|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/09/2006 : 22:56:23 [Permalink]
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton_field
quote:
Inflaton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Inflaton field)
Jump to: navigation, search
The inflaton is the generic name of the unidentified scalar field (and its associated particle), that may be responsible for an episode of inflation in the very early universe. According to inflation theory, the inflaton field provided the mechanism to drive a period of rapid expansion from 10#8722;35 to 10#8722;34 seconds after the initial expansion that formed the universe.
The inflaton field's lowest energy state may or may not be a zero energy state, this depends on the chosen potential energy density of the field. Prior to the expansion period, the inflaton field was at a higher energy state. Random quantum fluctuations triggered a phase transition whereby the inflaton field released its potential energy as matter and radiation as it settled to its lowest energy state. This action generated a repulsive force that drove the portion of the universe that is observable to us today to expand from approximately 10#8722;50 metres in radius at 10#8722;35 seconds to almost 1 metre in radius at 10#8722;34 seconds.
Holy Smokes Dave, even Wiki notes that if an inflaton field actually exists, it has an "associated particle". I guess they don't known anything about GR either Dave, because they're talking *particles*, just like I was! Shame on Wiki!
You are so frustrating at times Dave. It's right there in front of you and you absolutely, postively, refuse to look at it or acknowledge it. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/09/2006 23:07:19 |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 22:59:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
How can you be sure that Birkeland's solar model was not accurate?
It would have been necessary for Kristian Birkeland to present a solar model for it to be accurate. He didn't. You're the only person, Michael, who has ever claimed he did. You've been asked time and again to provide a source supporting your claim. The best you've done is point to some material from Birkeland's writings where he described an experiment using a terrella to explore possible magnetic influences on coronal activity on the Sun.
Nowhere did Birkeland ever claim to believe the Sun was a hollow brass sphere with an electromagnet mounted inside, nor that it had any particular physical construction which included any sort of metal surface for that matter. The vast majority of his experiments with the terrella actually had nothing to do with the Sun. They were to help him understand auroral activity on Earth. He also occasionally used the terrella to explore a possible magnetic cause for the rings of Saturn.
He used a terrella to represent the Earth in hundreds of experiments, never claiming to believe the Earth had a solid metal surface. He used the terrella to represent Saturn in a few experiments, but didn't suggest that Saturn had a solid metal surface. He used the terrella to represent the Sun in a few experiments, and never expressed any opinion that the Sun may have had a solid metal surface. And since he never stated such a belief, you'd be every bit as much a fool to claim that Birkeland thought the Earth or Saturn had a solid metal surface as you are to claim he thought the Sun had a solid metal surface.
Not to mention the fact that within the science of astrophysics, a solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a physical object used to explore the magnetic properties of the Sun in a few experiments. Regardless of your continued insistence that he did, Michael, Kristian Birkeland never presented a solar model.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 23:08:56 [Permalink]
|
| GeeMack, when did *I* ever claim that the sun has a "solid metal surface"? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 23:34:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina...
GeeMack, when did *I* ever claim that the sun has a "solid metal surface"?
Well, the first time you made the claim that it was solid, on this forum anyway, was November 24, 2005. It was the fifth posting on this page, your very first posting here, where you said, "Actually, it was the RAW EIT video from SOHO that originally convinced me it was solid." About three hours later, on that same page you said, "Pressure and temperature will also affect density. While I am of the impression the core may include fissionable materials, Dr. Manuel believes the core is a nuetron star that 'pushes' against the iron shell." Of course iron is a metal, so your first claims on SFN that the Sun has a solid metal surface were made over 7 months and about 970 of your postings ago. You're losing it, Michael. Get some help.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 00:04:41 [Permalink]
|
You don't seem to grasp the distinction between suggesting that the surface crust has a predominance of metals and claiming that the entire crust is composed of metals. You need to keep your strawmen straight GeeMack. There's a huge distinction between these two ideas, and you can't stick words in my mouth.
If you can't grasp the distinction between these two concepts, I suggest you get some help from John, Dr. Mabuse or Dave. I think they can probably clue you in. They seem to have been paying attention to the deals of my model a bit better than you have. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 09:07:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
From my reading on what red shift is, and how it fits with the Big Bang theory. If you have a better idea, I imagine there are a dozen or so peer-reviewed journals you could submit your article to.
