MarcUK rewrites inflationary theory!
I have been thinking about a few cosmological problems in the standard theory, and came up with this. The 2 major problems I've considered are the entropy/time direction theory, and the problem that some recent measurements of the age of the universe measure it to 8 billion years old, while clearly some of the oldest stars are measuring 13+ billion years old Which is why we believe the universe to be 15.2 billion years old.
Briefly, what this graphic shows - note it isn't to scale!
in red, this is the current explantion of how the universe evolved after the big bang, using current inflationary theory, which is backed up with some pretty good experimental evidence giving us very good reason to believe that this model is largely correct. Note that in this model, time runs forwards from the big bang expansion point (singularity)
in light blue, we have my modified alternative to the standard inflationary theory
and in solid green/blue we have the projected age of the universe in 'absolute' time.
What I propose, is that after the big bang, time runs backwards for a while! This is not too crazy IF (this is the predictive element of my hypothesis) the passage or direction of time and entropy IS EXPLICITLY related to the forces of gravity.
Currently science knows that gravity ISN'T always an attractive force. In the early stages after the big bang, gravity was a repelling force for some time.
I am suggesting the the 'polarity' of gravity dictates which direction time will appear to flow - and this has consequences for understanding entropy. When Gravity is a repellant, time will flow backwards and entropy will decrease, and when gravity is attractive, time will flow forwards and entropy will increase (as we know it from the universe as it is currently).
After the big-bang, gravity was repellant, so the universe expanded in negative time under the influence of this repellant force. A by-product of this is that entropy decreases and 'flattens' the universe so that in all directions the universe looks the same , a possible solution to the 'horizon' problem - as confirmed by the COBE data and requiring the 'current rapid inflation theory' to explain. The universe continues to expand in negative time until the force of gravity flips to be an attractive force - But at this point we are still in negative time from the big-bang - so time has to flow forwards somewhat to re-reach the zero-time of the singularity - while this happens, as entropy is increasing, stars and galaxies begin to form simply from the jitteryness of the quantum fluctuations, so that by the time we have reached - in the current model - the period when rapid inflation ends, we have achieved the same size of universe. - But we have done this without rapid inflation. So a problem is solved in not having to discover a reason or force for this era of exponential expansion. It is all possible using known forces.
By looking to Absolute time - the negative time and positive time added together to give a result only in the positive, we see that the measurements of the universe's age can infact be 8 billion years old - so as not to conflict the 'odd' measurements, but that stars and galaxies have in actually, had the 15.2 billion years to form as we currently measure them.
*We have also solved the 'flatness' and 'horizon' problems without needing 'rapid inflation'
*We see that we have a viable explanation of why we always see entropy increasing in the current universe
*We reconsile the conflicting measurements of the age of the universe against the age of stars
*We have resolved the need to discover a new force that explains how the universe 'inflated rapidly'
*We can make a prediction and falsify the hypothesis, if we can discover if the direction of time flow is explicitly related the the 'polarity' of the force of gravity.
Anyone like to comment?
Briefly, what this graphic shows - note it isn't to scale!
in red, this is the current explantion of how the universe evolved after the big bang, using current inflationary theory, which is backed up with some pretty good experimental evidence giving us very good reason to believe that this model is largely correct. Note that in this model, time runs forwards from the big bang expansion point (singularity)
in light blue, we have my modified alternative to the standard inflationary theory
and in solid green/blue we have the projected age of the universe in 'absolute' time.
What I propose, is that after the big bang, time runs backwards for a while! This is not too crazy IF (this is the predictive element of my hypothesis) the passage or direction of time and entropy IS EXPLICITLY related to the forces of gravity.
Currently science knows that gravity ISN'T always an attractive force. In the early stages after the big bang, gravity was a repelling force for some time.
I am suggesting the the 'polarity' of gravity dictates which direction time will appear to flow - and this has consequences for understanding entropy. When Gravity is a repellant, time will flow backwards and entropy will decrease, and when gravity is attractive, time will flow forwards and entropy will increase (as we know it from the universe as it is currently).
After the big-bang, gravity was repellant, so the universe expanded in negative time under the influence of this repellant force. A by-product of this is that entropy decreases and 'flattens' the universe so that in all directions the universe looks the same , a possible solution to the 'horizon' problem - as confirmed by the COBE data and requiring the 'current rapid inflation theory' to explain. The universe continues to expand in negative time until the force of gravity flips to be an attractive force - But at this point we are still in negative time from the big-bang - so time has to flow forwards somewhat to re-reach the zero-time of the singularity - while this happens, as entropy is increasing, stars and galaxies begin to form simply from the jitteryness of the quantum fluctuations, so that by the time we have reached - in the current model - the period when rapid inflation ends, we have achieved the same size of universe. - But we have done this without rapid inflation. So a problem is solved in not having to discover a reason or force for this era of exponential expansion. It is all possible using known forces.
