Could the universe before it banged have been a Bose-Einstein condensate?
Wouldn't this possibly satisfy the idea of a singularity mathematically (due to a probability distribution of a point mass flashing here there and everywhere).

Could the initial FTL (faster than light) expansion actually have been the primal condensate's disentanglement and actually have been "matter making room" rather than space expanding; for this very fast phase (after all quantum disentanglement occurs spontaneously and is FTL)?

I am NOT saying that expansion as we know it now is explained this way.

I want to know the feasibility of these ideas. Also if you have heard of this before. I want to use these ideas to set up the mind experiment for something I want to posit. This posit will likely appear here so I have used ATM as that is my agenda.

__________________
When the chips are down; put them in a bowl and share them around!

Interesting you should raise this subject. I watched a documentary on absolute zero temperature and the theory behind Bose-Einstein condensate. I was under the impression that this condition was the lowest theoretical physically achievable temp just above AZ? But Just before the initial BB was the highest theoretical physically achievable temp? But maybe they are similar in state but opposite in temp?


Another interesting notion raised. I guess the "fabric" of space time was created with the expansion of the universe in this model. For some though this defies logic as how can you create space into nothing? Its easier to imagine space as always and the universe (energy/matter) beginning and expanding into it. But this then disagrees with the inflation of space-time theory. It will be interesting to see where this thread leads to.

__________________
Its better to burn out! than to fade away....

We are not alone, but we may as well be!

I expected a comment on temperature. Thank you cosmocrazy.

Initial expansion would have been extremely hot I suspect.
But I am suggesting a fully entangled state prior to this.
Perhaps the initial Bose_Einstein condensate was the Higgs Boson or something just as interestingly primal.

By fully entangled I mean there was potential for many trillions of particles but they were all entangled and indistinguishable forming one massive Higgs Boson.
I am suggesting that the Bose-Einstein condensates we make now are actually a quantum probability distribution of the total mass of all the constituent atoms at ground state energy (very very cold).

In the case of the primal Bose-Einstein condensate the distribution (of the mass point) was enormous but the point was only here and there so quickly so as not to breach Heisenberg uncertainty or the unpalatable idea of a singularity. If we could have observed it it would have looked like the condensates we see now. Kind of a very large, very cold boson.

But when it disentangled into the many trillions of particles of which our own matter is a descendant a substantial amount of the available matter was converted into heat etc.

I feel no need to go into the early evolution of matter though as I am only at this point trying to sus out the sensibleness of the pre-big bang condensate idea.

The distribution of the "singularity" was enormous, probably not as big as the current universe (because it has continued to expand) but really big; about as big as current thinking has the early universe in the first instance.

I am saying that instead of an initial FTL inflation the universe was already that big but disentangled spontaneously and at the same instance across the whole expanse of it's original distribution. This gives the impression of FTL inflation. In the same way that other quantum disentanglements in experiments today give the impression of FTL "communication".

__________________
When the chips are down; put them in a bowl and share them around!

I have a paper that supports your therom if you would like to view it, email me at physicsfrank@gmail.com.

Considering all the material in the universe how can singularity exist. If you imagine that all the material can be crushed to nothing how does it come out again. If singularity is like a black hole hole can all the material escape.

__________________
Thank God for magnetism.

fcunnane
This is not a theorem, in fact there has been no math in my posts (more on this soon). I have done some research on whether this idea (that's all it is at this point, an idea) of a Bose-Einstein condensate has been put forward before and feel that if there had been a reputably sourced paper I should have heard of it.

Sean Clayden
I am not saying all that is was crushed into nothing. I am saying that the probabilllity distribution of the mass point (there may have also been charge points and position point in this too) was over an enourmous span of fully quantum entangled Bose-Einstein condensate. The singularity never occurs long enough in any place to be seen as a 'reality' to us, our experience of it would be as an enourmous Higgs Boson (perhaps) with the potential to break up into many trillions if it dis-entangled.

__________________
When the chips are down; put them in a bowl and share them around!

Why isn't my ATM being slaughtered? I could conclude that it is because it is the most wonderful THEORY that stands alone for it's brilliance.

But I think it is more likely that it is a reasonable idea on the one hand. But lacking completely in any mathematical spine.

So I don't get my ideas bashed or on the other hand endorsed either.

I need to get my ideas communicated mathematically and use this to make some evidential predictions that could be observed or experimented for some validity.

It has been hard but I am making some head way now with tensors and metrics and transformation matrices. I am also going to have to revise/relearn my quantum. I did only a batchelor in physics nearly 10 years ago in my thirties ( I had no year 12 and recently had to go through this math as I realised there were gaps).