The galactic red shift would be a necessary prediction of a slam theory however. Some of my solar ideas have already been published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy, and I'll continue to submit my ideas for peer review. The fact one is published however doesn't mean automatic acceptance.
But I didn't ask about your solar ideas. My point was that red shift fits with Big Bang, but-- if my understanding of your Big Slam is correct-- doesn't fit with that. But if my understanding is wrong, and if you have a better way to explain red shift, then you should work on a publishable article.
But back to inflation. In general, my reading suggests that there are big problems that the Big Bang doesn't solve. The "horizon problem" is one of them. The idea that the universe expanded exponentially for the tiniest fraction of a tiny fraction of a second can solve a number of these. Of course, it introduces a new problem-- namely the one you propose: how did this happen?
So it seems that at this point, there are several possibilities. First, scientists can spend some time trying to explore the idea of inflation. Alternatively, you can scrap inflation and look for another way to neatly explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and so on. Finally, you can reject the Big Bang altogether and then go back to trying to explain red shift, CMBR, etc.
Right now, it looks like most people are going with the first option. This seems logical, since inflation can solve a lot of problems. But some basic internet searching shows that people are thinking about inflation and looking for ways to explain it. (A Google Scholar search can yield lots of university hits-- like this.)
But isn't inflation a rather new way to address some of these problem? It seems like you want to reject it from the start! (But perhaps I'm wrong?) How do you feel about things like "dark matter"? As near as I can tell, dark matter is a way to explain away some pretty serious problems with gravity, and yet there's no "proof" of such a thing (I think). Should we toss out our current gravity models because of the flimsy nature (at present) of "dark matter"? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 10:12:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I explained very clearly Dave that an "inflaton" field had never been evidenced.
And how is a criticism of a young addition to Big Bang Theory a criticism of Big Bang Theory itself? Without it, Big Bang Theory has problems explaining two pieces of evidence, but otherwise still functions. (I also find my irony meter shorted out since you seem to take the existence of gravitons for granted, while they've never been detected, either; and also because you've never once proposed how BS theory explains the same two pieces of evidence that inflationary theory is alleged to fix.)quote:
I explained that no one has offered a physical model to explain how "unknown energy" forms into matter.
And as was pointed out, that argument is based upon your ignorance of Quantum Mechanics.quote:
I explained that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that iron and matter are not eternal.
And as was pointed out, that argument is based upon your ignorance of the characteristics of the CMBR and your ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics.quote:
I don't know how I could be any more clear Dave.
You could have presented an argument based upon actual knowledge of Big Bang theory, Quantum Mechanics, the CMBR and/or thermodynamics, Michael.quote:
What physics Dave? There is exactly *zip* in the way of real evidence to suggest anything even remotely like an inflaton field exist. There is therefore no "physics" to discuss.
And here we see you conflate all of physics with inflationary theory. Bravo. Just keep ignoring your own statements about physics which are so wrong you'd embarass a college freshman by asking them from a neighboring seat.quote:
If you can't duplicate it in a lab, what physics are we talking about Dave? What physics?
And once again, physics - to you - is only real if it can be duplicated in a lab. Yet Arp's speculations on "intrinsic redshift" can't be duplicated in a lab, nor can Manuel's "corrections" to photospheric elemental abundances be verified.quote:
Your fixation on single sentence and your proclivity for evading the real issues is actually what is amazing.
The real issue, Michael, is your inability to get any of the physics correct in both Big Bang theory and Solar science. Your mistake about kinetic energy is simply icing on the cake, demonstrating your disregard for actually being correct, in favor of sounding correct.quote:
Nevermind the fact you can't even define "spacetime" in the absense of gravity and mass and fields.
I already showed you that Einstein did.quote:
You'll focus instead on a trivial slip on the tongue and ignore the real arguement entirely. You'll ignore the fact that an "inflaton field" has *never* been demonstrated or observed. It's amazing alright.
No, Michael, I agree that the inflaton field has never been shown to exist. You've just moved the goalposts so much you've forgotten what your original question was, and now you think that you demanded that someone prove its existence. But Big Bang theory isn't "based on" inflation, no more than evolutionary theory is "based on" horizontal gene transfers. Inflation (and HGT) are both hypotheses to explain small bits of evidence which the larger theory doesn't address.quote:
quote:
But you can't even admit to the reasons why you were told things that insulted you, and instead invent an old-fashioned "persecuted for my beliefs" rationalization.
