New Big Bang Theories

[Augie]

Hi folks,

Some people here know that I come from a physics, engineering, and computer science background. I have always been interested in astronomy also. I have been reading "Astronomy" magazine since I was a kid. The August 2005 issue has a few interesting articles about the Big Bang. They address the problems of causality, flatness, and magnetic monopoles. The "new" hyper-inflation theory "solves" all of these problems. I am still not convinced by the magnetic monopole "solution", but that's just me. I need a better explanation.

These articles also suggest that there are multiple universes that "bubbled off" of a "multiverse". Until a few years ago, I never really believed these theories. But there has been a lot of compelling evidence lately to suggest that there are numerous universes. In our own particular universe, the 4 basic forces of physics "settled out" just right to support matter and life. I guess we just got lucky - just like with our sun. Many stars in our galaxy are too red or too blue. Many are too hot or too cold. Our sun is (almost) just right. Actually, it gives off a little bit too much radiation for life, but earth's atmosphere takes care of that.

Any thoughts?

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

I thought of something funny. What if the "multiverse" is some giant creature's intestine? Suppose all of the universes in existance are particles in that creature's intestine. Suppose the "Big Bang" is that creature's fart? Every time that creature rips out a fart, it creates a new universe. That would explain the "hyper-inflation" theory. A fart expands as it is released from the large intestine.

Hmmm... ;D

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

I originally posted this thread on another board. Some people responded to it. My posts to follow are responses to those other people's posts.

One responder mentioned taking calculus-based physics in college.

This was my response :

I took 3 semesters (1 1/2 years) of calculus in high school, so I was exempt from it in college. Obviously, since I was a physics and engineering major, I took numerous physics courses in college, including graduate-level courses. Unfortunately, my college did not offer astronomy courses.

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

One responder mentioned "string theory" and "how it may one day shrink the gulf that currently exists between quantum mechanics and astrophysics." He wrote "it would [also] go a long way towards the validation of multiverses."

Here is my reply :

In my mind, string theory is still just a theory that needs validation. It is interesting, but it is not as "concrete" as the Big Bang theory. It doesn't have as many facts backing it up. It needs more research.

Astrophysics is a fun and interesting field. I can say the same about quantum mechanics.

When I was a junior in college, I took a graduate-level course called "Atomic Physics". It basically dealt with physics on the atomic ("quantum") level. Do you know how the Newtonian laws of classical physics break down in relativistic (Einstein) physics? Well, the same is true of quantum physics. You have to take everything you know about physics and throw it out the window. Quantum physics is some really WEIRD shit. It was an interesting course. It was also one of the most "fun" courses I took in college.

It is interesting how atomic particles just "jump" to different energy levels and different "states" of matter/energy.

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

One responder to my thread discussed how she didn't have "enough math to really understand the theories." She stated that she "stopped just at the point where [she] could get general relativity which, [she] believes, is just shy of knowing enough math to understand string theory."

Here is my response :

I assume that she is talking about third semester calculus (multiple variable calculus, partial differentiation, etc.) and fourth semester calculus (differential equations, etc.). I took both of those courses in my sophmore year of college, when I was 18 years old. That was like child's play for me back then.

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

A few days ago, I received my October 2005 issue of "Astronomy" magazine. It is a special "cosmology issue". There are more articles about the Big Bang (inflation, multiverse, etc.). There are articles about "string theory" too.

Cosmology is very interesting. If you haven't already done so, maybe you should read these 2 issues of "Astronomy" magazine.

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

I was reading the June 2006 issue of "Astronomy" magazine. There was an interesting article about "dark matter".

This article states that dark matter dictated normal matter. In other words, the first objects to form in the universe were dark matter objects. They warped space-time. This eventually dictated the rules for the formation of normal matter. Interesting.

About 80% of all the matter in the universe is dark matter.

The first stars to form in the early universe were at least 100 solar masses, and they died within 1 million years. This is very short considering that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

This article also discusses the "cosmic dark ages" and the ionization of gases in the early universe.

There is somehting in this article that is bothersome to me. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. If the first stars all died within 1 million years, and if our Sun is 4.6 billion years old (and about halfway thru its life span), then the numbers are off. Our Sun is a third generation star. Second generation stars contained lighter elements, and they should have had shorter life spans. There is too much time between star generations. The math doesn't work.

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

The September 2006 issue of "Astronomy" magazine is another great issue, with several articles about dark energy and gravitational waves.

The "dark energy" article offers 3 explanations for it:

1) The "cosmological constant", which was proposed (and later recanted) by Albert Einstein. In this theory, dark energy is an intrinsic, uniform property of space.

2) "Quintessence", which states the existance of an unidentified energy field of varying strength that fills space like a fog.

3) "Illusion", which states that the effects we see result from a breakdown in Einstein's theory of gravity over the largest distance scales. A "modified gravity" theory is offered as an alternative.

Augie

(continued in next post...)

[Augie]

Hi folks,

There are 4 ways to target (measure) dark energy:

1) "High-Redshift Supernovae", which measures luminosity and redshift.

2) "Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations" (a. k. a. "wiggling baryons"). There are fluctuations in the distribution of photons and baryons caused by sound waves sloshing around in the early universe.

3) "Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect". The cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectrum is distorted in characteristic ways when its microwave photons interact with the hot gas inside massive galaxy clusters.

4) "Weak Lensing". Light from the distant universe winds its way through gravitational distortions caused by regions of dark matter. This results in the shearing of images.


Data so far shows dark energy to be a much weaker form of Einstein's cosmological constant.

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

The "gravitational waves" article discusses inflation and the Big Bang. Gravitational waves are ripples in the structure of space and time.

Albert Einstein recognized gravity as the warping of a 4-dimensional continuim of space-time rather than a force between masses. Space is not the empty stage on which the drama of physics plays out. Instead, it is a principal actor.

We can detect gravitational waves from inflation in the early universe and from the polarization of CMB photons.

Augie

[Augie]

Hi folks,

The "Particle Astrophysics" article discusses high energy photons and subatomic particles. The higher the energies, the more fundamental the physics gets, and the closer to the Big Bang scientists probe.

The "Standard Model" accounts for virtually all of the particles and interactions in nature, but it is incomplete. It is basically the "rules of particle physics".

Here is the breakdown:

Quarks: down, up, strange, charm, bottom, top.

Leptons: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau particle, tau neutrino.

Force carriers: W boson, Z boson, gluon, photon.

All matter comprises combinations of leptons and quarks. Particles interact by exchanging bosons. Force carriers regulate the strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, and electro-magnetic forces, but maybe not gravity.

Augie

(continued in next post...)

[Augie]

Hi folks,

The exact nature and origin of cosmic rays is a mystery. The kinetic energy of all cosmic rays (CRs) in our galaxy is 1 billion times the Sun's total power output. They probably result from supernovae. The source of the highest energy CRs is still a mystery.

Gamma rays (GRs) are 1 type of CRs. Magnetic fields do not alter the trajectories of GRs. We can trace GRs back to their sources (supernovae).

Gamma Ray Blazars (GRBs or "grazars") outshine objects in our own galaxy.

This article also discusses annihilations of elementary particles, which include some dark matter candidates and heavy relic particles that survived from the Big Bang.

There are 3 sources of the cosmic ray energy spectrum: supernova remnants, another galactic source ?, and extragalactic sources.

Augie