Some of the problems with inflation theores I see w/extra

The problems I see in inflation theory. With some on Hawking Susskind topic matter at the end.

colection4

1. Single point or particle big bang theory. Single production into a cascade production with out warping space similar to a black hole and with out a polar point/moment ( Dirac ) seems like a low probability with the data they have gotten so far. From light cone propagation to polar imprint or even Cherenkov radiation dumped into a space from FTL collision would have left different marks on the CMB. We do not see CMB as a cone or lensed shape and no ring imprint for the most part.

20090513_multiverse

2. Many worlds theory multiverse from inflation would have shown up in quantum computers in a specific way and it is not there. They seem to running over dark energy in inflation theory but not explaining it also. Potential energy wells as well as decay seem to do better jobs at it than some of what I have seen them present. Though they have done some great work I see another way to use the same data sets to tell another story that seems more complete so far. When I hear them say many worlds multiverse it makes me cringe in a few ways.

imagesUBICVE4D

john-titor-time-traveler

3. T=0 or time zero and the warping of space. When they talk about inflation at the beginning T=0 and right after. They imply faster than light propagation. This should be a big sign to the other scientists to look closer it seemed to me. Yet this theory seems to be the top runner for them. 😦 We have not seen faster than light in a pure vacuum, in a medium yes, but a pure vacuum not yet. ) I used the Schwarzschild radius of the universe as one limit of a type. I would have been happy if they just used that also and did inflation the rest of the way out with factors like production to decay rates and total energy density of the space. A few ways I would have felt more comfortable if they had presented the theory differently. But to the point the faster than light is the big no no for me here. Especially with particle production from FTL Cherenkov radiation and the type of cavitation artifacting it would or should leave behind.

foamySpacetime

4. Quantum fluxuations causing a big bang. This is one I see in a few theory’s. Yet quantum foam fluxuations have never been seen that big yet. In fact they seem to have done the opposite with out realizing it. The limits of quantum foam or the lumpiness of space is less that a hydrogen atom. 2 studies have shown that so far, and restricts how that should be used in context to quantum fulgurations in space giving rise to the big bang and universe. That’s not to be said it can’t be used but to me not in the way they clam in the video’s and papers I have seen so far on inflation theory topics.

NASA telescopes set limits on space-time quantum ‘foam’

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-nasa-telescopes-limits-space-time-quantum.html

Physics team finds new constraints on how lumpy space-time can be

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-physics-team-constraints-lumpy-space-time.html

dn12546-2_519

5. The artifacting that we do seem to see in the universe or the inhomogeneous universe artifacting like voids and super clusters that seem to directly go against the homogeneous universe, but in some ways it shows cavitation artifacting to me and suggesting a primordial state of big bang might have had cavitation or even caused by cavitation. Though looks more like internal cavitation rather than cavitation with in cavitation to me personally also.

List of largest cosmic structures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cosmic_structures

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/largest-structure-in-the-universe-discovered/

Godel_6

bzsudkhtatkb5tg31fmv

6. Gödel universe and closed time like curves. With the inflation theory I saw from Alan Guth. If you have any spin or FTL expansion and not evened out or homogeneous, or a few other things similar to those. You get to the early universe and time travel or closed time like curves. Again this would leave it’s imprint on the universe and/or CMB if so. They seem to skip over these things as far as I could see but give great details about other things that are right. I should take a second to say I like the people and some of there work, but some parts just make me cringe and wonder how they got threw the classes and ended up teaching. It’s like there is only a few ways the big bang can happen and they have one but to me it’s flawed also.

b_over_b_rect_BICEP2

planckinflation

Keating1

7. Polarization of the CMB data. Now this is one that other people caught also thankfully. Though they already got a award for it, and that may have been to fast as others have pointed out also. From Dust to first order particle production (fast capture process ) to gravity off the Schwarzschild radius of the universe and not single point to shockwave layer effect’s. They have a few big hurdles to overcome it seems to me. At least some people caught part of that also. I was feeling bad for science/scientists right after they announced the bicep data and looking at the other sat data they already had also. To me even if the curls are there, they can be attributed to a few things and they need to rule them in or out to be good and thorough. With the mistakes I have seen in there theory and how they got promoted so to say. It makes me want to go all machine made universe on them, though in reality that is a low probability. But a person could use the data out there that way. One only needs to look at my wordpress page to see how easy that could be done with extras. But the main point to this # is CMB data they have collected from bicep/polarbear does not confirm inflation theory only and why they need to do more work it seems to me. ( the other way to look at part is does baryogenesis and fast capture explain the extra curl in the CMB, if it is really there and not a dust artifact or lensing from Schwarzschild radius of the universe and energy/particle density then. )

http://bicepkeck.org/visuals.html

limits

2003111321

Now though that might seem like bashing on the topic and a select few subtopics I will put my leading theory out there. To me it’s like being a detective long after the fact and looking for clues and using them all and not just some. From CMB working back to the Schwarzschild radius of the universe and from artifacting with in the inhomogeneous universe looking like some kind of cavitation in the early universe when it’s energy density was extreme. Also the no polar moment artifacting seen leads me to one preferred model so far and a few contenders or possible but not as likely or lower probability with what is showing so far. To me you take the CMB and the mapped temp differences in SMB to a sphere to shrink it down to look at so to say. Add the artifacting/cavitation and work it backwards some to get a more accurate picture of the early universe and a better idea of the inhomogeneity it had early on. That will show ways to the higher probable causes and evolution. Though some of the evolution work has been done, they always seem to avoid T=0 and the soon after seems flawed to me up to a point.

