself not to convince others. I have no aspirations for greater things. Just a better understanding of nature. I couldn't cope with the avalanche of questions in one go, and after rubbing people up the wrong way after feeling under attack I behaved like a yapping puppy. To be attacked for not totally agreeing with the big bang theory is to be expected though. Let's keep emotions out of these posts. Juliano I liked reading your last post and as I said hate negative energy. But doesn't the property of dark energy require it?

[DarkStar7]

Statement 1

The Universe started at a specific moment in time.

The ' before ' problem and the fact it disagrees with the laws of thermodynamics means this statement is:

False

Statement 2

The Universe was always here

It is well known by everyone here that the universe is not in a steady state as this statement would require.It fails observation.This statement is;

False

Statement 3

The universe is cyclic.

This statement is;

False

This is because it requires statement 1 followed by statement 2

My hypothesis states this:

The universe creates and destroys itself simultaneously at the same time within itself.

Yin Yang

If we use reverse logic and start the big bang there is no reason why the process should of stopped. We would be within the big bang now. Anyhow the current model disagrees with the laws thermodynamics.

Stephen hawking has had trouble convincing people that information is lost in a black hole. The information paradox. What was found was the idea did not agree with the rules of thermodynamics.

Big bang model + Blackhole model = Darkstar7 hypothesis

The universe creates and destroys itself at the same time everywhere within itself.It is a system that has a feedback mechanism.

If we interlace the two ideas of big bang and blackholes together I think we get a better discription of our universe.

Observation says it expands,yes it does, but so must the size or quantity of blackholes within it too.The universe must be in balance.

One last thing do you remember the arguements between the field theorists and the particle theorists when describing light in the ultraviolet. The ultraviolet catastrophe. The particles prevented a run away effect.

My hypothesis uses a similar mechanism. The blackholes control the runaway effect of the big bang. They also provide it with energy, for I think the singularity and the quantum foam are intrinsically connected together.

I think the instabilities within the quantum uncertainty principle are bound up with this process also.

[Marmite]

The Universe started at a specific moment in time.

If the Big Bang as a theory is correct (and the evidence appears to support it), time as we think we understand it began with the Big Bang.

It is well known by everyone here that the universe is not in a steady state as this statement would require.

There are people who would disagree with you.

The universe is cyclic. This statement is false

Really. It's good to know that someone has been around long enough to be able to tell us that the Universe isn't cyclic. How big is your pension?

The rest of your post is just more drivel, so I'm not even going to waste my time laughing at it.

[DarkStar7]

Marmite,

You are very welcome to disagree with me. Personality clashes beween us is conterproductive. Surely it is better to ignore my posts if you have nothing constructive to offer. Please attack vigorously my hypothesis with scientific factual information. I am by no means an intelligent person, but my isolated observations of nature seems to allow me to see patterns in the natural world,that other people do not seem to see.

You may be right perhaps I am a looney troll, but until my hypothesis is challenged scientifically step by step, how am I supposed to find out. I make mistakes, but mistakes and errors of judgement are not all bad.. so much as you learn by them.

[DarkStar7]

I suspect that's it. Even if, the most ephemeral, unlikely... virtual top quark, anti-quark pairs were to materialise, decay (rapidly, without "hadronisation", whatever!) the FINAL products would eventually repay outstanding energies back to the vacuum.

You and me both. Heheh.

But interesting that there do seem to be (unrefuted, current) mechanisms, by which the universe seems neither to need a defined start time - or an end time? That I didn't know.

Randomly: "Runaway Universe" May Collapse In 10 Billion Years, New Studies Predict

Juliano, and McCavity,

1.Can we buy the energy from the vacuum as in the big bang theory ie from a quantum singularity in the quantum foam.

2.When paying the energy back would it have a blackbody radiation spectrum, and what would it look like observationally?

3.Is this a practical mechanism for trying to solve Stephen Hawkings information paradox?

4.Theoretically, off the record, what effect would my suggestion have on the horizon problem in big bang theory?

To me the current big bang model appears unstable and seems to contradict the rules of thermodynamics at its beginning. The runaway effect in 10billion years is another example of this, an example of an unstable system. Am right to take that view?

Juliano, I apologies for my conduct and respectfully await a your professional reply.

[JulianO]

Juliano, and McCavity,

1.Can we buy the energy from the vacuum as in the big bang theory ie from a quantum singularity in the quantum foam.

I don't know - I suspect not. It has to be repaid, but I seem to recall some theorists using this approach. Its beyond my ability to contribute though.

2.When paying the energy back would it have a blackbody radiation spectrum, and what would it look like observationally?

No - the idea is you pay it all back. So you borrow 10 units of energy, the universe is down -10. You pay it back, and its back to 0. There is nothing left over to radiate any energy. At least that's my understanding. Its like saying I borrow £10 from the bank, and then pay it back, I have nothing left to spend on advertising!

3.Is this a practical mechanism for trying to solve Stephen Hawkings information paradox?

No idea - but I bet he's thought about it.

4.Theoretically, off the record, what effect would my suggestion have on the horizon problem in big bang theory?

I'm not sure I understand it enough to comment. The horizon problem needs everything to be about the same - which is either by being ion close contact, or something else that makes it all the same.

To me the current big bang model appears unstable and seems to contradict the rules of thermodynamics at its beginning. The runaway effect in 10billion years is another example of this, an example of an unstable system. Am right to take that view?

Well the current laws of physics all collapse in a heap at the big bang, so thermodynamics is only one of a host of issues with it.

Can you explain about the 10 billion year runaway affect, I'm not familiar with it.

[DarkStar7]

Thanks Juliano,

The 10billion year runaway link was posted by MaCavity. I don't know enough about it.. But apparently the whole universe is doomed.

I blame the bankers, lol

[Marmite]

Marmite,

You are very welcome to disagree with me.

Thanks ever so much.

Personality clashes beween us is conterproductive.

This has nothing to do with "personality"

Surely it is better to ignore my posts if you have nothing constructive to offer.

First, large scale spamming is hard to ignore, and second, most everyone here has explained your errors to you.

Please attack vigorously my hypothesis with scientific factual information.

You mean the way we have been? You know, all those highly specific replies you continue to ignore?

I am by no means an intelligent person, but my isolated observations of nature seems to allow me to see patterns in the natural world,that other people do not seem to see.

You and Percival Lowell would have got on well.

You may be right perhaps I am a looney troll...

"May"?

...but until my hypothesis is challenged scientifically step by step, how am I supposed to find out.

"You mean the way we have been? You know, all those highly specific replies you continue to ignore?"

I make mistakes, but mistakes and errors of judgement are not all bad.. so much as you learn by them.

That would mean something if you weren't merely trolling.