- #1
negativzero
- 120
- 0
Picturing the bang as an increasing presence of space between bits of energy, would be a kind of inside-out view from a picture of expanding mass energy. My first impression is that the two ideas seem equivalent, but suggest different inferences.
.
i find Peacock commenting in Cosmological Physics, re common misconceptions: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/frames.html
"...a common question asked by laymen and some physicists is what the universe expands into. The very terminology of the ``big bang'' suggests an explosion, which flings debris out into some void. Such a picture is strongly suggested by many semi-popular descriptions, which commonly include a description of the initial instant as one ``where all the matter in the universe is gathered at a single point'', or something to that effect. This phrase can probably be traced back to Lemaître's unfortunate term ``the primaeval atom''. Describing the origin of the expansion as an explosion is probably not a good idea in any case; it suggests some input of energy that moves matter from an initial state of rest. Classically, this is false: the expansion merely appears as an initial condition...it is one of the advantages of inflationary cosmology that it supplies an explicit mechanism for starting the expansion: the repulsive effect of vacuum energy..."
.
This book was published in 1999, i think, and it appears Peacock is not looking at dark energy, which is suspected also of being a feature of vacuum energy or at least of space, and unless I'm off, this would not be considered an "initial condition."
.
i assume i should consider that the nearest galaxies that are receding at Hubble rate are doing so as a result of the impetus of initial inflation/conflation, and not large scale expansion of space, and that the cosmological constant is due to a less initial vacuum energy.
.
But to me the initial condition still looks like one of creation of space, between bits of energy. So inflation and accelerating expansion over time both look to me just like the creation of space. But the message I'm getting is that in the start vacuum imparts kinetic energy and later it expands space?
.
Testing a definition of space as, "anywhere a particle can go," over time QM provides that particles can go more and more places. To me, this looks like the creation of space. i.e. particles create new places they can go, over time, and in this way create space. [trick definition?] i think current consensus is that space-time creates particle, i see energy in time creating space.
.
i feel out of step here, i need counseling, intervention, and probably tough love, but i want to know the truth as we now it, and soon.
.
Thx in advance for your kind attention,
-0
.
i find Peacock commenting in Cosmological Physics, re common misconceptions: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/frames.html
"...a common question asked by laymen and some physicists is what the universe expands into. The very terminology of the ``big bang'' suggests an explosion, which flings debris out into some void. Such a picture is strongly suggested by many semi-popular descriptions, which commonly include a description of the initial instant as one ``where all the matter in the universe is gathered at a single point'', or something to that effect. This phrase can probably be traced back to Lemaître's unfortunate term ``the primaeval atom''. Describing the origin of the expansion as an explosion is probably not a good idea in any case; it suggests some input of energy that moves matter from an initial state of rest. Classically, this is false: the expansion merely appears as an initial condition...it is one of the advantages of inflationary cosmology that it supplies an explicit mechanism for starting the expansion: the repulsive effect of vacuum energy..."
.
This book was published in 1999, i think, and it appears Peacock is not looking at dark energy, which is suspected also of being a feature of vacuum energy or at least of space, and unless I'm off, this would not be considered an "initial condition."
.
i assume i should consider that the nearest galaxies that are receding at Hubble rate are doing so as a result of the impetus of initial inflation/conflation, and not large scale expansion of space, and that the cosmological constant is due to a less initial vacuum energy.
.
But to me the initial condition still looks like one of creation of space, between bits of energy. So inflation and accelerating expansion over time both look to me just like the creation of space. But the message I'm getting is that in the start vacuum imparts kinetic energy and later it expands space?
.
Testing a definition of space as, "anywhere a particle can go," over time QM provides that particles can go more and more places. To me, this looks like the creation of space. i.e. particles create new places they can go, over time, and in this way create space. [trick definition?] i think current consensus is that space-time creates particle, i see energy in time creating space.
.
i feel out of step here, i need counseling, intervention, and probably tough love, but i want to know the truth as we now it, and soon.
.
Thx in advance for your kind attention,
-0
Last edited: