Dark Energy Battles Dark Matter

Mr. Jorrie, do you know if there is any fundamental connection between this later dark-energy-driven inflationary period and the so-called scalar-field-driven hyperinflationary period (lasting about 10^-33seconds) which began about 10^-35seconds after the Planck Epoch?

Something else puzzles me about the timing of events in the nascent universe and the consequences of that timing. According to the Standard Model, gravity appeared roughly 10^-45 seconds after the Planck Epoch, at which time the density of the universe was on the order of 10²³ solar masses squeezed into a space about the size of a proton. If you want the makings of a black hole, this is certainly it.

Scalar-field-driven inflation, however, occured "much" later, at around 10^-35 seconds after the Planck Epoch, so we've got some dead time where gravity could have prevailed before the scalar-field action kicked in.

So my question is this: what, pray tell, kept the universe from snuffing it as a black hole between the time of gravity's appearance and the start of the inflationary period? Any ideas here, or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Dear Guest: extraordinarily good questions!

Your: "According to the Standard Model, gravity appeared roughly 10^-45 seconds after the Planck Epoch..." may be a bit optimistic, since that's an interval shorter than the Planck interval! Not that it makes much difference, because it surely appeared 10^-42 seconds after the Planck Epoch! At that sort of timescales, quantum gravity had to apply and I'm not sure anyone knows how.

My rather simplistic opinion is that the actions that caused the "false vacuum" driven hyper-inflationary period were already there during the fleeting 10^-35 seconds after the Planck Epoch. There is a chapter with my "engineering view" of inflation on this page: Cosmology in Relativity 4 Engineers.

Whether it's quantum gravity that prevented a collapse or whether the conditions for expanding space was there, I do not know. Perhaps the time period was simply too short for any form of collapse to start?

Remember, collapse in the normal sense of the word would have meant mass/energy had to move relative to the tiny space-time that existed! During hyperinflation there probably wasn't any significant movement of mass/energy in this sense, just space-time expansion - but I'm speculating!

I would love to hear more of your views on it.

"...what, pray tell, kept the universe from snuffing it as a black hole between the time of gravity's appearance and the start of the inflationary period? Any ideas here, or am I missing something?"

Without getting too overly "religious" on you, the 'what' was a 'who' and He had not decided to "let there be a black hole" but rather "let there be light" ... and there was light. Not to mention an intelligent framework that determined the universal rules for mass, energy, space, and time.

That in no way, by the way, diminishes our scientific curiosity and desire to understand more about precisely what happened, when, and how. Why else would God have created both Engineers and philosophers?

Bravo!

Concur!

Another question for you Mr. Jorrie:

I read a comment by a student of Hoyle's that Hoyle believed Hubble's background radiation wasn't from a big bang at all, but was the effect of strands of iron. Since that seems a simpler explanation, I've been surprised that I've never since read any comment on Hoyle's idea. Is that because it has been so thoroughly disproved that it isn't worth mentioning? At the time of the interview, his pupil said that we were merely trapped by a Western desire for a beginning and end.

Thanks in advance!

Guest, you wrote: "... I've been surprised that I've never since read any comment on Hoyle's idea. Is that because it has been so thoroughly disproved that it isn't worth mentioning?"

I'm not very knowledgeable on Fred Hoyle's cosmology ideas, because I stopped reading it when he reportedly remarked, after the cosmic microwave background (cmb) radiation was properly characterized: "...we're dead...".

There remains little doubt today, with all the measurements done by the likes of COBE and WMAP, that Hoyle was wrong in his interpretations of the cmb.

Jorrie, in previous posts on other threads, I have mentioned that I spoke with Dear Fred in person, As you may know he was an avid Science Fiction Fan. and believed that intelligent life was all over the universe. Fred concurred with Dyson's hypothetical spheres.

A star is a source of energy, it is intelligent to utilize it. 'ALL' of it, The definition of Intelligent Extra-Terrestial Life, is that their home 'Star' would be invisible. Freedman Dyson was a pioneer of 'thinking out of the box'

Plasma Chemists assure us that DNA, the building block of life, is countless orders of magnitute more likely on a hot star, than in the frozen wilderness of a 'Planet'...no electrons to get in the way. Saint John the Divine was visited, he claimed by what he described as an 'Angel' but this angel said "stop grovelling I am just a perfectly ordinary human being, just a fellow servant" (paraphrased from the Apocalypse)...... we could add he might have added; "Now are you perfectly clear about the 12 spherical airlocks,(pearly gates) 12,000 stadia or 1500 miles diameter, for a geodesic (tetragonos) 12 concentric layer, space station, we can't possibly admit you lot to the Galactic Federation till you start to build your own Freeman Dyson Sphere. When the light from your sun starts to fade, your membership will be confirmed" ......No heresy intended! This is just for the Kids who might be following this thread. They still have their immagination intact. some of us old codgers have had it knocked out of us?

