Which came first..black hole or galaxy?

HiTek writes "Perhaps the black hole did not form because space-time was expanding faster than C, and the expansion of the energy/matter was limited by the speed of C." ----- Again, my post discusses the epoch >preceding< Inflation. It is during the Inflationary epoch that spacetime is expanding faster than C, not before and not after. -e

Hi -e, you wrote: "It is during the Inflationary epoch that spacetime is expanding faster than C, not before and not after."

As you probably know well, the "expansion faster than C" is not well defined, because C is the speed of a photon through space. Expansion is none of that. It can be viewed as the change in proper separation between two particles, but it depends on the distance between them, so it's still ill defined.

Immediately after inflation stopped, the expansion rate was still enormous, not really slower than the final rate during inflation. The only difference was that the rate now started to decrease smoothly instead of increasing exponentially. We see a drastic change of slope on the log-log scales of scale factor vs. time normally used, but this tells as the acceleration, not the expansion rate. (I was fooled by that for quite some time!)

On your earlier point about what happened before inflation: I believe that the best explanation is that there was not so much energy around then, not enough to create a big black hole, maybe some micro-holes. IMO, the start of inflation is when the quantum fluctuation kicked in and it created this vast energy that eventually created the observable energy density of the present universe.

I'm probably totally wrong, but it makes me sleep better...

Regards, Jorrie

...only difference was that the rate now started to decrease smoothly instead of increasing exponentially...

I'm a little confused here, is it 'still expanding today, but steadily, not increasing the rate' ? Is it just the decrease of acceleration or the decrease of expansion ?

is it as in (above) ...this tells as the acceleration, not the expansion rate... ?

Can you clarify please ?

...quantum fluctuation kicked in...

Kicked in the "first" phase of expansion, to create the mentioned?

Hi Yuval, you wrote: "is it 'still expanding today, but steadily, not increasing the rate' ? Is it just the decrease of acceleration or the decrease of expansion ?"

Directly after inflation stopped, the expansion rate started to decrease until ~5 billion years ago when it appears from observations as if the expansion rate started to increase again. (Note expansion rate, not expansion, which always was and still is positive.)

What I said about acceleration has to do with the slope of the log-log expansion curve, where any slope above unity represents accelerated expansion and a slope below unity decelerating expansion.

Have a look at my web site's cosmic inflation download (Figure 15.3) for a better understanding of the slopes of the log-log cosmic expansion curve.

Regards, Jorrie

Thanks. I was not aware of your site.

There is ambiguity on several fronts, actually. For instance, one of our researchers (Komatsu) defines the end of the Inflationary epoch as the point at which the scalar field is completely "relaxed" and is no longer driving the expansion of spacetime. From his standpoint, spacetime has stopped its insane expansion rate and expansion itself has settled down to the more stately pace seen today. It is the point where the rate assumes the value it would have had Inflation not been introduced (otherwise it would deviate from >that< model as well and you'd have to call it >something<. Apologies for not using italics, etc. and having to use these ugly brackets for emphasis. CR4's editor doesn't play well with Mac Safari.) I guess it depends on whom you talk to. Speaking of primordial energies, the energy >density< is enormous following the vacuum fluctuation, but the net energy itself - the total - may or may not have been all that great as compared with what came later. Certainly the energies were well in excess of that required to sustain the unification of three of the four fundamental interactions (gravity having already sheared off, so to speak), but very little can be said of this period. Immediatly following the Inflationary epoch the total energy (according to current models) was enormous due to the potential energy of the scalar field having been released during that epoch, 'smoothing out' the Universe and resulting in the fireball whose 'echo' we see today as the CMB. This echo is >not< indicative of the distribution of mass-energy prior to the Inflationary epoch. This, at least, is my understanding from talking with our guys here. Cheers! -e

...to the more stately pace seen today...

This is what I was actually asking about, above

Hi Yuval and Europium, with the "[after inflation]...more stately pace seen today...", I have my problems. Here's why.

At least 8 billion years of decelerating expansion followed the inflationary epoch, before moderately accelerating expansion (apparently) started. I can just not see how the slope da/dt, where a is the expansion factor, can be around the values measured today if it was not enormous after the inflation epoch.

I have the (perhaps) naive interpretation that after inflation, the expansion rate had to follow some classical law (Newtonian or relativistic) and could not change almost instantaneously any more, except perhaps in the distant future in the "Big Rip".

I this not, to some degree, what the λCDM model tells us?

Regards, Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

Then do you doubt the accelerating expansion observed today? If so, do have any theories of how the observation is misleading? Are the expansion rates really that certain in the earlier times?