I got through the degree's math bits by cramming and cunning and actually learning in a seemingly temporary way. But I do seem to have a strong intuition for what would work and suspect my ideas will in some way survive my learning maths, although if they don't survive then I guess I have really learnt something.

__________________
When the chips are down; put them in a bowl and share them around!

In my OP I mentioned that the idea of a Bose-Einstein condensate was for a mind experiment. I want to use this as a scenario to set up a frame for people to think in that will assist in re-understanding about Dark Energy. Some other questions I will want to answer once I can do the maths are:

Is the red shift of photons a loss of energy on route or bluish photons de-coupling into redish ones (and therefore more of them) on route?

Could the loss of energy of a photon as it redshifts be equal to the dark energy? (could the redshift be biasing virtual particles to pop up?)
In otherwords do photons do work on space (analogous to traction on a road) and cause spaces expansion?

I have said in other posts that I think there is great similarity between a black hole's event horizon and the way space-time curves for large distances. i notice someone has done a calc that demonstrates that dark energy might be equivalent to Hawking radiation (I wish I had had enough maths to be able to do this as it had occurred to me as a possibility).

I wonder then if the black hole is actually evaporating or if the Hawking radiation is balanced by redshift energy loss of light entering the event horizon?

I would want to see if I can make space equivalent to a "low probability of being" in a quantum sense. I would want to see if assuming that the centre of gravity between two distant objects has a slightly higher shared probability of being, then that is a reduction of space, an overlapping of evanescent waves, a probability that causes the objects to dawdle (initially) towards each other due to the Heisenberg uncertainties of their constituent particles having a bias towards this centre of gravity.

All these ideas connect with where I think I am headed.

If any of you read these longer posts then I am really grateful.

I doubt that I will have learnt enough to express myself mathematically by the time this ATM closes sorry.

__________________
When the chips are down; put them in a bowl and share them around!

read my posting on black bodies, it's in this forum. It addresses BEC and superfluidity.

Also the BB states that all matter was squeezed into a volume about 1/2 meter across.

This voilates the rule that no 2 particles can occupy the same space.

Try my flavor of mind control in my short logic posting. No math really. You might like it.

What do you mean by before? From what I have read there was a point where space-time did not exist as we know it. If space-time did not exist then there could not be a before ... right?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

The BEC evaporated to condense again as gas, not superfluid. This gas created a series of stellar bodies that supernovaed and ejected heavier elements into the universe. Over and Over and Over and here we are.

You can't fathom the universe. It does not stop. The only way you can measure it is to add perception or environmental variables.

This is only based on a mathematical "singularity" there are theories which try to explain a possible physical description of before the BB because a singularity has no physical size or shape which seems to defy common sense. IIRC The Bose-Einstein condensate is a state in which all the matter has no physical structure/position as we know it but is defined by waves of possibilities.

__________________
Its better to burn out! than to fade away....

We are not alone, but we may as well be!

That's "one" waveform, not waves... BEC acts as one.

BEC has a physical structure as well. It's really nifty!

__________________
BEC is close to GOD.

Ok thanks. I knew it was something along those lines. The point i was making to Tommac though, is that a "singularity" has only mathematical definition not a physical one. Based on the BB theory we don't really know what the physical form was prior to -10^43 s after the initial inflation. The OP (i assume) is suggesting the BEC to be a possibility for this physical state.

__________________
Its better to burn out! than to fade away....

We are not alone, but we may as well be!

Now I'm just having fun....

This is what I feel as though happened.

Start with all matter in one point @ 0k degrees... (not 1/2 meter across either)

The BEC evaporated to condense again as gas, not superfluid. This gas created a series of stellar bodies that supernovaed and ejected heavier elements into the universe. Over and Over and Over and here we are.

Voila.

Yes, i might be just having fun. I like BEC posts.

__________________
BEC is close to GOD.

Any idea why and what may have caused it to? oh and how it came to be there in the first place? I haven't a clue!

__________________
Its better to burn out! than to fade away....

We are not alone, but we may as well be!

you won't like this...


"In the beginning there was GOD" That's why I say BEC is close to GOD. The BEC was dark and void, just like Genesis describes the earth. Logically the earth was part of that BEC.

The evaporation had to start at one point whereas the lack of pressure in the environment was far less than the pressure of the BEC, so photonic radiation in the presumably x-ray spectrum started. "And GOD said let there be light". (the photons are light)

Scientifically. I have nothing for you. or at least not today. I have a binder full of scribbles, nothing solid right now. Except Genesis.

__________________
BEC is close to GOD.

What a beautiful Universe!

__________________
BEC is close to GOD.

I'm open to any idea, as they are all correct until proven not so.

__________________
Its better to burn out! than to fade away....

We are not alone, but we may as well be!