I take it that, in this context, "stunning" is synonymous with grossly unhelpful?

You are a diligent fellow. I just read this on another news thread and you've already got your own thread going here Jorrie. Maybe I should look here first for updates.

It would be interesting to know what parts of the pie (percentages) dark energy, dark matter and baryonic matter were 9 billion years ago. Maybe the repulsive force of dark energy is eating away at dark matter or baryonic matter or both. If dark energy is diminishing the other one or two it appears we are on the downhill side of existance. Not that you and I will ever know! Let's get to the answer quickly my heart's been acting up lately after a bypass 4 years ago. I'm OK for now! I think!

Cheers Jorrie,

The Old Guy

Hi "Old Guy", you asked about: "... what parts of the pie (percentages) dark energy, dark matter and baryonic matter were 9 billion years ago."

It is in fact possible to 'reverse engineer' that pie-chart out of the curves for the Friedmann equation and the equation itself, that I posted in my CR4 Blog. I will do that when I have more time and post it here.

For now, you also asked: "Maybe the repulsive force of dark energy is eating away at dark matter or baryonic matter or both."

Indirectly, yes. Directly, it is the expansion that 'eats away' at the matter density, how else? More volume, same matter, less density. Check the Friemann equation again: Ω_m/a³ against Ω_v with no dilution! Since the dark energy causes an increasing expansion rate, one can say it is the cause of a rapid diminishing of matter density.

"Old Guy", I tried to 'reverse engineer' that "pie" and found the following values: 9 billion years ago, from the graph/spreadsheet, a was 0.43. Since Ω_m= 0.27, Ω_m/a³ = 3.4, which is 4.65 times larger than the dark (vacuum) energy density.

As far as we know, the total matter component is made up of at max. 5% baryons and 95% cold dark matter. So, despite the fact that 9 billion years ago, the total matter density was 4 times the vacuum energy density, baryons were in the minority by far!

I get 4% baryons, 18% dark energy and 78% dark matter, more or less the opposite of today's values.

Makes any sense?

Could it be that matter is a compressed version of Dark Energy at its weakest state. Dark Matter is just a degree more compressed state of Dark Energy. In other words, when Dark Energy (strong force) presses against itself it cancels itself to a weaker force which we see as matter coming from the perspective of the weak force. The more Dark Energy is compressed the more dense it becomes which causes the objects to expand from each other while at the same time causes the mass to pop in and out of existence depending on the degree of its compressed state. This is how Galaxies are to come into existence long after the so called Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang fails to mention how the beginning particle (or God particle) of which started the whole universe became to exist in the first place nor explain how it became so dense. I believe it's more like an infinite big crunch caused by Dark Energy pressing upon itself that fulfills all degrees of existence.

I love reading about your topic and would like to read more on the subject matter. My email briandd73@gmail.com

Hi Guest. You wrote: "Could it be that matter is a compressed version of Dark Energy at its weakest state. Dark Matter is just a degree more compressed state of Dark Energy. ..."

I think it is extremely unlikely. Dark energy has the properties of "the energy of the vacuum" and produces a sort of "antigravity" - it pushes galaxies apart. Dark matter has the same gravitational properties as ordinary matter, except that it does not interact electromagnetically, hence it is dark (no reflections or absorption of light or other EM waves).

The "God particle" or Higgs boson is predicted by the standard model of quantum physics, which is not quite part of the Big Bang theory of cosmology (which starts after the so-called "cosmic inflation" epoch). The elementary particles (including the Higgs boson, or something similar) are thought to originate towards the end of the inflationary period.

Jorrie

Hi,

Back again--about Hoyle. I read Wrinkles in Time (Smoot) about the COBE data, I didn't see it conflicting with Hoyle's idea---but then again, Hoyle wasn't directly addressed. My concern is that the Big B. is so awkward. It was created to explain the background radiation and the origin of entropy. But since then, we've had these questions come up: 1.)Where's the mass required for it (dark matter) 2.)Why are the most distant objects accelerating (dark energy) 3.)Why is the universe composed of matter instead of anti-matter (I haven't heard an explanation of that one).

If there is something reflecting and refracting the wavelengths associated with the background radiation, it would explain #2.), and dark matter could be abandoned as a theory in need of an observation. The question of entropy would be returned to thermodynamics (which seems to be answering the entropy problem by including it's conservation with matter and energy).

Hi Guest, your: "My concern is that the Big B. is so awkward. It was created to explain the background radiation and the origin of entropy." is radically wrong!

The BB theory was created to explain the fact that the cosmos is expanding. Then this theory predicted the microwave background radiation. Quite long after that, two communications engineers accidentally found that radiation! I do not even want to comment on your statement about "the origin of entropy"!

Answers to your further questions, as best I can:

"1.)Where's the mass required for it (dark matter)". The BB theory does not require 'dark matter'! It is the way we observe the expansion to shape up that requires more mass than what we can see all around us - hence "dark matter" is required. (This is overly simplified, but true!)