S

Hi StandardsGuy, you wrote "Then do you doubt the accelerating expansion observed today?"

I suppose you're asking this in response to my "At least 8 billion years of decelerating expansion followed the inflationary epoch, before moderately accelerating expansion (apparently) started."

The λCDM model fits all observations better than any other model (with the λ standing for cosmological constant, representing accelerating expansion), so I have some faith in it. It is however not ruled out that some other model may replace it someday!

About the expansion rate at earlier times, the λCDM model also predicts the value from after the inflationary epoch and it also says that λ had a negligible effect in the early times, so the early times are more sure than the future of the expansion rate.

The λCDM predict an enormous rate of expansion immediately after inflation, hence my argument with Europium and Yuval...

Regards, Jorrie

Interestingly, λCDM predicts this enormous rate of expansion but does not actually consider it to be part of the Inflationary epoch. You know, Jorrie, some of these guys should be taken out behind the woodpile for muddying up the pond: "Well, no," says the brightly colored balloon lady, "I'm not inflating them now - just making them bigger."

-e

Hi -e, now you're getting a little out of hand! (I mean taking some guys behind the woodpile.)

I have it that the inflation epoch "delivered", to the λCDM epoch, a universe with the expansion rate perfectly balanced by energy density, i.e., Ω = 1. If you look at the (λCDM) equations, that's what it says!

So maybe, there's no need for the woodpile after all...

Regards, Jorrie

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'll just hang them by their thumbs. But I still like the Balloon Lady. She's kinda cute, don't you think?

-e

Hi -e, you asked about the Balloon Lady: "She's kinda cute, don't you think?"

Yep, cute, but somewhat misleading it seems!

I ran the Friedmann equation backward numerically from now until around the time inflation stopped and I got an expansion rate H ~ 10²⁶H₀ ~ 10²⁸ km s^-1 Mpc^-1. WHOW! Here's the equation used:

with Ω_v=0.7, Ω_r=10^-4 (Peebles 1993), Ω_m=0.3, Ω=1. The tiny value Ω_r=10^-4 for radiation energy density (today) is important in the very early times, when a«1.

The question now is: did the inflation epoch simply change the expansion rate from 0 to 10²⁶H₀ and then the rate started to decrease according to the Friedmann equation? Or was there a sudden change in expansion rate at the end of inflation?

My feeling is that was just a-dot-dot (the rate of change of the expansion rate) that abruptly changed from extremely large positive to large negative, while a-dot, the expansion rate, changed smoothly (no discontinuity).

What would the Balloon Lady have said?

Regards, Jorrie

Very interesting. You've been busy! Mind if I crunch on this awhile?

-----

Jorrie asks: "What would the Balloon Lady have said?"

Balloon lady replies: "Ever tried to blow up a balloon when you have hiccups? It sucks!"

..."I'm not inflating them now...

Graucho is not my real name...

Hi -e, yep, your Mac Safari and the CR4 editor together really makes it hard to read - all in one long paragraph!

Anyway, I value your comments a lot (I replied to it with my comment to Yuval in my previous post).

Regards, Jorrie

Or perhaps one of the oldest Physical Laws once something set into motion will stay in motion until another force acts on it. Remember G is 1 billionth as strong as the other forces at that time. Understand if there is a focused expansion of the universe as in a shockwave or or storm front or wind. Gravity is defeated. We are here debating, because the Super Massive Black Hole in the center of our Galaxy was offset by another stronger force. No-one brought up the new data on Sigma Planet's speed around a galaxy being directly correlated to the SMBH size. Sigma planets are the planets on the very edges of a galaxy. They are too far out to be effected by the gravity of the SMBH. So if the splatter model was what formed the galaxy their rotation speeds should be random, but the data says there is a direct correlation to their speed and the size of the SMBH. Which means their formation is due to the formation event of the SMBH and its accretion disk. It seams we have the SMBH's accretion disk to thank for our galaxy and of the other Galaxies. Galactic wind? Galactic storm fronts? Pressure waves? All sounds familiar? Hum. The facts are pointing my way.

I was asked more than once "what existed before", and replied "nothing at all, there was not even before, time and space being out of existence" with a weird sort of embarrassment.

Intuitively, I must admit, there should be something before

How would you describe it?

At this point I take God strictly at His word.

-e

Hi e,

"At this point I take God strictly at His word."

