In Big Bang Theory was it "spontaneous symmetry breaking" that caused there to be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter in the first picoseconds? If so was it was inflation (exponential expansion) that caused the symmetry breaking? Does the observed expansion continue to cause spontaneous symmetry breaking and produce matter anti-matter pairs and if so is it possible to detect them?
Spontaneous symmetry breaking seems to be related to the period before the big bang in string theory. After some searching I found superstringtheory (link removed because I'm not allowed to post links). (Link removed)This page from that site addresses Inflation Theory and spontaneous symmetry breaking, and you can step through the whole site using the "previous" and "next" arrows. The questions I was asking seem to be addressed.
I'm conflicted Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Having heard so much about string theory, the beauty of it, and yet the lack of any falsifiable predictions, that I decided to buy Smolin's book, The Trouble With Physics, which I am working my way through. Call me impulsive or impatient or something but I have been very interested in cosmology as a means to address the "before and beyond" the Big Bang. And yet I have a problem with deciphering the math that supports various cosmologies like I see mentioned here and there. Maybe it its the "old dog and new tricks" problem but if there is no consensus and different theories abound, each with their own jargon, equations and predictions that follow from them, I (being old to start with) could be long gone before I ever gained an in depth understand of any one cosmology. There are some conclusions that I have come to on my own: Quantum mechanics seems to be a very important field and yet there is the compatibility issue in the Planck regime with general relativity If you want to go beyond Big Bang Theory and into an alternate cosmology you have to address not only what happened in the universe in the first picoseconds, but what caused that which happened, what ever it was Maybe it is just me but doesn't there need to be some as yet undetected physics related to the cause of the big bang Wouldn't the existence of aether or some kind of energy background help to explain some aspects of the universe like dark energy, accelerating expansion, and maybe gravity and dark matter Higgs Theory seems to agree with the need for a "background" of some kind and a force associated with it but there is that "old dog, new trick" problem with the math of other peoples theories If unification of the forces is possible by discovering as yet unknown physics, wouldn't the fundamental force be finite and predictable as opposed to "the uncertainty" of todays quantum physics Isn't it just possible that there was no beginning, that the universe or at least the energy of the universe has always existed I'm sure many people have similar questions. My personal approach is to try to determine what might be the simplest explanations for what we now observe and I have been speculating using what I think is reasonable and responsible steps, one step at a time. Using that approach I have been able to present my speculations (mostly at BAUT), get some feedback, revise and post, etc. until I have gotten into such speculative fervor that no one is able to say that they understand my current personal cosmology Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!; and yet to me it is all laid out one little step at a time but over a period of years posting and many threads. My purpose for posting my steps and revising them based on input was to use a bottom up approach to understanding cosmology instead of trying to decipher all the alternative cosmologies, not being able to grasp them completely, and then never having a cosmology I could support. Being new here, not knowing who anyone is or what they support of don't support, I guess I am just trying to get me feet wet. I see that I need 20 posts in order to use some forum features. Is this the right forum for me to speculate about my alternative cosmology?
It shows an honesty at the very least. You haven't posted in the Cosmology section only to get "downgraded". Kudos to you sir.