"2.)Why are the most distant objects accelerating (dark energy)". Granted, it is not well understood, but the observations require it and that's that. Keep looking for it!

"3.)Why is the universe composed of matter instead of anti-matter (I haven't heard an explanation of that one)." True. There isn't a good explanation, but there are theories about it - the only problem is that we have not been able to do tests that verified one theory and falsified another. But... the matter over anti-matter abundance is one of the lesser problems of the BB theory, but a BIG one for Fred Hoyle's theory!

Occam's razor is applied and the simplest theory that explains every observation is accepted at that time.

Hi,

Vacation kept me away from keeping up on this conversation--but I've been looking forward to reading your reply. Thank you.

I've apparantly slipped in remembering my history on the subject. I thought that Hubble found the radiation and quasars, and the big bang theory was derived from that evidence. What was the evidence that the universe is expanding that predates radio telescopes? I thought the radiation was the evidence of expansion! ((as is increasing entropy, but you said you didn't want to deal with that))

My understanding of dark matter was that it is needed for two, unrelated (as least as far as anything can be unrelated in cosmology, haha) reasons. The first was the observation of the rotation of galaxies---they showed apparent motion as if they had a larger, and more homogenous mass than seen in the distribution and number of stars. The explanation of this observation was subscribed to ordinary matter that was thinly spread enough not to clump into stars, nor even contribute to refraction/reflection of their light. Hence, invisible but for their gravitional effect, and since sometimes referred to as "brown matter".

The other type of dark matter (went my history) was required for the math of the big bang to work for the rapid expansion period. Not including the "brown" variety of dark matter meant that we are missing 95+% of the necessary matter for the math to work, and with it we would be still be missing 75%.

Thanks again for this forum!

The Late Learned Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Lord Primate of Ireland, Most Rev. James Ussher (Requiestcat in pace) determined that at 9 AM, on Tuesday 26th October 4004 BC. The Cosmos came into being.

Only one miracle was needed. An unbending rule of science is "Always reject theories that require more than one miracle" as the work of crackpots.

The Church were the first to endorse 'Big Bang' for very obvious reasons. It showed up scientists as fools, and at the same time retained the essence of religious power.

i.e. we are working for the 'Hand' of the creator, the great 'Pyrotechnician' who can make his explosions expand at a million million million million times faster than the speed of light. suspend the laws of physics, have galaxies like our own milky way move through the background radiation at only 600 kph, indicating that we are the very centre of all things, everything else is expanding from us (improbable) Olbers' paradox is explained by gravitational effects on photons, that inconveniently would very neatly explain 'Red Shift' just as well, but with the added bonus of confirming yet again Einstein's predictions. Let's not go into the 'Density Paradox'... we look back in 'Time' as we look back in distance...we would expect density to increase, It inconveniently does not!..... Ah, You see the Higgs Boson soup gave rise to the leptichauns and quarks but after the speed of light slowed down to just a few million times the present speed, the quarks got off.

Big Bang Cosmology has been said to be the largest intellectual edifice ever constructed, based on the fewest facts that also hold the distinction of contradicting much of the postulate" R.I.P. Fred, thanks for coining the term. Big Bang! may your illuminating light never grow tired.

Rev James Ussher, Are you sure it was 9 Am? would that be Armagh Time, or Jerusalem Time or Greenwich? Let's ask Jorrie,

One advantage arising from a great mind like Sir Fred Hoyle being ostracised, is that the great man found time to talk to a Lilliput mind like mine Jorrie. He told me that Sir Isaac Newton never stipulated if gravity was a 'push or pull' .."Aha!" I chimed in enthusiastically, "So the Olbers' paradox might apply to gravity waves", Fred did not comment, but did smile.

The night sky may not indeed be lit up at night by light from zillions of stars and galaxies, but perhaps it is so with the gravity waves emanating from them..... Pound & Rebka's calculations on gravitational red shifts, that confirmed Einstein's predictions to a tee, might see the 'light' of day once again? Just trying to stimulate debate Jorrie, Nothing personal

Nor Jorrie, in my simplistic estimation, would that preclude 'big bangs' being just a 'local phenomenon' Sort of July 4th Cosmic Fireworks. Colonel Congreve's 'Red Rockets' writ large.

Hi Alastair, your "...in my simplistic estimation, would that preclude 'big bangs' being just a 'local phenomenon' " may in fact be the case!

However, just how 'local' is 'local', we just don't know. Beware of Colonel Congreve manufacturing a 'big bang' in his workshop instead of 'Red Rockets' - that will be a real local event with 'universal' implications!

Dang. I came here thinking that somebody'd found a way to clean that stuff from the bottom of my coffee pot.

You are in luck andyhorning Pravda, 24th October 2006

http://tinyurl.com/sogk8

Quote:-"So I thought: what if I try to clean the encrustation inside the tea pot with that water? [De-ionised] .....After boiling the purified water in it, all the encrustation came off."