Dave, John has never felt the need to overtly "insult me" in any of our discussions. Nor has Dr. Mabuse, or Cuniformist or Ricky or most of the other adults that participate here. There are really only four (five if you include me) primary mudslingers in these threads Dave, you, GeeMack, HH and furhsur. The rest are peanut gallery comments at worst case.
That reply is completely unresponsive to my point, which is that your statements about physics which are demonstrably wrong is what generated the replies which you found to be personally insulting, (for instance, "you clearly don't know what you're talking about"), but in the post I was replying to, you tried to tell Robb that you were being insulted just because you don't toe the Big Bang line. It's a classic "I'm being persecuted for my beliefs" plea, handwaving away all the valid criticisms of the scientific statements you've made.quote:
What amazes me is that you can ignore the validity of my points about "spacetime" requiring gravity, mass, particles and fields...
I've asked you to provide evidence that such a requirement exists, and you've failed to do so.quote:
...yet somehow feel vindicated because I meantioned "gravitons" in relationship to "spacetime".
I don't feel "vindicated," since it was your poor grasp of General Relativity I used as observational evidence that you have few skills in discussing science. Besides, that wasn't even the problem, but instead it was your assertion that gravitons couldn't be taken "out of" General Relativity and your many-post refusal to acknowledge that mistake which garnered the replies that it did.quote:
Assuming that a Grand Unified Field theory is found, my statements may |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 10:57:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
What pride? I have absolutely nothing invested in Big Bang theory, Michael.
Sure Dave, anything you say.
Nice retort. I'll have to remember that for future debates.quote:
quote:
If it goes away tomorrow, I won't be disappointed in the least.
Then why do you place any value in the idea at all?
Because it works for those things it purports to explain today. Any future model, no matter how different, will have to also explain those same things.quote:
quote:
I have nothing to gain by being correct, and nothing to lose by being wrong.
Do you think anyone (besides you) actually believes that statement?
Why do you think I am lying?quote:
Well Dave, my bad then. So what.
Way to go, Michael! My respect goes up one small notch (not that you care).quote:
You get all fixated on a single sentence and you utterly refuse to acknowledge the whole main arguement I'm making.
No, I have acknowledged your main arguments, and rejected them on various grounds (which I have detailed). It's your failure to respond to many of those objections (to your objections) which is what stalls the discussion. And the "single sentence" I may get "fixated on" here or there is simply illustrative of major problems of yours, which you won't address or attempt to fix. Come on, Michael, you've been going on and on and on about inflation's lack of evidenciary basis, yet won't even start to tell us about the alleged relationship between acceleration and perceived density you are sure exists.quote:
It's *so* frustrating!
You're right, it's very frustrating to have to ask the same thing a dozen different times before you'll address it, and when you do you pass it off as if it's no big deal and means nothing to you (in which case, why don't you answer me the first time?).quote:
You can't take mass and gravity and fields out of GR, and still have "spacetime" Dave. There is no "spacetime" without reference points and gravity and mass Dave, just "empty space". Of course you never once acknowledged this point, and you continue to defend this nonsense up to this present moment.
No, Michael, I'm still waiting for you to pony up the evidence that this "requirement" exists. You keep repeating it as if everyone knows that an empty spacetime just ceases to exist, but I obviously don't know that, so you need to show me.quote:
quote:
No, you haven't. The Big Bang theory was predicated on Hubble's observations
And slam theory is predicated on it too...
And I'm still waiting for you to propose either a geometry for spacetime in which the explosion in BS theory could create highly uniform galactic redshifts, or to explain why we just coincidentally happen to be at the center of where the explosion was.quote:
...hereas a static universe theory is predicated on the notion that Arp did a better job interpreting "redshift".
Arp has no interpretation of redshift which can compete with "we don't know."quote:
quote:
and Einstein's General Relativity.
Exactly where does GR predict "inflaton fields"? I must have missed that somewhere.
What the heck are you talking about? Since when has "Big Bang Theory" been a synonym for "Inflationary Theory?"quote:
quote:
Since when has Big Bang theory been predicated upon inflation?
*Your* brand of BB theory certainly *is* predictated on it Dave.
Baloney. Inflationary theory is a fix to Big Bang Theory.quote:
You are amazing! First you started by chastizing me for *not* staying current with modern and more authorative BB theory.
Yes, and you still are not doing so.quote:
I'm the one I noted that there isn't even single BB theory to begin with so you would have to explain which one you thought was "authoritative".