By looking to Absolute time - the negative time and positive time added together to give a result only in the positive, we see that the measurements of the universe's age can infact be 8 billion years old - so as not to conflict the 'odd' measurements, but that stars and galaxies have in actually, had the 15.2 billion years to form as we currently measure them.
*We have also solved the 'flatness' and 'horizon' problems without needing 'rapid inflation'
*We see that we have a viable explanation of why we always see entropy increasing in the current universe
*We reconsile the conflicting measurements of the age of the universe against the age of stars
*We have resolved the need to discover a new force that explains how the universe 'inflated rapidly'
*We can make a prediction and falsify the hypothesis, if we can discover if the direction of time flow is explicitly related the the 'polarity' of the force of gravity.
Anyone like to comment?
Comments
I really don't know what to say. What caused you to think of this? What support do you have for your theory that gravity and time/entropy are "explicitly" related as you said?
I went to see my 'witchy' friend and her boyfiend, she believes in telepathy whilst her boyfriend was sceptical, so I made an attempt to tell him how telepathy is perfectly possible under the current understandings of quantum mechanics. Infact its quite trivial really. So I had a 2 hour drive home, and so, after I had spent some time contemplating the transmission of information forwards and backwards in time - I saw Apollo rising on the horizon, and he revealed a secret of the universe to me
I don't know if time/entropy is explicitly related to the polarity of gravity - this is my conclusion of the hypothesis- like Darwin concluded that there would be a mechanism for the transfer of modified genetic information, something predicted by the theory but not known until science to discovered DNA.
MarcUK is my hero.
I'd be interested to see you spark a debate like this on a scholarly website (i.e. JSTOR). I think you'd get a bit more feedback, and perhaps even nastier arguments, on your hypothesis.
Plus, I always thought it was great when I could stick it to my professors. Scholars jump all over the opportunity to prove someone wrong.
Just a thought...
]edit] - have found site - what is it for, I am getting the message...
"We're sorry. You do not have access to JSTOR from your current location"
so I guess I cant. If there is a Science forum anywhere, where I could submit my theory for critique, let me know, and i'll do it for a laugh. I know some of us would love to see me shot down in flames...
The big bang is the time zero, by definition. Even if there was something before it, we humans canno't know what was there before : it will be just wild guess.
Perhaps there where bazillions of pulse " inflation and deflation" before our universe time.
Perhaps there will be an illimited inflation and the universe will cease when the entropy will reach zero. All matter have disappeared, and perhaprs it's possible that after this point a new singularity will happen ?
Who knows
So the question is : why a second big bang, will make a different result than the first one. Why the second big bang will have a faster inflation than the first one ?
Your theory has a major flaw.
The big bang is the time zero, by definition. Even if there was something before it, we humans canno't know what was there before : it will be just wild guess.
Perhaps there where bazillions of pulse " inflation and deflation" before our universe time.
Perhaps there will be an illimited inflation and the universe will cease when the entropy will reach zero. All matter have disappeared, and perhaprs it's possible that after this point a new singularity will happen ?
Who knows
So the question is : why a second big bang, will make a different result than the first one. Why the second big bang will have a faster inflation than the first one ?
sorry mate, I guess it doesn't translate into French, you seem to have completely misunderstood. There isn't a second big bang on this graphic. Its the same one. Do you understand the programming concept of 'ABS' of a number?
Say ABS(-4)+10. The result is 14, not 6. The negative sign becomes positive. So in my graph, my say my negative time is -7 billion years and the positive time is +8 billion. Using the ABS function, -7 +8 still gives 15 billion.
But you raise an interesting point about what is 'before' the big bang. I was somewhat at pains when writing that as to define time. I decided to go with forward and backwards - as this is a concept most people would understand - but it is not necessarily so. The distinction that needs to be made is the 'opposite' time - thinking in terms of forwards and backwards time is slightly 'flawed' - because it is a human perception. The distinction is really 'opposite' or 'inverse' time - not forwards or backwards - but this is quite a hard concept to grasp as a mental image.
However, if we are talking in terms of forwards and backwards - then I am showing a way we can 'see' things unfolding 'before' the big bang - but only 'after' it has happened. A definiate mind-fuck
what is this JSTOR website. I'll give it a go - for a laugh
]edit] - have found site - what is it for, I am getting the message...
"We're sorry. You do not have access to JSTOR from your current location"
so I guess I cant. If there is a Science forum anywhere, where I could submit my theory for critique, let me know, and i'll do it for a laugh. I know some of us would love to see me shot down in flames...
JSTOR is a huge database of scholarly articles from thousands of professors/researchers from universities here in the states. I myself used JSTOR a lot to get primary sources for my research projects.
Can you even access the main page of the website? If so, I will get you a login this week. Although I hope you don't mind being a student of California State University Sacramento.
