Origin of the Universe: No Bang, Splash! (New theory)

[SlipString]

This is a continuation of this thread from Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang, as Buffy suggested I move our discussion to a new topic. If you haven't read earlier posts, click "this thread" above to check them out!

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Actually, no, I'm not satisfied. But then again, I'm never easily satisfied. So far you only addressed the CMB and the helium abundance, albeit, not to my expectation. For example, what do the patterns of two wavy membranes colliding look like? The CMB? Why would that be?

Redshift then would be the same interpretation a the BB theory, right?
So too, all the other questions, I imagine, since you did not address them, galaxy formation etc.

Your idea really only touches on the first few seconds of the BBT. It sounds like the ekpyrotic model (Steinhardt, 2001). What are the main differences with that concept?

Final questions: What makes your hypothesis less metaphysical than the moment of creation expected before the standard model (near t = 0).

Even when chewed thoroughly, your idea, like superstring spaghetti less than al dente, has little to offer: exept a healthy dose of fragmentary dissent (I like that part) to wash whatever was eaten down. But it still does'n stick on my wall.
What makes your belief different from any other starve-the-beast branechild.

Frankly, I doubt anything will satisfy you... Can I get a vote of confidence from anyone else out there? Give me a brief "You've got something there..." or set up a poll:
A: He's absolutely right!
B: He's got a better answer than anyone else out there.
C: Nice try, but unlikely.
D: Sorry, bub.

In response, Two branes colliding would look like the CMB, because both branes would have ripples due to quantum noise, generating disturbances as they grow from Planck length bubbles to a radius of 526 trillion light years (before the collision). As the two branes collide, there are places where their ripples constructively overlap, generating areas of higher-energy collision, and areas where their ripples destructively overlap, generating areas of lower-energy collision. This creates slight fluctuations in the collision's overall energy, which is what we observe in the CMB!

Most everything after the CMB is generated is the same as the BB model. However, unlike the ekpyrotic and BB models, because gravity is the curvature of our brane (and not closed loops of brane-escaping gravitons as in M-theory, or gravaton particles), the brane would have been violently vibrated by the collision, creating dark matter brane vibrations. Because of this, we now know what dark matter and dark energy are, and how they should behave. We can make predictions, and see if they pan out. Dark matter's brane vibrations (with potential energy) over time, will be converted into dark energy's kinetic energy as those vibrations relax, pushing our universe apart faster.

These vibrations should relax in a predictable manner (an arc) as the waves relax slowly at first, more rapidly in the middle, then slow down again as our brane stretches out to reach it's original size before collision. Therefore, when we measure dark energy, this is what we should see, and preliminary results support my arguments. The measured rate of dark energy acceleration as reported by NPR is shallower than the standard model predicts (as I predicted), and changes over time (as I predicted). If these measurements hold up, they will disprove the standard model's dark energy and support my modification of M-theory, and validate string theory.

What makes my model less metaphysical than the standard model? Plenty. The standard model assumes there was no time before the bang, and that an entire universe materialized itself out of nothing, and for no particularly good reason, either.

M-theory with my gravity modifications assumes that time always existed, and in my model time is the rate at which strings vibrate. Spacetime always existed as well, and it is quantum noise disturbing and agitating spacetime at the Planck length that produces D-branes. These branes rapidly grow in size due to the vacuum around them and quantum noise within them. After two such branes reach the approximate size of our brane (as well as a multitude of other branes of various shapes and sizes) they can collide. When they do, they transfer the vast majority of their momentum's energy as vibrations of each brane (dark matter).

As 4% of the brane was in the process of generating virtual strings at the instant of impact, this produced an outlet within the brane for the collision's energy to go. This vibrated entangled pairs of virtual strings into pairs of quarks, electrons, positrons, and other matter of various masses and energies according to the laws of physics.

This satisfactorily explains how our brane came into existence, what it (and the rest of the multiverse) was doing before our universe was created, how our universe was created, and where all that energy came from. The only components necessary for this model are quantum noise and spacetime itself!

Also, unlike the ekpyrotic model, these collisions are not cyclical, but random. Branes are floating randomly due to the random nature of their creation and momentum, and not just two flat branes locked in an eternal cycle of collision. To me, this modified brane model is much more satisfactory than not knowing what caused a "big bang" of incredible energy, and having absolutely no explination for it, whatsoever!
----------------------------

SlipString Drive

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by SlipString

This is a continuation of this thread from Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang, ...snip...

Frankly, I doubt anything will satisfy you...

...snip...

Actually, on that score you are mistaken. All I need to be satisfied is empirical evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt a theory is correct; or at least, observational or experimental evidence (along with corroborative investigations by other groups or individuals that find similar or identical results) that is in agreement with predictions of that theory.

A simple question: What empirical evidence can either falsify or prove your hypothesis correct (even in principle)?

Thanks in advance for your response.

BTW, I did read virtually your entire webpage (albeit, not the first chapter of your book). Nice work!

I will get to that next...


