BB shockwave

U

ULTRA

Realistically Surreal
Registered Senior Member
Apparantly, during the inflation phase of the big bang, there was an instance when the inflation occured at superluminal speed. This, I believe would have created a shockwave in spacetime. Is it possible that this shockwave could still be travelling ahead of the leading edge of the material universe?

Ultra
 
There couldn't be a shockwave in spacetime because there was no spacetime for it to propogate in.
 
Any evidence of turbulence wouldn't be found "ahead" of inflation because as alex points out space was what was inflating to begin with.. nothing was in front of it.

But its possible if one could see the leading edge you might see some sort of turbulence there. However there was nothing but primeval particles at that time and I believe such things don't give off any radiation to see anything with. The CMB is as far as we can see right now, but its possible we may peer a little deeper one day however I don't think it will ever be possible to see the exact moment of birth.
 
AlexG said:
There couldn't be a shockwave in spacetime because there was no spacetime for it to propogate in.
Click to expand...

You should just keep your mouth shut in the future when saying no one else knows about physics. You are clearly just as degraded in this area.

Inflation is a post-big-bang phenomenon.
 
Could it be that said shockwave opened up spacetime as it went? Presumably the energy had some sort of frequency. So long as something to measure spacetime with exists (like the frequency of a wavelength of energy) then spacetime can begin to exist. Obviously this is mere speculation as it's probably impossible to prove one way or another as such a shockwave would be unobservable due to its sheer velocity.
 
Green Destiny said:
You should just keep your mouth shut in the future when saying no one else knows about physics. You are clearly just as degraded in this area.

Inflation is a post-big-bang phenomenon.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever said no one else knows physics. I've said that you don't know physics.

Your reading comprehension needs work too. The OP is talking about the leading edge of expansion, which is the leading edge of spacetime.
 
AlexG said:
I don't think I've ever said no one else knows physics. I've said that you don't know physics.

Your reading comprehension needs work too. The OP is talking about the leading edge of expansion, which is the leading edge of spacetime.
Click to expand...

There is a name for people like you, it's called 'Hypocrite'.

I mean, you didn't even believe quantum theory is a probabilistic theory. If anyone listens to you, I'll also advise them you know nothing about physics.
 
Green Destiny said:
There was no shockwave. It was the exponential increasing of spacetime itself, it was not a subject of an explosion.
Click to expand...

What is an explosion but a very rapid expansion? And what more rapid than superluminal? Obviously matter can't travel that fast, as the energy required to shift that much matter that fast would take more energy apparantly than the universe contains. I am not claiming it happened as a fact, just exploring the possibility.
 
ULTRA said:
What is an explosion but a very rapid expansion? And what more rapid than superluminal? Obviously matter can't travel that fast, as the energy required to shift that much matter that fast would take more energy apparantly than the universe contains. I am not claiming it happened as a fact, just exploring the possibility.
Click to expand...

Space drags matter - matter is part of the fabric, it's doesn't expand because at some source point an explosion occurred. Where would the explosion occur?
 
Green Destiny said:
There is a name for people like you, it's called 'Hypocrite'.

I mean, you didn't even believe quantum theory is a probabilistic theory. If anyone listens to you, I'll also advise them you know nothing about physics.
Click to expand...

GD, no one who knows anything about physics pays any attention to you.
 
Green Destiny said:
Space drags matter - matter is part of the fabric, it's doesn't expand because at some source point an explosion occurred. Where would the explosion occur?
Click to expand...

This makes no sense.

However, space continues to expand at an accelerating rate. If there was a shockwave and it has a gravitational aspect, it could explain this phenomenon. Matter is also continuing to expand.
 
ULTRA said:
This makes no sense.

However, space continues to expand at an accelerating rate. If there was a shockwave and it has a gravitational aspect, it could explain this phenomenon. Matter is also continuing to expand.
Click to expand...

How do you think matter moves ordinarily in spacetime without reaching superluminal speeds, without it being dragged?

You might say it makes no sense, but it's what is generally beleived.
 
Ok, no problem. Just on a little thought experiment. All input is worthwhile even if negative as it helps get stuff in perspective. I often like to think my way around various concepts, they're not always correct but when they are it's a buzz. Any alternative theories?
 
ULTRA said:
Ok, no problem. Just on a little thought experiment. All input is worthwhile even if negative as it helps get stuff in perspective. I often like to think my way around various concepts, they're not always correct but when they are it's a buzz. Any alternative theories?
Click to expand...

Any alternative theories you ask?

There are not any I can think of to be honest, unless one decides to believe that systems are not rushing away faster than light, but it would take one hell of a theory to explain that, since there is observational evidence to support our original claim.

In effect, inflation is a speculative idea, it is more of a mathematical fudgefactor to account for the homogeneous back ground radiation. Unless one decides big bang is not correct, then the radiation might be found to be explained in some other way, which would rid of this embarrasment.

But this is all very speculative, psuedoscientific if you like.
 
I beg to differ. If the superluminal expansion phase did not occur the universe would appear to be around 40bn years old, which is not supported by any evidence whatever. I never indicated that star systems, or any matter, was capable of travelling at superluminal speed. It is my understanding that when the expansion occured, matter had yet to "condense" out of the energy of the BB. Of course, as I am sure you appreciate, energy has not the constraints, generally speaking, as matter has.

Of course, we still do not know the mechanics of the event so are left little option but to speculate from the perspective of informed science. I hardly see how this is pseudoscience any more than any other unproven theory is - but of course you are welcome to adopt whatever viewpoint you like.
 
Eh if you want to just read some brain teasers you might check out the different VSL theories, there are some varying speed of light theories that make predictions based on inertia being slightly different.... I believe John Moffats VSL has something to do with inertias origin.

But its like a fringe theory.
 
dhcracker said:
Eh if you want to just read some brain teasers you might check out the different VSL theories, there are some varying speed of light theories that make predictions based on inertia being slightly different.... I believe John Moffats VSL has something to do with inertias origin.

But its like a fringe theory.
Click to expand...

Yeah, general relativity wouldn't support it as far as i know. There's been a fair bit of work done on this using Gamma-ray-Bursters and it looks like the existing theory still holds..The light is still travelling at lightspeed, but is travelling through curved space. I'll still have a look though.
 
dhcracker said:
Eh if you want to just read some brain teasers you might check out the different VSL theories, there are some varying speed of light theories that make predictions based on inertia being slightly different.... I believe John Moffats VSL has something to do with inertias origin.

But its like a fringe theory.
Click to expand...

Not just Moffat, but also several other scientists I can think of, such as John Barrow.

It's still very speculative... psuedoscientific almost. It means $$c^2= \frac{1}{\epsilon \mu}$$. It means the density of the universe changes and there is no evidence yet to support this fanstastic claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top