The Big Bang and Inflation:

[wellwisher]

Let me address SR;

If you look at Special Relativity, space-time reference is connected to velocity. Velocity has time built into its units; v=d/t. SR seems more cut and dry, relative to time, impacting space-time. However, changes in space-time are still mass dependent, since pure velocity; d/t, without mass/substance, will not allow a tangible or experimental change within space-time.

In other words, imagine a massless object moving at velocity V. If we use math, a plot on paper, or just the imagination, there will be no tangible change in space-time, simply by going through the motions of a mental or computer exercise. There will be no experimentally verified change in space-time, using a velocity abstraction, without mass. There may be changes on paper, for an academic exercise, but not in physical reality.

Motion without substance/mass; abstract or imaginary motion, may involve time, but this type of time by itself, cannot alter space-time in any tangible or experimental way.

 

[paddoboy]

You guys don't appear qualified to answer my question? Does this forum have access to more qualified people, or do such people think this site is no longer worth the trouble due to subjectivity and insults?

You mean similar to what you have just said......

I will repeat myself since some people are slow.

On your other inference, I certainly am not qualified, as I'm only a lay person like yourself.
But we do have an Internet to research.
Your record here, your ramblings, your often 100% faitre complei statements, often do no more than clog up a debate, as many others have noted.
From what I know, Time is what emerged along with space from the BB.
It is real. If it wasn't real, to use a nice little Occam's razor reasoning, every thing would happen together.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

 

[paddoboy]

In other words, imagine a massless object moving at velocity V. There may be changes on paper, for an academic exercise, but not in physical reality.

Any massless object by necessity needs to travel at "c".
And of course then the validity of all frames of references comes into vogue.

 

[brucep]

That is because inflation occurred about 13.5 billion years ago and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is happening today. Apples and oranges. I don't know of any mainstream cosmology that thinks they are the same thing.

Those 2 ideas seem completely unrelated.

Well the 2 ideas are the same thing. The pressure term in the metric is the cosmological constant. This term was dominant initiating the inflation event. It also can be described as a potential. During the event this potential decreases until it reaches a minimum at the end of the inflation event. There's no guaranty that this minimum has been reached and the present acceleration of the expansion is a remnant of the original inflation event gradually seeking its minimum.

 

[danshawen]

The Sun has been emitting photons for 5 billion years or so.

Granted, there has been plenty of time for acoustic oscillations to set up. Perhaps something else is meant when the oscillations are termed "acoustic". To me, that means an audio frequency oscillation within the range of 200 Hz - 15kHz.

As the mass of something increases, the natural resonant frequency of acoustic oscillations takes a nosedive toward the infrasound low end of the acoustic range. The Earth's ionosphere, for instance, resonates at about 7-8 Hz, and so, evidently, does the human skull. Mark Twain was unfortunate enough to be a test subject for his friend Tesla that determined the danger of large amplitudes of driven infrasound on human beings. It is was of some considerable concern to Nikola Tesla that his plan to store electric charge in the ionosphere until it could be tapped would have required pumping it in at an alternating current frequency of 7-8 Hz. Possibly fortunately for all concerned, the Warden Cliffs project to test this design was dismantled before the initial tests.

Reportedly, Tesla also invented a portable acoustic resonant device capable of shaking tall buildings violently using only a small amount of driving energy, which he once tested to the alarm to a construction worker still inside such a structure.

Resonant acoustic oscillations in a body even the size of the Sun depend on the speed of sound through the media of part of it, say the photosphere, and the distance such sound waves must travel in order to reflect from any boundaries. In an acoustic oscillator as large as the one represented by the CMBR, the wavelengths are long and the frequencies correspondingly low.

The graphs I saw of the CMBR oscillations showed the fundamental and the damped peaks against on a horizontal scale proportional to an angle rather than a frequency. I found this very confusing since the same axis was also used to represent a multipole moment. A representation of such a graph appears here:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-7500789_23061.htm



Which seems to be pretty far removed conceptually from any sort of oscillation I've ever seen described or analyzed in any other acoustic science. Evidently, these are Doppler shifts of some sort, but it is difficult to tell that without a degree in Astrophysics.

I'm also sure it was a lot of work to do this analysis. There are some similarities and also some differences between this analysis and those used for similar research in stellar seismology.

Could anyone here direct me to a more straightforward paper explaining the details of the method?