Coldcreation

[Harry Costas]

Hello slipstring

I have come to understand many theories in the past 40 years.

Only a hand full make any sense.

Only one or two would maybe fit the bill.

I do not think that you are on the right track. What I think is not important. What you think is and wht you do about it, will mean which direction you will spend alot of time on.

Like I said, take two steps back and get to understand the workings of the parts within the universe before you look at the total picture.

[Buffy]

So Harry, are you going to actually state an objection, or should we all just bow to your superior intellect and accept your haughty dismissal of it without any evidence?

That of course would be what those "blind" and "religious" "Big Bang believers" do...

Put it on the table,
Buffy

[SlipString]

Re: Harry C, I'm with Buffy Really, find a flaw or say something useful... Blind obedience to the ever-changing and oft surprized "standard model" never got anyone anywhere in figuring out the universe!

Originally Posted by coldcreation

A simple question: What empirical evidence can either falsify or prove your hypothesis correct (even in principle)?

Thanks in advance for your response.

BTW, I did read virtually your entire webpage (albeit, not the first chapter of your book). Nice work!

I will get to that next...

Thanks for the web compliment! I'm partial to the design myself :-) I've been creating sites for a while now. You may also like Michael Brolly's woodturning site I made, too as well as the Wood Turning Center.

BTW, as I type one-fingered (and one-handed) some responses (esp. long ones) may take a while...

As I said in previous posts, the strength of my argument is that it gives string theory testable predictions! My model predicted both dark matter and energy as we have found them. (There were others claiming dark matter didn't even exist in non-baryonic form.) I came up with these theories four years ago, and have been putting them and others down on paper in my book ever since.

During that time, dark matter was verified to exist in the manner I had predicted, and it behaves like vibrating waves of our membrane. I predicted in my book that dark matter waves would be a thousand light years accross on average, and fast moving - and that's how they have been detected!

But for something even more substantial, I predicted how dark energy should behave, and the rate of acceleration of our universe. Unlike the "standard model," I predicted that the rate of acceleration will change over time, and how it will.

Because gravity is the curvature of our brane (and not closed loops of brane-escaping gravitons as in M-theory, or gravaton particles), the brane would have been violently vibrated by the "big splash," creating dark matter brane vibrations. Because of this, we now know what dark matter and dark energy are, and how they should behave. Dark matter's brane vibrations (with potential energy) over time, will be converted into dark energy (kinetic energy) as those vibrations relax, pushing our universe apart faster over time.

These vibrations should relax in a predictable manner (in an arc) as those waves relax slowly at first, more rapidly in the middle, and then slow down again as our brane stretches out close to it's original size before the collision. Therefore, when we measure dark energy, this is what we should see, and preliminary results support my arguments. The measured rate of dark energy acceleration as reported by NPR is shallower than the standard model predicts (as I predicted), and changes over time (as I predicted). If these measurements hold up, they will disprove the standard model's dark energy and support my modification of M-theory, and validate string theory at the same time.

How's that for testable predictions?

[kailas_knight]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello slipstring

I have come to understand many theories in the past 40 years.

Only a hand full make any sense.

Only one or two would maybe fit the bill.

I do not think that you are on the right track. What I think is not important. What you think is and wht you do about it, will mean which direction you will spend alot of time on.

Like I said, take two steps back and get to understand the workings of the parts within the universe before you look at the total picture.

Harry ,

Slipstring has actually given a good explaination about the origin of the universe , which the "big bang" failed to provide .... and also he used the assumption that space-time always existed ,which is necessary to provide a good explaination for the origin of the universe..

or if you have a better explaination , post it.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by SlipString

... My model predicted both dark matter and energy as we have found them. (There were others claiming dark matter didn't even exist in non-baryonic form.) I came up with these theories four years ago, and have been putting them and others down on paper in my book ever since.

Be more specific. Baryonic dark matter obviously exists. The Earth is baryonic dark matter, so are people. What are you talking about? DM and DE have formed part of the new standard model since 1998. That was more than four years ago, so apparently someone beat you to it. What is the difference with your DE or DM?

Originally Posted by SlipString

During that time, dark matter was verified to exist in the manner I had predicted, and it behaves like vibrating waves of our membrane. I predicted in my book that dark matter waves would be a thousand light years accross on average, and fast moving - and that's how they have been detected!

What do you mean "that's how they have been detected"?
What waves?

Originally Posted by SlipString

But for something even more substantial, I predicted how dark energy should behave, and the rate of acceleration of our universe. Unlike the "standard model," I predicted that the rate of acceleration will change over time, and how it will.

What, then, is your prediction?

Originally Posted by SlipString

Because gravity is the curvature of our brane (and not closed loops of brane-escaping gravitons as in M-theory, or gravaton particles), the brane would have been violently vibrated by the "big splash," creating dark matter brane vibrations. Because of this, we now know what dark matter and dark energy are, and how they should behave. Dark matter's brane vibrations (with potential energy) over time, will be converted into dark energy (kinetic energy) as those vibrations relax, pushing our universe apart faster over time.