Are you referring to Genesis 1:1? The beginning spoken of was the beginning of our universe and the beginning of time. The expansion of space that you spoke of is expanding in Gods universe, so it doesn't have to obey the laws of our universe, which laws God created. This is my conclusion. What do you think?

S

I've never seen any such distinction in Genesis or in any study thereof. Funny how folks in the 21st Century read and interpret Genesis 1 as if it were some kind of scientific treatise, instead of the poetry that it really is. I'm sure Moses himself would be astonished at such an alien viewpoint, promulgated by even the staunchest Creationists. Take the phrase "morning and evening of the <nth> day". Creationists insist that the author must be referring to a 24-hour diurnal cycle, ie, "day," but the ancient Hebrew for this word is distinctly different than the word for "day" used elsewhere to mean a literal 24-hour in the everyday sense of the word (pun intended). In the Creation account, this word speaks more of an indefinite, but delimited, period of time. It might be a literal day, might be ten million billion billion years. I'd say the meaning is probably more akin to "epoch," but nobody listens. Their minds are already made up.

-e

I've been called un-human and emotionless before, but never alien.

"Their minds are already made up."

I'm trying to think of a reply to this, but I can't make up my mind.

..."Their minds are already made up."...

As if the scripture describes some ancient quantum discovery, up to us to decipher today, as the final solution to Grand Unified Everything theory. If we could only... Hmmm... what was it...

Now, what I just referred to, is off what a lot of, is going on here, with their local scriptures. Now, go figure...

Google some on Jewish "Dilugim" (sorry, I never did, I have plenty of it here infront of my doorstep) of "Kabala" and see abundance of so called scientific discoveries relevant for modern quantum mechanics... Give me a brake, man

This post leaves me puzzled. It was a reply to one of mine, yet had a quote from one of europians. Who were you replying to? I Googled dilugim and Kabala, but didn't read much of it. I know very little about your religion or culture. If the Torah codes are a subject that you want to discuss, then start a discussion (separate from this one). Maybe someone should add politics to this one to REALLY make it interesting.

S

Nothing puzzled me about it.

...Googled dilugim and Kabala...

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html being one of many.

The point being: the scriptures are a moral guide, not a scientific bulletin. Being such, it is made of symbolic descriptions (e.g, "Kabala", of which, "Dilugim" is a numerical search-technique for finding hidden meanings and future predictions within the written text).

It's like, when I go to an Indian master to teach me some Yoga, He could be totally ignorant in math or science for all I care, because Yoga is what I'm there for, not chemistry or optics.

Now, imagine I would say to him something like: "You cannot instruct me on the experience of Inner Light, you know nothing about Quantum Electro Dynamics. I'll go and learn all about the subject of Light from Richard P. Feynman... He knows all about light, Inner or otherwise"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman).

This make no sense. Each to it's proper context.

Yuval writes: "Nothing puzzled me about it."

Of course it didn't puzzle you, you knew what you were thinking!

The only interpretation of scripture was when I said the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time. Paul Davies, in his book About Time, says: "Such a state of infinite density represents an infinite gravitational field, and infinite space-time curvature i.e. a singularity ... As it is not possible to extend space and time through such a singularity, it follows that the big bang must be the origin of time itself".

So you see it's not just my opinion. Even if it was, I am perfectly within my rights to interpret it any way I wish. You certainly interpret it your way. The Koran is also supposed to be a moral guide, but the interpretation is what is causing all the problems in the middle east. You, as a Jew should know that. The codes and numerical guides you have in your scriptures are interesting but are irrelevant to this discussion, and even to this argument.

I post my ideas (which are not necessarily my beliefs), so that people who are open minded can read them, then accept or reject them as they choose. This allows people to think and get new ideas. That is what CR4 is all about. So get off your soap box and stop preaching. Don't impose your moral beliefs on the rest of us. Accept it as what it is, or take a hike.

Someone in another forum said it is hard to convey tone. I believe I have just done that. Let's hope that you are not tone deaf!

...you are not tone deaf...

Hopefully not. I hear you, and try to read between your lines, as best I can:

...within my rights to interpret it any way I wish...

I would never argue with your rights. I wasn't even arguing with your opinions. I was arguing to present my distinction between scientific theory and a religious point of view. I make a distinction between the two, not telling someone to adopt my views.

I tried to present my distinction, to the effect of stating that each of the two, being of such a different matter, has different context for interpretation.

...guides you have in your scriptures...

These are not my scriptures. I do not consider myself a Jew. I only consider myself a human being, which is plenty as-is to deal with. I don't need the added yoke of being a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, A Buddhist, you name it. Being Human is hard enough.

