The Big Bang Theory

The string/brane theories have fallen out of favor over the last decade. No particular reason, but they were always a little "flavor of the month", more math driven than physics.

In any event Brian Green's Elegant Universe is a good read on the subject. I believe that Brane theory has us living in a 10+1 dimension universe.
 
RayDog, earlier I said that Expansion was "weaker" than the other forces, and you challanged that. I think I can express what I meant a little better.

The expansion is judged to be between 71km/s/Mpc and 73km/s/Mpc. That means, in a single second every MegaParsec of space (roughly 3,261,636 light years) grows about 72km. Described as a ratio that means in one second a single unit (1u) grows 2x10-18 of a unit (0.000000000000000002u). Which is to say, 2 objects 1 meter away from each other will experience 2 attometers of expansion each second. Andromeda is about .77 megaparsec's away from the Milky Way, and closing distance at about 120km/s. At that distance expansion is only adding about 55km/s between the bodies.
 
I did a small monograph of a series of thought experiments around 7 years ago. I can say up front that I am ultra conservative when it comes to physics, a classicist, who insists that every interaction should have a medium and a mechanism of physical interaction.

I had an epiphany of sorts when contemplating why protons and electrons are different sizes, while not allowing myself to invent any new physical entities. I modeled particles as collections of virtual particle pairs, which are dipoles not unlike zero point energy itself, and considered that the internal forces related to the size of the particles. The stronger the outward repulsion the bigger and more massive the particle.

The only plausible explanation within the constraints I set up for myself is that matter and antimatter are opposed charges that interact in an identical matter to positive and negative electrical charges, but weaker over large (>1 um) distances.

Electrons and positrons have opposite electrical and matter charges (Electron = negative electric charge positive in matter) while protons and anti-protons have the have both charges of the same polarity for a stronger net combined force.

Once I gave in to the idea which took some time I recognized some of the following things the matter force explained.
1. The repulsive force that prevents an electron from falling into the proton. QED is unnecessary since it can be solved as a force balance equation.

2. The long range repulsive force causing the expansion of the universe.

3. The cosmological matter problem, since all matter and antimatter will annihilate due to the force, leaving one in excess in local regions of space time. The destructive phase also causes clumping of matter.

4. The matter magnetic field can explain a number of observatons such as:
a. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury
b. spiral galaxies structure
c. the attractive force holding spiral galaxies together, or planetary systems.
d. The slowing of the rotation of moons over time
e. convection currents within liquid planets, or keeping them liquid in the first place.
All of those things are not well explained by the standard model.

I still need to do a series of technical papers for publication in journals. I also need to fix some relatively minor errors in the monograph and change some things that I change my mind on in the past 7 years since i did it.

I also I want to complete a first principle derivation of gravitation before getting to much deeper. I have basically figured out that Sakharov was correct, it is a quasi Van Der Waals force exerting pressure on bodies.

In the mean time I am working designing/purchasing for my next round of vacuum arc discharge experiments, which is why I didn't post over the weekend, and don't have time to work on more theoretical pursuits at the moment.
 
Wow, so you are talking about a unified theory. I certainly am not qualified to offer anything like peer review, but I am certainly interested in what you've posted.Are you positing a ZPE graviton to account for gravity? Is there a similar messenger particle for Expansion?

Just a quick once over from what I see:
a. precession of the perihelion of Mercury - this wasn't explained by Newton, but was explained by General Relativity.
d. The slowing of the rotation of moons over time - I'm interested in this point. I can't seem to find any reading material on it, rather all of my information is on tidal locking.

With the level of detail you posted it is hard to understand the mechinisms in play, (like how the particles disentangle without collapsing), but what you propose is very interesting.
 
The theory, that the current universe was energy that was converted to matter, has been around for awhile. And the idea that there's a perpetual oscillation process between a matter and an energy universe has been around for awhile too.
 
I didn't read the thread, but I think the show sucks.
That's just me though.

biggrin.gif
 
I love the last few posts...pretty deep thread I started here.
Got very dense but if you have a couple hours, take a reading...it will really blow your mind and open up some new avenues of thought.
 
I thought inflation was far more than just the solar system, how else would we one day peer back to the begining if it was only a solar system in size head start?

Using probability to disprove a theory is too much like intelligent design, our current physical universal state (whatever it is) is extremely improbable and that does not preclude it from existing.

Dark matter was created to cover for General relativity, does that make quantum mechanics the only general theory that is consistently predictive?

In SS is it assumed that the universe was born at around the same time and how old it might be? because if it did not then why is hydrogen so abundant? if it were infinitely old we would have long run out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top