Why, thank you Oli, you are a gentleman to say that. It is easy to understand the principle of being downgraded to pseudoscience, but has anyone at SciFormus ever had a pseudoscience thread elevated to somewhere better (where "better" might be I don't know yet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). Just guessing but this forum seems like the right the place for us non-professionals to say our piece and suffer the consequences Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits. Empty space is real but does not exist as matter, right? Einstein was right, the Universe is background free. The Aether does not exist, yet, it is the physical but immaterial substance from which the Universe emerged. How big is a point? Size does not apply, right? Points are dimensionless. Same with empty space, it is dimensionless... yet, it contains the Universe. In this realm, we need to think in terms of state, not in terms of process. Process occurs as spacetime. Trying to mathematically describe a realm where there is no need for classical physics' laws is not acceptable. Terms like velocity or infinite imply motion and duration and can't be used to describe empty space, they are non-descriptive and inappropriate. At the Aether scale there are no distances to cover, it is all pervading... the Aether is one. This notion of a primordial substance is a very old one, also known as Akasha or Brahman, and many times described as pure energy or spiritual fire. It has been anthropomorphized by man since the times of Plato and Aristotle, the Chaldeans and the Akkadians. Called by names like Zeus, Jupiter, Brahma and others. Always seen as immaterial until 1964, when the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR, CBR or CMB) was discovered. Since then, there have emerged completely contradictory notions which now compete for acceptance. The reductionists are becoming restless in countless desperate attempts to quantify the unmeasurable. Now there are new claims of an absolute frame of reference showing up everywhere. We finally have a fixed frame! They claim, as if we needed one. If the Aether is physical but non-material, with no possible landmarks, how could it represent a fixed frame? Einstein, Minkowski and Mach described a different aether. This twentieth century aether differs from earlier aethers in that, in it, objects are relative to other objects, not to empty space, therefore avoiding a Principle of Relativity (POR) violation. Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space, space is an extension of matter. Space and empty space are not the same thing. Space is not primary, nor fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve. Empty space, on the other hand, is primary, non-derivable. There is flat empty space, then there is curved spacetime, or what is known as the observable Universe. Einstein's aether is the seat to an all relating process which he called spacetime. Contemporary physics is increasingly turning into a cross between conformational space (General Relativity) and material space (Quantum Mechanics). After we realized there was a CMB, we have slowly integrated particulate space into GR, while starting to take a serious look at emerging space flow theories combining electrogravity and relativation. Here, I use the aether concept in an attempt to solve the Hard Problem, to answer; What is that which is? In most aether views, whether material or immaterial, the Aether is seen as an all knowing creative force, but not in this view. Here, I compare the Aether to God in the sense that it is one, omnipresent and eternal but, at the same time, I argue that it is not all knowing. That it is a thing which can neither think nor see without a brain. That it sees, thinks and exists through matter, and that in that sense we truly are God's servants. Consciousness, instead of being treated as universal, is seen as a local field around the planet. Aether is but does not exist as matter, it is before spacetime, before the Big Bang, Inflation, a CMB... etc. It is not matter, therefore, notions like motion, size or duration are not applicable, time does not apply. It is outside the rules of spacetime. Aether becomes through matter. But, as you probably know, energy is finite, this is the reason why nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. Not even light can reach the speed of light! For a single photon to reach the speed of light the whole Universe would need to turn into that one photon. Because energy is finite and the speed of light needs to be kept constant for fields to work in the allowable speed range (0 to 300,000 km/s), there is time dilation and space contraction for material systems moving at relativistic speeds. As a photon reaches the speed limit its waves are flattened, it will lose its wavelength (energy) and go back into being Aether. Slow down the system and it reappears... as required by local spacetime conditions. "This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and the infinite is indivisible. But indeed, even if the One is more like a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole Universe will be undivided either in quantity or in form." (Aristotle, 340BC) "A substance cannot be produced from anything else: it will therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence appertains to the nature of it." (Spinoza, 1673) "It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change there is no illusion with respect to time, given the assumption of their unchangeability." (Aristotle, 340BC) Reduce yourself to the size of the smallest particle and what do you get? You get empty space. Matter is made of fields and fields are little more than apparitions. Fields are shapes in empty space, lines of force. Matter is an illusion, but that is reality. Matter in spacetime is the one drawing the shapes, not some creator or designer. The Universe designs itself. Particle creation occurs according to local spacetime's energetic or thermodynamical requirements. Reality is process and process happens as spacetime. Basil Hiley is correct, being remains constant during the process of becoming. Matter is only temporary, it has a beginning and an ending, it is subject to time (change). Things are because of the Aether, Aether is what gives them their temporary being status. The Real, that which is, is the Aether. Reality, on the other hand, simply refers to the process of becoming. Whether there is an aether or not is finally answered; the Aether is but does not exist until it turns into brains with eyes. This isn't a new theory but a new insight on already existing theories. A freshly synthesized interpretation consistent with already known and well accepted scientific facts. It is a new insight or synthesis which represents, in one way or another, claims already made by many great thinkers throughout the history of Mankind. A fresh perspective in which the aether concept is reintroduced in an attempt to reconcile a centuries old notion of wholeness in space and time with actually established scientific paradigms. In addition to arguing for a common substrate to all matter, in a purely dialectical way, without math or complicated formulas, I relate self-awareness and perception to non-living self-organized systems, thereby suggesting that consciousness is not a supernatural entity that precedes matter but an intrinsic property of Nature.