My only reference to God in this context here, is that I love, and respect, and admire, no, adore, nature. This beautiful, deep, meaningful, inspiring creation.

If God made all that, I have nothing but admiration to Him. In that sense, I adore Him. In that sense, I feel a tiny, loving, part of His creation. In that sense, He gave me life, and eyes to see this beauty, and some mental capabilities to try and figure it out for real, not just take some books for granted, as my own adopted opinion.

This is my humble experience, and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone here on earth. Just present it as my understanding.

I hope that I too, am entitled to have a view.

I'll take our humble 1.1 Kb of #84 in preference to 20 Kg of "Dilugim" any day of the week. Now, prior to biting my head off remember, I only speak for myself, of course.

I adhere to scientific point of view for selfish reasons. It might not apply to anyone else of course. I do it just to keep sane. To satisfy my sense of being in touch with reason, with the predictability of cause and effect. I don't want my explanation to reality be detached from it. Is that too much to ask for?

I agree with you, up to a point, about cause and effect. All things that are happening now are a result of previous events, and in turn, to more preivous, and so on, back to the first event, which started them all.Now imagine a singularity,where time and space does not exist, and there can be no events, because there can be no motion, because there is no space,time, or spacetime.This singularity could have existed for millions of eons (as we mark time) or it could have existed for only an unimaginably short interval, in a stable state, but due to factors unknown, it became unstable, and the outer "skin" composed of spacetime which contained the singularity, all tightly wrapped up in itself could no longer hold the singularity in confinement. Either the "outside" changed, or the inside changed.We all know the effects, but we do not know THE cause, so the effort to track anything back to the original causative factor comes up short. Multi- dimensional Membranes colliding still comes up short: What are the membranes,why do they oscillate, how were they formed? At some point, you have to make certain assumptions, and proceed by believing that assumption is correct.You accept it on faith., without proof.Since we accept the very beginning on faith, all presumptions afterwards are also accepted by faith, whether we like it or accept it or not.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

HTRN

...up to a point, about cause and effect...

Well, I didn't go as far as you did there on, I merely tried to indicate to a method of thinking, that it's hard for me to except something "out of the blue" so to speak, and my general intuition that nothing happens out of context. Up to me it is, to figure out that context, and fit the puzzle together, for my own peace of mind.

Each of us must find his own level of acceptance as "fact" the evidence presented to us in whatever form. I find peace by accepting a lot of things on faith.

To sum it up, if all motion began with the "Big Bang", and all energy and motion in the universe as we know it is a result of this initial inflation, the reason for all existence is tied to this event.Yet we know nothing about it.We accept it on faith.Our whole science is built upon it: THAT OF WHICH WE KNOW NOTHING.

The amount of faith acceptable to each person is like the seasoning on your food. Tastes vary.

Bon Appetite

HTRN

Absolutely everything we believe is based, at its most fundamental level, on faith. We we walk we are really falling forward with each step and catch ourselves on the next. We walk while talking with a friend and never question for a moment that we won't suddenly fall forward on our faces and are always surprised when we do. We accept, on faith, that the sun will rise tomorrow; that a hammer dropped directly above our bare toes will strike our foot. That the hammer wil fall; that if we jump, we will come back down. We accept, on faith, the continuity of space when we move through it, never thinking for a moment that at sufficiently small scales, space is discontinuous. People like Richard Dawkins rail against faith without thinking, even for a moment, that much of our waking lives is spent in the faith that what we take for granted will always be there and work as we expect. Evolutionists, for example (and I am not picking on you who might be such), place a great deal of faith in what never has actually been seen to occur in the present tense. There are tremendous problems with Evolutionary Theory; every bit as much as there is with Creation Theory as it is commonly held by its proponents. Both require tremendous faith in what is not seen, not measurable, not proven. And both decry the faith of the other, calling it blind. Everything, and I mean Everything, is ultimately based on faith in something. At its most fundamental level, faith is blind, and it is fundamental because if it weren't, there'd be something more fundamental beyond it in which we would necessily have to place our faith in what must ultimately be held as axiomatic.

IMHO.

-e

...Hebrew for this word is distinctly different than the word for "day" used...

Not just ancient, modern too. "Yom" (daylight kind of day) and "Yemama" (the full 24 hour cycle) are not that critical when used. "Yom" may be used either way, depending on legible context.

Ancient and modern are not much different in legibility. Modern speaker can easily understand ancient scriptures, it only sounds somewhat quirky put.

As a matter of fact modern speaker can partially understand Arabic and Aramic too.