JSTOR is a huge database of scholarly articles from hundreds of professors/researchers from universities here in the states. I myself used JSTOR a lot to get primary sources for my research projects.
Can you even access the main page of the website? If so, I will get you a login this week. Although I hope you don't mind being a student of California State University Sacramento.
Yes, I can get the main page. I can get a log-in in the UK using 'Athens' - I have no idea what that is.
How does this place work? Does this place have a forum like here? It would be good if we could all see them rip me a new one.
Just to make this thread more confusing, could I kindly ask where consciousness comes from?
Does anyone know? You would have to read some of the great philosophers, some great psychology, and some great religious stuff, like gnostic christianity, Sufism, Koran, Bible, and Buddhism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5329486.stm
The time is positive 8 billions of years and negative 8 billions minus 6000 years. The sum is 16 billions of years approximatively, but the realt time is 6000 years, like the bible teach us
Here is one far better theory Mark.
The time is positive 8 billions of years and negative 8 billions minus 6000 years. The sum is 16 billions of years approximatively, but the realt time is 6000 years, like the bible teach us
Yes i understand that if this got into the hands of the Creationists then there will be all sorts of twisting and lying to make it show that God created the world 6000 years ago. However the persuit of truth should not be stopped by the potential of evil to pervert it.
Im probably completely wrong, we all know that, but some day, for every crazy million people, one crazy one will hit upon a secret no-one else thought of. Its what makes us human.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/A-rev...t.php#img_4422
Hopefully they'll be enough knowledgeable people there to pass a decent critique. Keep watching
Good try marc.
Unfortunately, the expansion of the early universe (assuming the big bang hypothesis to be correct) by definition causes the entropy to increase (as does any gas expanding into nothing even if that nothing doesn't exist).
I think it is far more likely that if there was a rapid expansion it was due to the shear energy of the process of 'creation'.
Take my current view for instance: We have truly empty space which is a low entropy system, the instant any particles of non-degenerate energies form the absolute change in entropy is far closer to infinite than it is to zero. Indeed, an empty universe is a high energy universe, in fact much higher in energy than that required to cause the big bang.
An empty space has a tendency to decay into an energetic space (proportional to its absolute size). The event-one of all of this would occur in a small corner of the empty space where twists and turns in the fabric cause more and more empty space to convert to energetic space. We get an effective expansion of the universe. In fact, once the areas of where the empty space has converted to energetic space have cooled sufficiently (a entropy lowering event often due to separation of particles and conversion of the kinetic energy into potential energy), the edge of the energetic space may catalyze the conversion of empty space into energetic space, so the edge of our universe is on fire so to speak (perhaps this is the source of the cosmic background radiation? (and not left overs from the big bang))....
Um.
Good try marc.
Unfortunately, the expansion of the early universe (assuming the big bang hypothesis to be correct) by definition causes the entropy to increase (as does any gas expanding into nothing even if that nothing doesn't exist).
I think it is far more likely that if there was a rapid expansion it was due to the shear energy of the process of 'creation'.
Take my current view for instance: We have truly empty space which is a low entropy system, the instant any particles of non-degenerate energies form the absolute change in entropy is far closer to infinite than it is to zero. Indeed, an empty universe is a high energy universe, in fact much higher in energy than that required to cause the big bang.
An empty space has a tendency to decay into an energetic space (proportional to its absolute size). The event-one of all of this would occur in a small corner of the empty space where twists and turns in the fabric cause more and more empty space to convert to energetic space. We get an effective expansion of the universe. In fact, once the areas of where the empty space has converted to energetic space have cooled sufficiently (a entropy lowering event often due to separation of particles and conversion of the kinetic energy into potential energy), the edge of the energetic space may catalyze the conversion of empty space into energetic space, so the edge of our universe is on fire so to speak (perhaps this is the source of the cosmic background radiation? (and not left overs from the big bang))....
Indeed, I like the idea of the ring of fire. I have been reading that we are in a low density area of the universe, and far from us, the universe is denser where it is expanding, like the ring of fire - But I am not so sure this is correct because it is the space that is expanding, not space expanding into something (even if that is nothing).
I am a bit unsure of whether to follow the convension that the expansion of gas will increase entropy when time is running backward when time is explicitly linked to the polarity of gravity as I am proposing.
Im envisioning this as the singularity being a state of maximum entropy, (similar to conditions in a black hole) and the expansion into 'negative' time adds regularity and order to this to lower the entropy, down to the scale of planks length - dispite the fact that in 'normal' time entropy would increase as a gas expands. And the subsequent flipping of gravity, - IF it is explicitly related to time and entropy, flips the laws of thermodynamics, so that we get the effects we measure today.
if we had mikowski space-inverse time would the metric be:
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
?
Fuck Billco.
(I wonder what that guy looks like, btw?)