And still, you failed to list any sort of Big Bang theory which might differ with the "hot" Big Bang theory, and when your bluff was called, you just handwaved it all away.quote:
We let you play the "authority" on what "modern BB theory is all about, and now |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 11:12:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Holy Smokes Dave, even Wiki notes that if an inflaton field actually exists, it has an "associated particle". I guess they don't known anything about GR either Dave, because they're talking *particles*, just like I was! Shame on Wiki!
Wow, Michael, you were so close to having posted something truly scientific, but then you went and screwed it up by trying to associate Inflationary Theory with General Relativity. And that despite the fact that in one of your prior posts, you correctly pointed out that General Relativity doesn't predict inflation!
Really, I was unaware that the inflationary field was scalar (unlike Einstein's tensor field of General Relativity, which doesn't correspond to particles). It's an interesting theory, and I am waiting to see where it goes from here.
And if it'll make a difference to you, Michael: you were right about inflation being associated with particles, and I was wrong. It took you lots of posts to finally demonstrate your idea, though, and since you claim it's all metaphysics anyway, I don't see why it mattered so much to you.quote:
You are so frustrating at times Dave. It's right there in front of you and you absolutely, postively, refuse to look at it or acknowledge it.
What are you talking about? I just did acknowledge it, in my paragraphs above, as soon as you pointed it out to me. Were you unwilling to give me a chance to say, "oh, look at that!" and just assumed that I would not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 11:33:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And how is a criticism of a young addition to Big Bang Theory a criticism of Big Bang Theory itself?
Amazing! You picked the "authoritative" version of BB theory, and now I'm not critisizing BB theory?
quote:
Without it, Big Bang Theory has problems explaining two pieces of evidence, but otherwise still functions.
Exactly how does it "function" without an inflation stage?
quote:
(I also find my irony meter shorted out since you seem to take the existence of gravitons for granted, while they've never been detected, either;
But there is evidence to support their existence from particle physics, just as there was evidence to support the existence of a neutrino before we could detect them. There is however no evidence from the field of particle physics or QM to suggest that "infaton fields" exist.
quote:
and also because you've never once proposed how BS theory explains the same two pieces of evidence that inflationary theory is alleged to fix.)
You don't seem to get it Dave. I'm not obligated to demonstrate any other cosmology models to demonstrate that BB theory is based on metaphysics. The two are not related ideas. By the way, a "flat" unviverse is pretty much a "given" in infinite cosmos scenario Dave.
quote:
And as was pointed out, that argument is based upon your ignorance of Quantum Mechanics.
That is completely ironic for a guy that claims you can define "spacetime" without mass, gravity or fields, and who denies that gravitons exist, and seems to have a problem with "particles" being associated with fields and waves and "spacetime" in QM.
quote:
And as was pointed out, that argument is based upon your ignorance of the characteristics of the CMBR and your ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics.
You have no absolutely no idea what you're talking about Dave. Background radiation would pretty much be a given in *any* cosmology model, even a static model. You are *over emphasizing* one piece of data and ignoring the fact that infaton fields do not exist, and they aren't a part of QM or GR! Thermodyamics has nothing to do with our arguements. You're just tossing in terms to make yourself feel good.
quote:
You could have presented an argument based upon actual knowledge of Big Bang theory,
What a bunch of boloney. I did base my arguement on BB theory Dave, and I even let you pick the one you liked the best!
quote:
Quantum Mechanics,
Quantum Mechanics insists that the unviverse if full of particles Dave. You reject the whole idea of quantum gravity and you reject the whole notion of carrier particles! I can't talk QM with you since you refuse to even consider it.
quote:
And here we see you conflate all of physics with inflationary theory. Bravo.
BB theory, particularly the one presented is *predicated* on some kind of inflation stage. There is no physics to discuss, since the physics related to inflaton fields is mythical in nature. You can't define it, or the particle that Wiki was talking about so no physics can possibly be applied to "infaton fields". It makes the inflation period of BB theory a non starter.
quote:
Just keep ignoring your own statements about physics which are so wrong you'd embarass a college freshman by asking them from a neighboring seat.
There you go getting all personal and ignoring the main points. You squirm and dodge and mudsling better than anyone I've ever met Dave. Congrats on being as evasive and just plain rude as humanly possible.