branes

With the universe as a Schwarzschild radius the time distortion would be extreme. At this point I would like to point out that one theory I have is primordial black body that breaks off from a larger one but time distortion lets it move far away before it explodes. I liked that theory to a point but it had flaws also. Mainly the T=0 gets skipped over and we do not see other universes colliding with this one yet and a few other things to why that is not top probability to me. Like other theory’s it had it’s pluses and minuses. But getting back to point and subtopic matter. From Schwarzschild radius of the universe and black holes. Or hawking and Susskind and how they clash yet both have parts right to me. From hawkings black hole work and hawking radiation or particle and anti particle pairs in a stretched warped space. To Susskind and now hawking on the holographic theory. The irony is to me they both match up good in ways with a little patch work. Susskind being right on flattening and particle anti particle pairs and extreme warped and flattened space. The other solution hawking seemed to miss is warped space that holds both particle and antiparticle pairs with in the warped space. The way I would put it is think of a U and the top 2 points of the letter U being the particle antiparticle pair with in a warped flattened space. Or the other way to look at it in a way is matter and antimatter entangled pairs being stored as potential energy in warped space time. It addresses the matter antimatter at the beginning of the universe for one. It gives a theory to what happens when a black hole blows up as well as what a black hole might be made of.

8x10.ai

e138_1

Uniform CMB polarization/handedness. Though CMB polarization is well known. The answer I got for higher probability is black holes and the early universe show a quantum nature of BEC many body systems and condensed matter. The information paradox as some look at it may be a shared quantum many body state. I.E. matter and antimatter pairs are not just entangled with each other but the whole system when they reach there lowest energy state relative to the local surroundings. And to me like the BEC they share quantum information to a degree then. With that as a base to build off of or down to. That just leaves T=0 and quantum can explain part of that also. More of a quantum instability rather than a quantum flux or foam to me personally. Super nova seem to also give clues. When they explode they produce heavy particles from a conversion ratio that is not 100%. I would also like to reference nuclear bombs here. As they do not convert 100% ether when they go off. Black holes seem to hold 2 limits to me. One being mass to size ratio and the other the must convert 100% to be inline with a form/type of information paradox. Oh and no black holes seen spinning faster than light speed to go with those.

Arrow_JPG

T=0 quantum instability’s on the core/center of a black body or black hole the size of the universe causes a quantum cascade reaction. Ether from the center out or the whole entangled body at the same time or so close to it that light speed looks small. If you go by the cascade out it has to fallow some things to get to what we see today. 1 cavitation or cavitation like artifacting in which we do see in this universe in a way. Though that way can also suggest a pre T=0 state or highly distorted space time. The propagation out to the skin and forming a CMB layer with no heavy elements or 100% conversion from matter and antimatter when the potential energy of warped space with paired particles cascades out. The other one is the quantum many body system talks to it’s self in a way and all the matter and antimatter pairs meet at the same time. To me this one is nice. From full flash over to using the potential energy from the gravity well as well as destroying a gravity well in the process. Almost to good to see when done that way to me. But gets to another question of did a field turn off and then back on in a crude way of putting it. Quantum instability’s in micro black holes was the other one. This one would be full flash over of about 10ish light years of area all at the same time. That’s part of why I leaned to this theory rather than others so far. The quantum many body BEC like nature or shared states along with quantum tunneling between matter and antimatter in a highly warped space just seems to fit to well in ways. A full flash over might and I stress might lead to a shockwave that propagates in word and creates early cavitation in a hot dense primordial universe and could look like the artifacting in the universe we see. To me computer modeling would help tell what version is probably correct if any of these are.

computer-simulation

supercomputer-universe-simu

Though I didn’t try to make this the best. It is more a post to get people thinking or talking on this more. After all it’s not like I have anyone to talk to about the topic matter and do not see other scientist’s putting this out there rather than some overlapping multiverse and inflation or entangled black holes or the universe as a hologram though that one has part of it to me with a little modification. I would just ask them if they think a black hole is a supernova caught in a gravity well and held as potential energy with matter antimatter particle pairs. Or will a evaporating black hole lead to a supernova when it get’s light enough/evaporate off to a point it explodes with 100% reaction.

alice

My alice analogy would be she falls in splits up into antialice and alice and shares states with the rest of the particle pairs as well as her own anti alice so to say. If she could escape with out being destroyed then she comes out having shared quantum information with the whole black hole and has information of a type on it, as well as the black hole keeping some of her information from a BEC like shared state.

Alice1 (2)

A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram

Hawking saddle point

Hawking presents new idea on how information could escape black holes

Advertisements

About laborious

Interests in science, art, math, theory, game engines, future technology.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Some of the problems with inflation theores I see w/extra

  1. laborious says:

    Filter & the Crystal Method Cant You Trip Like I Do https://youtu.be/VeQRO4fXOKk

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s