jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (11 posts)

A Question For our Hub Physicists on the Big Bang and Inflation

  1. My Esoteric profile image88
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    I have heard many times that one reason the "inflation theory" has been challenged is the argument that is if it were true then the expansion would have to happened at a speed faster than light, in violation of the General Theory of Relativity. 

    Given there was no matter during the inflationary period, how does the General Relativity theory apply since it is only things with mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light?  Is there such a limitation to the force (singular) that existed during inflation?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Light doesn't travel faster than C, either.  Or any other form of energy I've ever heard of.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You are quite correct, light can't travel faster than itself, it can just travel slower.  But, during the inflationary period, there was no light, it was still mixed with the weak force in a package called the electro-weak force.  See http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/The- … the-Layman

        Massless particles can be lensed by gravity, once it came into existence, but not for the normal reasons,   Massive objects, which are bound the the speed of light constraint, curve space-time.  Massless particles, which travel in a straight line, must nevertheless follow the space-time curvature.

        During the inflationary period, there was no mass,if fact, for a good portion, if not all of it, there were no photons either for other particles not to go faster than.

        That's my story and I am sticking to it ... until something better comes along, lol - which, of course, is the point of this Forum

    2. profile image0
      Science Worksposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Some facts:

      (1)  There is increasing evidence that the speed of light is neither constant nor the outer limit of speed.

      (2)  There is increasing evidence that Relativity theories do not account for everything in the universe/universes.

      But, more importantly, why do you presume "no matter" in the nanoseconds before and/or after the Big Bang---this is patently wrong.

      In fact, all of the matter was present, and as Stephen Hawking has noted (and what is now generally accepted science): "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity."

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't presume anything other than the current Standard Model has the most chance of being correct.  According to it, matter didn't come into existing until after  the weak force separated from the electromagnetic force and then the weak force's X and Z bosons of interacted with the Higgs field.  This is supposed to have occurred about 10E-12 to 10E-6 seconds ATBB.

        Was Hawking putting a difficult subject in terms we can understand since most people cannot conceive of the idea of "lack of matter"?  Try putting that in a pithy statement.

        As to Relativity theory, it is known at this point in time that it does not account for everything; that is what the challenge is.  What Relativity doesn't explain, Quantum mechanics does, and vice versa.  What scientists are trying to do is find the unifying theory that melds the theory of the large with the theory of the very small together.

        1. profile image0
          Science Worksposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The problem is that the most likely candidate for a Grand Unifying Theory of Everything (string theory) has yet to come even close to being provable, let alone proved. String Theory remains an elegant idea and a proposition.

          The same basic problem holds true for the Higgs particle upon which origins of matter theory---at least some of them, depend.
          .

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I agree regarding string theory, but in regards to Higgs, with last year's reverification of the existence of the Higgs boson, the theory behind the creation of matter is damn near settled.

  2. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    "Topology is a global quantity that characterizes the shape of space ( Measuring the Topology of the Universe , Cornish, Spergel, and Starkman).  Unlike the geometry of the universe, the topology of the universe is not constrained by General Relativity"

    I'm guessing this means space can expand faster than light, although matter can't.

    http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/C … iverse.htm

    1. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If inflation theory is correct, then it must have for 10E-32 seconds, give or take an order of magnitude or two.  After that, it slowed down. 

      It wasn't until 377,000 years ATTB (after the Big Bang) that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God could do his thing.  Prior to that, there was no light and C didn't exist..

      1. profile image0
        Science Worksposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The standard model of an inflationary universe is losing ground and is now understood as a simplified explanation of a more complex problem; a problem whose solution is likely in 11 dimensions.

        As for some "god" creating light and the speed of light...

        Prove it. Offer one iota of evidence that suggests that gods are not man-made and that gods do not exist in the service of man-made and man-centered goals and objectives.

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Do you have a good source your first claim is true?  The last I heard, verifying the Higgs boson shored up the theory even more.

          As to the rest, if it was directed at me, I was being tongue-in-cheek.

 
working