This conversation has become pointless because you keep trying to define the "nothing" as "spacetime". "Nothing" is not "spacetime" Dave, it's just "empty space". There is no spacetime in empty space since there are no reference points in empty space. If you even had the first clue about QM, or the infaton field idea you were trying to present you would have jumped at any of the numberous offers I made let you view some kind of "carrier particles" as a reference point in "spacetime."
Since you consistantly and stubbornly refused to do so, and even your precious Wiki reference on "infaton fields" states that such a field would involve "particles", I can only assume that your grasp of QM and particle theory is extremely limited, and you really do not have the first clue what you're talking about when you describe things like "spacetime". You can't define spacetime without fields or particles or mass Dave. Without these things, "spacetime" doesn't exist, it's just empty space. No gravity, no mass, no fields, no particles, no "spacetime" Dave. It's really that simple.
I'll finish up after I get some coffee.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/10/2006 11:33:49 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 12:23:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Wow, Michael, you were so close to having posted something truly scientific, but then you went and screwed it up by trying to associate Inflationary Theory with General Relativity.
You know Dave, I wish I'd seen this post before I posted my last message. I think we're making progress.
When I think QM or GR, I think "quantum GR". I can't help it, that's simply the way my brain is wired around the idea now. Everything is a "particle" and/or wave if it's "real". Otherwise it's metaphysics.
quote:
And that despite the fact that in one of your prior posts, you correctly pointed out that General Relativity doesn't predict inflation!
No, because inflation theory is metaphyics at the moment. No such field or particle exists, and no such field or particle is necessarily "predicted" in GR.
quote:
Really, I was unaware that the inflationary field was scalar (unlike Einstein's tensor field of General Relativity, which doesn't correspond to particles). It's an interesting theory, and I am waiting to see where it goes from here.
And if it'll make a difference to you, Michael: you were right about inflation being associated with particles, and I was wrong. It took you lots of posts to finally demonstrate your idea, though, and since you claim it's all metaphysics anyway, I don't see why it mattered so much to you.
This was *huge* step forward between us Dave. I acknowledge that it takes a lot of inner strength to admit when you're wrong about something. I respect that in someone, and I respect this step.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:05:07 [Permalink]
|
Michael said:
quote:
You can expect to be treated like a child, belittled, chastised, and ridiculed, the moment you dare to point out that there is no actual physics involved in Big Bang theory, simply metaphyics wrapped up in fancy wording and pure smoke and mirrors. It's all one giant creation myth. Evidently the astronomy community is has it's own "Holy Book" of mythology, it's own "High Priests" of funding, it's deacons of dogma, and of course the ever popular attack dogs to keep everyone in line.
Wow, it is all BS as well as dogma that is not allowed to be questioned, and if it is questioned they send attack dogs to silence you! Golly, how conspiratorial!
Michael has also demonstrated disagreement with General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and most other mainstream theories (though he probably isn't aware that he has).
Why would he feel this way? I think the answer is right here:
quote:
It personally took me 15 years of analysing satellite images to even "begin" to put together a working model of the sun.
What happened is he presented his 'life's work' and of course real scientist laughed off his ideas as silly.
The poor bastard has so much of himself invested in this "the sun is a hollow metal ball" idea that he had to invent a great conspiracy. He has deluded himself to the point that he comes up with 'new' theories all of the time, like his light is a 'wave front of particles'. His inability to grasp how science works and projecting his own need to cling to his 'model' prompts him to have exchanges like these.
quote:
quote:
If it goes away tomorrow, I won't be disappointed in the least.
Then why do you place any value in the idea at all?
quote:
I have nothing to gain by being correct, and nothing to lose by being wrong.?
Do you think anyone (besides you) actually believes that statement?
Michael cannot conceive of science as simply a methodology to discover truth. If he did then he would realize that if there is a new theory then we have simply discovered a new truth or at least we are closer to the truth about some aspect of our universe. Would I care if a better model or theory was proposed than a current one? You bet I would care - I would welcome it!
The thing I won't do is substitute a current theory with an inferior one. I also won't elevate an inferior theory to put it on par with a current theory. This is exactly what Michael wants us to do, and it just ain't going to happen.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:09:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
From my reading on what red shift is, and how it fits with the Big Bang theory. If you have a better idea, I imagine there are a dozen or so peer-reviewed journals you could submit your article to.
I think that's actually a worthwhile idea. I think I'll make that a goal for the upcomming year actually. Why not?
quote:
But I didn't ask about your solar ideas. My point was that red shift fits with Big Bang, but-- if my understanding of your Big Slam is correct-- doesn't fit with that.
