I propose to offer a few mass distribution diagrams to demonstrate why the portion of the universe we are in is cyclical.

First The fourth derivative.JPG

To describe the beginning based on the last big rip starting our section of the universe requires that the trends to infinity correspond. This occurs first at derivation of four.

Second the initial mass distribution Big bang to rip.JPG

Based on our section of the universe drawn in the thinning would occur most at the edge of the metric expansion. Surface of the sphere being x^2 and volume being x^3.

I could include a diagram of filaments of density but as you already would have seen them they are the best description of Professor Stephen Hawking's "Spaghetti over the event horizon" possible.

I figure that since the dark energy is expanding the known part of our universe it is a greater force and so contains more of the universe, the part that we can not see.

This being the case then we in our part are in a gravity well otherwise no expansion. Next since it would require a density of gravity to work the dark matter is actually part of the greater universe and attracted to our areas of greater gravity density like galaxies.

It also means that the proton and neutron are the most stable of the large body particles otherwise the trend would be for them to try and achieve lower potential.

All the current laws of physics hold true. It just requires any distance to be calculated with reference to original position, projected velocity and known acceleration to any other point of reference with the same calculations.

It would be a huge 'n' body Sims calculation with initial distance probably the last reference to be determined. Apart from the relatively simple start concept the mathematics would be horrendous.

I propose that a wavelength propagates at a fixed rate in a uniform density. Thus light in a medium of gravity density will experience only red or blue shift just as sound travels at the same speed in a uniform density.

The purpose of gravity density is to bring into balance the four forces, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity. The density of gravity experience in the gravity well of our part of the universe also ties in dark energy as a gravitational effect.

Gravity density explains the tiny angle of gravity lensing by galaxies and why the effect of binary pulsars is not detectable yet due to current instruments being not sensitive enough to measure the variation of the ripple.

Given z=9 for our most ancient readings of light and comparing z=1100 for the CBR indicates a much earlier original beginning to the universe. At the end of each crunch the charge separation is split meaning two smaller bangs will occur at high separation velocity.

I propose the fourth differential is a simple and elegant solution and will be proven by 'n' body simulation. Using the unrestricted Lorentz set for structure the formulae will be elegant and simple giving shape to the four dimensions. It will be only the numbers like the stars and the galaxies that are enormous.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

This article is fantastic, I look forward to reading their book. Thanks Cougar

I had typed this next bit before I read the article, seems a shame to waste it.

I thought what allows space to stretch pointing to many billions of years before matter can no longer hold together and gives out theoretically.

I looked at this from the view that if space initially stretches there must be a uniform connecting force causing it. That should only happen if there is a link to all matter. The only available link is gravity.

Thought experiment, a glass of liquid say oil and half way down put a membrane across so that water can not pass. Put a droplet of water in at the top, it slowly falls until it sits on the membrane. The oil above represents the air, the water the falling body and the membrane the planet surface.

If this experiment was then subjected to a vacuum it would fly apart. If gravity could also exhibit a density then the link is made to dark energy being an opposing pull outwards of gravity. All the Newtonian and Einstein gravity models hold true as we are only measuring the difference not the full density.

My idea was never to invalidate superb work done but to offer an enhancement that might link general relativity to quantum theory and keep both intact.

Again thanks Cougar, Steinhardt and Turok's relatively new "alternative to the big bang" is very creative to say the least.

The news that Steinhardt and Turok's relatively new "alternative to the big bang"
is being worked on by real accredited scientists is absolutely great news.

Using the Lorentz set as in quantum dimension five is the linear progression of time so that gives time a velocity. In a membrane of much lower density that time could be like comparing a second in the membrane to millions of years our earth time.

Then by applying that velocity the contact gives the spin we see in our part of the universe. I am purely delighted by this piece of work and now just have to be patient for all the "new" discoveries that will add to our knowledge of this part of the universe.

It fits beautifully, sorry about all the 'plus' plus 'plus' brilliant and emotive words it just means that real scientists are working on something that is the simplest system I can visualise that unifies the known forces. Instead of bringing guesswork and word salad to an idea like I have they will be publishing with real mathematics.

Well I am going to relax for nearly the first time in a year and watch the "Labyrinth" with David Bowie in it, I could do with a break. The modelling of their idea will take untold computing power, perhaps if there was a collaboration with an industry giant like Walt Disney Animations the cost of terabytes of computing power required could be offset by the movie rights.