 

[paddoboy]

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE
by Alan Guth [11.19.02]
Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory. The shortcoming that inflation is intended to fill in is the basic fact that although the Big Bang theory is called the Big Bang theory it is, in fact, not really a theory of a bang at all; it never was.

ALAN GUTH, father of the inflationary theory of the Universe, is Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT; author of The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins.
THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE: ALAN GUTH

more at......
https://edge.org/conversation/the-inflationary-universe

 

[danshawen]

Great!!!! Yes, quantum fluctuations between 10-35 seconds is indeed acoustic, just as Alan has said.

Now I understand perfectly what all the latest fuss about his inflation theory is about. They can't yet predict actual amplitudes, but the shape of the curve is indeed rock solid. Nice work, Alan.

Thanks for that link, paddoboy.

 

[brucep]

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE
by Alan Guth [11.19.02]
Inflationary theory itself is a twist on the conventional Big Bang theory. The shortcoming that inflation is intended to fill in is the basic fact that although the Big Bang theory is called the Big Bang theory it is, in fact, not really a theory of a bang at all; it never was.

ALAN GUTH, father of the inflationary theory of the Universe, is Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT; author of The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins.
THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE: ALAN GUTH

more at......
https://edge.org/conversation/the-inflationary-universe

The edge conversation is really great reading. Lots has happened since 2002. Cosmology the exciting place to be.

 

[tashja]

Hi, Dan. A couple of answers for you

I have a rather stupid question (no surprise coming from me, right?):

If it takes a photon of EM 170,000 years to reach the photosphere of our sun, how can we even do something like stellar seismology on remote stellar objects larger, smaller, or the same size as our sun? Wouldn't that process take a prohibitively long time to process, as opposed to something like, say, terrestrial seismology?

If acoustic oscillations in the CMBR analyzed by cosmology projects like BOSS are measurable at all, why don't they require much, much longer for our instruments to process?

It doesn't matter how long a photon takes to travel if there is a stream of photons, since we are waiting at the end of the stream.

Analogy: it takes 1 hour to drive from downtown to uptown, but there's always traffic on the updown streets originating downtown, so you don't have to wait to see a car that started downtown (because it started an hour ago).

I have a rather stupid question (no surprise coming from me, right?):

If it takes a photon of EM 170,000 years to reach the photosphere of our sun, how can we even do something like stellar seismology on remote stellar objects larger, smaller, or the same size as our sun? Wouldn't that process take a prohibitively long time to process, as opposed to something like, say, terrestrial seismology?

If acoustic oscillations in the CMBR analyzed by cosmology projects like BOSS are measurable at all, why don't they require much, much longer for our instruments to process?

Dear Tashja,

Thanks for these questions.

On stellar seismology, what matters is the time it takes for a sound wave to propagate through the star, which is of order one hour for the Sun, similar to a sound wave propagating through the Earth. By observing for several months one effectively combines many such waves, and hence obtains the required information about the stellar interior. The propagation of photons is very different. They are absorbed and re-emitted in essentially random directions very many times on the way from the centre to the surface of the star and hence propagate in a random walk; this takes a very long time, compared with the direct light time from the centre to the surface.

I am no expert on cosmology, but it is my understanding that ‘the acoustic oscillations’ that are observed is a snapshot of the waves (like a photograph of waves on an ocean, such as just outside the window of the hotel in Hawaii where I am writing this), frozen at the time of recombination when the CMB was emitted. Of course one can measure the properties of the waves from such a ‘photograph’.

Best regards

Jørgen C.-D.

 

[danshawen]

Thanks to everyone here who helped straighten me out about cosmology.

If science was an interlocking jigsaw puzzle, pseudoscience is a piece from an unrelated puzzle. A crank is the guy handing you a piece that does not even have the right colors in it. So, I'll just go put this piece back in the other box for now.

Sorry to trouble you. I know how tough that must have been.

 

[paddoboy]

The edge conversation is really great reading. Lots has happened since 2002. Cosmology the exciting place to be.

Totally agree bruce.
The most exciting aspect is trying to gauge and understand what all this new data is suggesting, particularly for a lay person such as myself.
I have read in a couple of places that in the opinion of some cosmologists, the observed flatness and scale variances is already proof of Inflation.
The BICEP2 experiment of course did not disprove anything, despite some of the rantins by the usual at the time.

You may enjoy the following debate and Q+A link
http://news.yahoo.com/did-cosmic-inflation-really-jump-start-universe-kavli-190843897.html

The participants were, George Efstathiou, a cosmologist with a leading role in the Planck mission, Clement Pryke, an experimental cosmologist and Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota, and Paul Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein professor in science and director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University.