There are two types of phenomenon here that are "kinda" related but a bit different. I need to make sure were clear here so bear with me a bit.
We have observed "galactic" redshift, meaning most all of the galaxies we see are redshifted, suggesting they are moving away from us if we assume that Hubble is correct. Both a bang and a slam theory would predict that observation.
There is also light called CMBR, which I will simply refer to as "background" radiation.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html
These are photons too, but we're not exactly sure where they come from. The light is also "redshifted" , just like the galactic redshift, but it's "source" is a wee bit "fuzzy" at the moment due to our limited view of the cosmos. This type of light seems to require a “Surface of Last Scattering” at the end of an "inflationlike stage". One way to explain that surface of last scattering would be be to suggest that a shockwave formed in the initial "blast" of the singularity annihilation process. This expanding wave of particles (like a supernova blast) could end up being a scattering field for chaos that's ensuing around the merging singularities, and "quark soup" that's cooling as it's expanding outward from the singularies.
There are also some other possibilites. This light may be coming from galaxies we simply can't see at the moment, or galaxies that are at the edge of what I'll call our "viewing range" for lack of a better term. By that I mean at some point galaxies that travel at .5 the speed of light or greater can begin speed away from one another faster than light. These redshifted "background" photons could be the last few photons we see before this galaxy drops from our field of view. The cause of this background radiation remains a bit of an enigma at the moment, but with the help of the next Hubble replacement satellite, I suspect we'll be able to get a better handle on which things we should be considering, and which things we should not.
quote:
But back to inflation. In general, my reading suggests that there are big problems that the Big Bang doesn't solve. The "horizon problem" is one of them. The idea that the universe expanded exponentially for the tiniest fraction of a tiny fraction of a second can solve a number of these. Of course, it introduces a new problem-- namely the one you propose: how did this happen?
Exactly. The solution proposed by inflation theory is based upon a "particle" and a field that has never been demonstrated to exist. Furthermore, unlike the neutrino (which has been demonstrated now) or the graviton, an inflaton field and/or particle has never been predicted in particle theory, GR or QM.
quote:
So it seems that at this point, there are several possibilities. First, scientists can spend some time trying to explore the idea of inflation.
How?
quote:
Alternatively, you can scrap inflation and look for another way to neatly explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and so on. Finally, you can reject the Big Bang altogether and then go back to trying to explain red shift, CMBR, etc.
I fully agree with your assessment. I've chosen the second alternative. I've chosen to go back two steps and acknowledge other possibilities are viable, such as a static universe theory, and a slam type event. I'm simply suggesting that since no such inflation field or particle has ever been demonstrated or predicted by GR or QM, that we should consider other viable alternatives.
quote:
Right now, it looks like most people are going with the first option.
Indeed.
quote:
This seems logical, since inflation can solve a lot of problems.
Assuming it actually exists, "maybe" it might solve some problems, but I would bet it would probably cause as many problems as it actually solved. Assuming it does exist, is the "particle" physically "large", or physically "small"?
quote:
But some basic internet searching shows that people are thinking about inflation and looking for ways to explain it.
And I simply tried to explain it using matter/antimatter singularies and annihilation processes between matter and antimatter "systems", meaning there is mass around the singularity, not just inside the singularity.
quote:
But isn't inflation a rather new way to address some of these problem? It seems like you want to reject it from the start! (But perhaps I'm wrong?)
Guth was the one that made "inflation" theory popular as far as I can tell. His theories however failed to mention any evidence demonstrating the necessarily inflaton fields or particles that would be required. There's never been any "substance" to the theory of inflation, and no viable evidence to suggest the presense of inflaton fields is implied in GR or QM.
quote:
How do you feel about things like "dark matter"? As near as I can tell, dark matter is a way to explain away some pretty serious problems with gravity, and yet there's no "proof" of such a thing (I think).
Depending on how one tries to define "dark matter", it isn't necessarily "metaphysical" in nature. The same is true of dark energy, as long as you present it as a "wave" of energy of some sort, and you identify the carrier particles involved. Again, it all depends on the defitions and whether they can be "tangibly" defined in some matter. I |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/10/2006 13:42:56 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:10:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When I think QM or GR, I think "quantum GR".
Good God, that is so stupid it is unbelievable, and you don't have a clue as to why.
Un-freaking-beleivable
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