Just ideas, just fantastic. Well that brings this thread to an end, cheers

Michael
I do not pretend to understand what you have written, maybe I will spend some time on it when I find time. However, looking at the first figure that you drew, I would like to point out that you are talking there about derivatives. Unfortunately, keeping with regular mainstream math these are not derivatives but you seem to integrate over time. This math does not really hold up, because the different steps that you take do different things.

Going from first: s = s1 + u t; you come to second: s = s1 + u t + 0.5 a t² so you basically added the last quadratic term but then ...
going from second to third: -s t^-1 = -v + s1 t + 0.5 u t² + (1/6) a t³; which begs the questions ...
why was the lefthandside in the first step kept constant to s?
why is there a t^-1 on the lefthandside in the third "derivative"? Integrating both sides of the equation over t would give s t on the lefthandside.
Most likely you started with the fourth "derivative" and then worked back, that explains the sudden appearance of v in the third and m in the fourth, but what does the lefthandside of the fourth "derivative" mean?
You might want to do some mathematical corrections here.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Here is a site with more information on the book, which I'm currently reading. They're covering the standard stuff first, and I haven't yet gotten to the nitty gritty....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I needed a way of looking at a co-moving object from a position also co-moving. I needed the left hand side to have an offset distance, probably the last piece of information. A velocity and an angular rotation.

A bit like being on the edge of a record disk trying to determine a point on another disk revolving and both record players having different vectors.

I will admit lurking on the thread by grav and publius regarding Lorentz contractions and believe the answer is in x^4. The physics is already used to model real world objects like the circulatory system in the human body enabling a CADCAM view of a fly through.

I could visualize vortex or conical shapes and rotation but my mathematics is just not that great. Thank you tusenfem for reading but I think the mathematics is going to be somewhat ugly and be built from simulations. I sure know that it is going to take some brilliant programming to set up the computer to model the idea.

Also thanks Cougar for the site.

Well, it certainly is an interesting hypothesis (Turok's), I'll grant that, and one I'll certainly follow. A couple of observations, however:

1. Cyclic universe models have been proposed for a long time (later to be rejected for various reasons). In fact, I grew up learning Big Bang, Steady State, and Cyclic models (and various variations of each), though of course the Big Bang has been the current champion for about as long as I can remember.

2. What does this really 'answer' though? It may provide a sort of solution to the Lambda question, but it doesn't really answer the Big Question: "Where did it all come from?" - it just pushes it back a few billion trillion years or so; no real progress on THAT front, really (and extrapolating back to a point when Lambda may have been infinite, i.e. an infinite amount of time, won't cut it - if it was infinite once, it still would be infinite - just heading off an anticipated critique).

As a result, the answer causes me to want to pull out my Occam's(tm) brand razor, as this seems to fall under the category of actually adding needless complexity to a problem instead of reducing it - however I am also aware that it could also be seen as reducing a sub-problem of a bigger one that's more complex than we currently know. Anyway, I just feel better having it handy, just in case.

We really don't know what Lamba represents, either. It's 'effect' seems to be that of exerting some expansive force over large distances that seems to be able to overcome gravity at some point (as I understand it) if the value is sufficiently high. What causes that effect is a mystery. Is it related to vacuum energy? Dark Matter?? My wife's menstrual cycle??? (oops, sorry...one of those days).

I think the idea of some force or process counter-balancing Lambda could have some mileage (Hmm. Maybe Celestial Mechanics idea on hadronization (see the thread in this ATM forum is an idea), or a couple of other known or unknown forces combining.

Perhaps it's something as simple as gravity: perhaps, through a combination of the inflation/expansion tied to the Big Bang, more mass got tossed "out "in the beginning than we're aware of (there IS a lot missing!). As it got some sort of a headstart, it seems reasonable to expect that it could slow 'sooner' than more inwardly located mass, and the inner mass would begin to run into it (similar to the effect that causes traffic to come to a standstill some distance behind a car that's only going slow, not stopped), and the gravitational attraction towards IT is only now overcoming that of the relatively smaller amount of 'inner' matter's mutual attractive force as it's more and more dispersed? (Hmm. and just where HAVE all the anti-matter flowers gone, anyway?? But still - even without that...).