 

[Randy Beam]

Just read this fantastic book "The V-Bang: How the Universe Began." It's an absolutely amazing book. I've been studying physics most of my life and I highly recommend this book. The big bang just doesn't work. The V-Bang is a theory that makes more sense than the big bang ever made. If you have a serious understanding of astrophysics this book is for you. "The V-Bang: How the Universe Began" explains our universe better than anything I've seen to date. Five Star for this excellent book.

 

[paddoboy]

Just read this fantastic book "The V-Bang: How the Universe Began." It's an absolutely amazing book. I've been studying physics most of my life and I highly recommend this book. The big bang just doesn't work. The V-Bang is a theory that makes more sense than the big bang ever made. If you have a serious understanding of astrophysics this book is for you. "The V-Bang: How the Universe Began" explains our universe better than anything I've seen to date. Five Star for this excellent book.

Yeah we had that troll Josh Greenberger on this site a while back.
The V bang? If it had anything at all, it would not be unknown and not recognised except by the fanatical author pushing such nonsense.

 

[paddoboy]

Yeah we had that troll Josh Greenberger on this site a while back.
The V bang? If it had anything at all, it would not be unknown and not recognised except by the fanatical author pushing such nonsense.

Josh Greenberger also from memory, did not only magically displace the BB theory and standard accepted cosmology, but he also claimed he had proof the Darwin's evolution theory was wrong.
In essence he was not only an anti mainstream science nut, but also a God bothering fanatic.
That's about the best that can be said for him and his promotion of his anti mainstream science fanaticism.

 

[river]

Yeah we had that troll Josh Greenberger on this site a while back.
The V bang? If it had anything at all, it would not be unknown and not recognised except by the fanatical author pushing such nonsense.

Why do you think this pad?

What concepts or ideas do you disagree with?

 

[paddoboy]

Why do you think this pad?

What concepts or ideas do you disagree with?

Because he was/is a religious fanatic and consequently obviously with a huge agenda to push and discredit science, which has just as obviously pushed any concept of any deity back into near oblivion, with far more evidenced based solutions as to how how Universe and life started.

I won't go into the details for a couple of reasons...[1] Your record as a troll and anti science nut, and [2] you would not understand the details anyway, not that you would genuinely want to understand them anyway.

 

[river]

Because he was/is a religious fanatic and consequently obviously with a huge agenda to push and discredit science, which has just as obviously pushed any concept of any deity back into near oblivion, with far more evidenced based solutions as to how how Universe and life started.

I won't go into the details for a couple of reasons...[1] Your record as a troll and anti science nut, and [2] you would not understand the details anyway, not that you would genuinely want to understand them anyway.

So the details are blocked because I will question you?

 

[paddoboy]

So the details are blocked because I will question you?

I've given you the reasons. You can research it yourself about him being a god botherer.
But I suspect you have never researched anything in your life, and just stubbornly maintain your anti science stance, and your supposed ability [or lack of ability] to think for yourself.
ps: Reading non reputable, non scientific material is not research

 

[paddoboy]

So the details are blocked because I will question you?

I won't go into the details for a couple of reasons...[1] Your record as a troll and anti science nut, and [2] you would not understand the details anyway, not that you would genuinely want to understand them anyway.

 

[paddoboy]

Here's some more on this fanatical religious nut which our own nut is supporting.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCCPL9BPD5P01DSKB
A reference thread to catalogue all threads where computer guy, opinion writer, non scientist Josh Greenberger, who goes by the handle "greenj" (when not using sockpuppets that is) talks dishonestly about evolution because it clashes with his theological beliefs. Lies, misquotations, baseless claims, logical fallacies, woeful misunderstandings and many many unanswered questions abound. And a complete lack of science knowledge. But that doesn't matter when you have a seriously large ego and a desperate need to discredit evolution not with science, but nonsense and religious apologetics.

Of course in each one of these threads, he has always left without backing up his claims with evidence or logical arguments. Despite this, he still claims to have dealt with everything that was thrown at him (denial is another problem of his). Most recently he has said he won't bother to respond to any criticisms of his posts, he apparently doesn't feel the need to defend them. But he is happy to go on spamming more baseless anti-evolution threads while engaging very little in debate. Of course, this will only make his position look even worse as each new post is systematically shredded by those who actually know what they're talking about.