"Gravity is the curvature of our brane..." I bet Einstein would have been amused by this comment.

It seems most of what you write (if not all) is based on something, DE, nonbaryonic DM, that remains totally obscure.

Originally Posted by SlipString

These vibrations should relax in a predictable manner (in an arc) as those waves relax slowly at first, more rapidly in the middle, and then slow down again as our brane stretches out close to it's original size before the collision. Therefore, when we measure dark energy, this is what we should see, and preliminary results support my arguments. The measured rate of dark energy acceleration as reported by NPR is shallower than the standard model predicts (as I predicted), and changes over time (as I predicted). If these measurements hold up, they will disprove the standard model's dark energy and support my modification of M-theory, and validate string theory at the same time.

How's that for testable predictions?

I am not convinced. What empirical evidence can falsify or prove your hypothesis wrong (even in principle)?

Coldcreation

[SlipString]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Be more specific. Baryonic dark matter obviously exists. The Earth is baryonic dark matter, so are people. What are you talking about? DM and DE have formed part of the new standard model since 1998. That was more than four years ago, so apparently someone beat you to it. What is the difference with your DE or DM?

What do you mean "that's how they have been detected"?
What waves?

What, then, is your prediction?

"Gravity is the curvature of our brane..." I bet Einstein would have been amused by this comment.

It seems most of what you write (if not all) is based on something, DE, nonbaryonic DM, that remains totally obscure.

I am not convinced. What empirical evidence can falsify or prove your hypothesis wrong (even in principle)?

Coldcreation

What I was talking about was very clear. Many skeptics didn't believe that there was such a thing as non-baryonic DM. They thought DM might just be black holes, etc. Recent studies proved them wrong. See Satellite's X-ray Vision Clinches the Case for Dark Matter.

The waves I said were detected were revealed in the Shining Light on Dark Matter Science article. "The finding runs counter to current dark matter theories, in part because the temperature measured was warmer than popular theories predict. The most popular theory suggests that dark matter consists of massive exotic particles that do not interact with normal matter except through gravity. It also holds that the particles are slow and cool. While this model fits most galaxies, it also predicts many more small galaxies than are known."

"Gilmore said the team had found the same volume of dark matter in each galaxy. The dark matter was about 1000 light-years across and had an even density equivalent to four hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter.

The new results suggest that dark matter at the center of small galaxies is more spread out and warmer than was thought. The particles appear to have a velocity of 9 kilometers per second, and Gilmore believes that they interact with one another via some unknown force to spread out evenly. The nature of dark matter particles themselves remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics."

I predicted in my book that membrane waves left over from the "big splash" would be a thousand light-years across, and fast-moving as they behave like membrane vibrations left over from the "big splash." Supersonic speeds qualify as fast-moving

This contradicts all current "standard model" explinations for dark matter, and supports my arguments. Odd that all dark matter has the same density equivalent of four hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter... Just like all membrane vibrations left over from the original brane collision would have the same amount of energy left in them at any given time as they relax!

My prediction, yet again, is that dark energy's acceleration curve will follow an arc. (Know what an arc looks like? Do I need to draw one for you?) The acceleration begins slowly as the brane vibrations are most violent, accelerates the most in the middle as those vibrations relax, pushing spacetime back apart more rapidly, then slows down at the end as our brane stretches back out toward its original size before the collision, and the brane vibrations are completely dispursed.

This acceleration curve is shallower than the standard model's predictions, which keep going up and up, and my arc matches what has been observed so far in the study covered by NPR in my previous post.

Frankly, Einstein would have loved the idea, because it explains what spacetime is, and why it curves. He wouldn't have had to waste the second half of his life trying to create a "theory of everything" without quantum mechanics, which is impossible.

All measurements of dark energy (the acceleration of our universe) can prove or disprove my claims, as can measurements of dark matter. Why not look up the study I mentioned, and follow it instead of repeating the same clueless question over and over again!

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by SlipString

snip...

All measurements of dark energy (the acceleration of our universe) can prove or disprove my claims, as can measurements of dark matter. Why not look up the study I mentioned, and follow it instead of repeating the same clueless question over and over again!

This will be my last post in this thread unless an answer is forthcoming.

What empirical evidence can falsify your hypotheses, or prove your hypotheses wrong?

"All measurements of dark energy" is not an answer. Be more specific. If you wish to copy and paste it from your book do so. Surely you've included that into it, or perhaps not.

The fact is, there are no direct measurements of dark energy. If you refer to the deviation from linearity observed in the spectrum and light curves from high-z SNe Ia from a smooyh Hubble flow then that is still not a measure of dark energy. There is nothing empirical about DE, or nonbaryonic DM (to which above I assume you refer to as dark matter). Both the above remain to date outside of physics. Incidentally, so too do branes and strings.

How does speculation about something speculative make something speculative less speculative?




Coldcreation

[cohen avshalom]

you should see also the icarus5.com also-unlimitted energy at the egde of the universe
cohen avshalom charly isreal/haifa