Now, I'm not throwing this out as a working hypotheses - it's just my imagination running away with itself as I try to think of other reasons for Lamda being what it is, and I can see plenty of holes in it, too. Nor am I shooting down the cyclic model based on a decaying Lamda value - I do think that there's likely something TO the cyclic universe idea, regardless of some of the problems I think it throws up (heh...what I think, I already know, is largely irrelevant, in any case); I'd just like to see some explaination answer more questions than it raises, and I'd REALLY like to be able to get a handle on the Big Question...somehow, someday.

Cheers...

__________________
"...wait for the ricochet."

Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you thothicabob it seems this thread will close before I get the time to read the work by Turok.

Great signature, I hope the ricochet is for the good. It definitely works in laser light games.

It pushes the point of simplicity back quite a bit. After the start of any system say a pumping system comes the network of connections to households which by nature gets complex.

This next bit comes courtesy of an excellent question in Q/A by tusenfem. It concerns the 'Mpemba effect' named after the Tanzanian gentleman who noticed it. I answered improperly in the Q/A section and deleted it as requested before dashing off to work, here it is:-

I thanked publius here because in the very mediterranean environment here we just don't get frosts cold enough to freeze pipes, it is an excellent observation

OK so I might be rushing it a bit, but this is what I thought.

Zero point energy is 10^120 and so would have exploded in micro seconds.
That would still be an energy ball.
If it cooled at the edge because the energy distribution would be to the centre.

The first stable matter could be string.
If a loop of matter pulled the inner part out over the edge it would all be connected on the outside. That means quantum connects to all the branes as well.

Each brane is in a structure.
Our distance from the sun protects us from falling in.
So forth for our solar system to the galaxy.
From the galaxy to the super galaxy structure,
And finally distance protects the connection to all the other branes.

Our stable platform is the proton.
All the relativity still holds true light is the upper speed limit.
Space and time are curved.
It is not the end because that would be 2 solid lumps of matter ready to kick it all off again.

Our recognition of the other branes would be the appearance of attraction to them.
I work as a cleaner, so when your head is down a dozen toilets a day it really does help to think about "other matter", cheers

The extra thoughts start from this point. Take hot oil and pour it onto a frying pan, it spreads. The outer edge overcoming the resistance to the pan spreads more slowly than maximum possible. I figured the first expansion could have only a maximum expansion of the speed of light relative to the space it was fracturing due to the density of its energy.

Not faster but at some speed less than its maximum. The volume at one order of magnitude greater than the edge would hold the greater density and so be 'hotter'. The 'Mpemba' effect says a crust will form on the edge of a liquid cooling or in this case loosing heat to the outer edge first.

Add a little more hot oil to the centre of the pan, it spreads the initial oil and flows more rapidly in the combined medium. This time our light propagates at light speed and spreads the medium, the metric expansion of our big bang.

Again this is conjecture, I haven't read any more of Turok's work other than the initial link that cougar was good enough to supply. I will try to be a bit quicker but because of my real work don't make out that I am any sort of scientist.

This is the forum where I have learned the bulk of science from since I started being interested in physics in Oct 6 2006. As a student I should probably be described as stubborn, compulsive and hard to teach. For more than a few reasons there is a very carefully selected word here, recalcitrant.

In the absence of better understanding of the metric required by Steinhardt and Turock it would be best if I didn't try to guess on any similarity as a courtesy, cheers

I have been on another forum (BAUT was down ) and some one is going to look at this idea. I am going much slower as I seem to freak people out with the possibilities.

The added bit time based causality I will list here.

For a string model on space/time density the traveller can not exceed the medium either space(distance) or time(speed of causality). It means a traveller by changing the density of the medium can go back, like a cork moving slightly ahead or behind based on depth. But there is a catch.

We can only travel to the depth our machine can handle. Like a submarine there is a crush depth (or worse loss of cohesion if too light). The speed of causality far exceeds the ability to outrun it. That means changes are permanent, until changed again. You can cause a time wave but not outrun it.

Any change will surge through to the future. Change anything that affects the traveller and their decision to travel is also changed. At that point of change there may be just seconds to their non-existence.

Sure they have a different time-line different future but the entity that signed on to go back must consider it most likely a suicide trip depending on the amount of change that they intend to precipitate.

This brings in the famous discussion between Einstein and Tesla, maybe adds a new flavour to it. Tesla stated "the energy is between the particles".

It is a start. If it comes to anything hopefully some new and helpful physics will be developed, cheers

Three seconds of dramatic effect. Was it 'Q' or Picard that dipped the hand in the primordial goo?

