chri_schiller@yahoo.com
May14-05, 06:12 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>What arguments can be given against the assumption that\nFulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) radiation at the cosmological horizon\nis at the basis of the "creation" of matter and radiation?\n\nIn more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon could\ncontinuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into photons\nand partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and more,\ninto baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:\n"Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"\n\nThe model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady\nstate model; it would still allow for expansion and density reduction\nof the universe, but it would include continuous matter and\nradiation creation at the horizon.\n\nSince this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,\nthere must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments\nagainst it be?\n\nThe usual arguments against the steady state models do not seem\nto apply, and the model is compatible with the standard model.\nThere is even an advantage, as one does not need to imagine that\nmatter exists behind the horizon that continuously crosses\nover to this side of the horizon while the universe expands.\n(Assuming the existence of (unobservable) matter behind the\nhorizon is one of the weaknesses of the standard model of\ncosmology.)\n\nSurely this has been already discussed; what is the status of the\nissue?\n(I\'d like to mention the arguments in the next version of\nmy free internet physics book.)\n\nRegards\n\nChristoph Schiller\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>What arguments can be given against the assumption that
Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) radiation at the cosmological horizon
is at the basis of the "creation" of matter and radiation?
In more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon could
continuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into photons
and partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and more,
into baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:
"Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"
The model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady
state model; it would still allow for expansion and density reduction
of the universe, but it would include continuous matter and
radiation creation at the horizon.
Since this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,
there must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments
against it be?
The usual arguments against the steady state models do not seem
to apply, and the model is compatible with the standard model.
There is even an advantage, as one does not need to imagine that
matter exists behind the horizon that continuously crosses
over to this side of the horizon while the universe expands.
(Assuming the existence of (unobservable) matter behind the
horizon is one of the weaknesses of the standard model of
cosmology.)
Surely this has been already discussed; what is the status of the
issue?
(I'd like to mention the arguments in the next version of
my free internet physics book.)
Regards
Christoph Schiller
Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) radiation at the cosmological horizon
is at the basis of the "creation" of matter and radiation?
In more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon could
continuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into photons
and partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and more,
into baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:
"Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"
The model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady
state model; it would still allow for expansion and density reduction
of the universe, but it would include continuous matter and
radiation creation at the horizon.
Since this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,
there must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments
against it be?
The usual arguments against the steady state models do not seem
to apply, and the model is compatible with the standard model.
There is even an advantage, as one does not need to imagine that
matter exists behind the horizon that continuously crosses
over to this side of the horizon while the universe expands.
(Assuming the existence of (unobservable) matter behind the
horizon is one of the weaknesses of the standard model of
cosmology.)
Surely this has been already discussed; what is the status of the
issue?
(I'd like to mention the arguments in the next version of
my free internet physics book.)
Regards
Christoph Schiller