Let's look at a known fact logically for those who evolve. We are the long line of an unbroken chain of life from slime to now. A series of events of virtually incalculable probability. That much should not be in doubt.

So given that chance what of the bacteria on the hand?

Second observation. As a people we are intensely curious about the past. So much so there is an expedition to dig up two literary greats from the past to 'see' what brought about their demise. It would be strange if they were not there.

Ultimately this turns into a string theory with the dark mass of consistent string. A density of existence which lies below the detection of human ability or reason to look for it.

It is human nature to decide on the geocentric model in the false belief that in the vastness of the universe that they humans are important.

It wouldn't dawn on human intellect to think of themselves as anything less than significant hence self centred beliefs such as the 'flat-earthers'. Having concluded that if it isn't plainly obvious and explained in small words the concept of "if I can't see it then it isn't there" is too complex for the human mind. A concept well documented over the last 2000 years.

Final note on micro black holes. A density scenario gives a cross over point much like iron on the element stability table. So a cosmic ray a "God particle" can form a micro black hole and it is not until the mass inside expands the event horizon sufficiently that the matter held inside is released explosively.

Hence the Tunguska event. Probable scenario:-
1. Cosmic ray forms micro black hole presumably near the sun.
2. Being matter repulsive the micro black hole is swept toward earth on the solar wind utilising both push and repulsion.
3. On entering the atmosphere it was unfortunate coincidental timing that it was the crossover point for the expanded event horizon.
4. The matter produces high energy gamma radiation and the iron-nickle spheres correspond roughly to the diameter of the event horizon.
5. Due to the drag separation of the event horizon from the trajectory of the core of the micro black hole the matter is released in a series of gamma ray explosions.

Due to the well contained facilities designed to contain our own production of micro black holes it is uncertain whether they will matter repel into the atmosphere or drift into the earth. Much will depend on the trajectory at the time of creation. Given the nature of Tunguska and size of explosion the result will be either tectonic movement or airborne damage downwind along the lines of latitude.

I would like to have a more upbeat assessment but at best the mass repulsion may carry the micro black hole out of earth's atmosphere. If so gamma ray bursts will be more frequently recorded.

Last I checked, the Tunguska Event was attributed to to the shockwave from an exploding comet of fairly modest size, due to mainly the effects appearing to be caused by the shockwave of an atmospheric blast with relatively little or no other destuctive effect (eg. impact, heat, etc.).

Wouldn't your scenario involve other effects beyond shockwave flattening of trees in a radial manner?

__________________
"...wait for the ricochet."

Well, I've about finished Endless Universe. It might be considered one very long Against The Mainstream posting. The authors claim their cyclic model more naturally produces the characteristics of the universe that we observe -- more naturally than the inflationary big bang model. And there are fewer "add-ons" -- all being explainable from fewer assumptions and therefore more Occam-friendly.

Of course, I'm not converted or anything, but I do look at the inflationary picture a bit differently. There are only a couple of observations that will be able to rule out the cyclic or the inflationary model. Reading the scale-invariance of gravitational waves is a LONG way off, but the characteristics of the polarization of the CMB could tell us a lot sooner. The recent WMAP measurements of that polarization were not precise enough, and unfortunately the Planck mission may not be precise enough either. Maybe a couple of decades....

From my perspective, the problem with the Steinhardt/Turok model is that it is centrally derived from M-theory, which to lay persons is pretty much incomprehensible. They've got our universe inhabiting an expanding brane, and there's another, similar brane parallel to ours, separated by an unseen dimension. Our brane expands via dark energy for a trillion years, while the dark energy very slowly decays. Then it is only the unseen dimension that collapses, the branes collide and then rebound, creating a new bunch of matter and energy in each brane, and resulting in a new trillion-year cycle very similar to what we've got going on now. It definitely has its good points.

Still, I trust you can see why I'm not a total convert. But as I mentioned, this is a strong reaction to the anthropic arguments that are getting throw out there by such greats as Susskind and Vilenkin. I liked Vilenkin's model as I was reading his recent book, but Steinhardt and Turok make a number of good points about why they don't like the eternal inflationary scenario.

There's a real battle going on, apparently resulting from the finding of dark energy. The battle lines are being drawn. Cosmology was interesting before, but I think the coming years will find it to be extremely interesting.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.