Is the following creation description useful?

[Tanelorn]

Initially what was to become the Universe was a particle of very high energy, or in other words a particle with a very high energy state.

Some unknown event caused this particle to decay into a lower energy state during which various forms of matter, energies, and fields were produced.

At first the decay was very rapid and resulted in inflation, as well as fields which we call space and time.
This decay continues today, but is much more gradual and we observe this as dark energy expansion of space and time.Is this creation description useful?

 

[skydivephil]

According to physics forums rules, if you want to present a new idea on cosmology you need to link to published paper, personal theories are not discussed here.

 

[Tanelorn]

Skydive, thankyou for your reply.

I understand that, I am simply asking if this is what the BB and inflatron idea/theory really amounts to in words. Is it acceptable now?

 

[bapowell]

Initially what was to become the Universe was a particle of very high energy, or in other words a particle with a very high energy state.

Some unknown event caused this particle to decay into a lower energy state during which various forms of matter, energies, and fields were produced.

At first the decay was very rapid and resulted in inflation, as well as fields which we call space and time.
This decay continues today, but is much more gradual and we observe this as dark energy expansion of space and time.


Is this creation description useful?

This is not a helpful description of inflation, or the big bang. There is no evidence for a single particle that decayed into the universe. Conceptually, I think you're getting close to some modern ideas; inflation was driven by a field that filled the early universe and this field was in a sufficiently high energy state to cause the accelerated expansion. As this field lost energy, the inflationary expansion slowed and eventually ceased when the field reached its ground state. At this point, the field is oscillating about its minimum manifesting itself as a Bose-Einstein condensate spread approximately uniformly throughout the universe (or at least the part that underwent inflation). This condensate eventually decays into all the matter we observe today in the universe (this decay, known strangely as "reheating" is essentially the hot big bang. All of conventional cosmology follows from this point: synthesis of the light elements, creation of the CMB, etc.)

There is an idea, called "quintessential inflation" in which the field that drove the primordial inflationary expansion never quite reaches its true ground state, and is either trapped in a metastable minimum or still slowly evolving towards its ground state. The effect is that the universe still undergoes accelerated expansion, although at a rate proportional to the present energy density.

 

[Nabeshin]

This is not a helpful description of inflation, or the big bang. There is no evidence for a single particle that decayed into the universe. Conceptually, I think you're getting close to some modern ideas; inflation was driven by a field that filled the early universe and this field was in a sufficiently high energy state to cause the accelerated expansion. As this field lost energy, the inflationary expansion slowed and eventually ceased when the field reached its ground state. At this point, the field is oscillating about its minimum manifesting itself as a Bose-Einstein condensate spread approximately uniformly throughout the universe (or at least the part that underwent inflation). This condensate eventually decays into all the matter we observe today in the universe (this decay, known strangely as "reheating" is essentially the hot big bang. All of conventional cosmology follows from this point: synthesis of the light elements, creation of the CMB, etc.)

There is an idea, called "quintessential inflation" in which the field that drove the primordial inflationary expansion never quite reaches its true ground state, and is either trapped in a metastable minimum or still slowly evolving towards its ground state. The effect is that the universe still undergoes accelerated expansion, although at a rate proportional to the present energy density.

A+ explanation, mate!

 

[Chalnoth]

Creation is not the correct word. 'Formation' or 'beginning' are much better.

 

[Tanelorn]

Sincere thanks for replies.

I was thinking about the Inflaton particle, which I had thought was the name given to the particle that contained everything that was to become the universe at t=0.
Then I thought about how in particle physics, particles decay or change energy state resulting in many diferent forms of matter and energy.
It seems to be a common theme in particle physics, and we often see things replicated on various small and large scales, so I wondered if there were any parallels to be drawn from that here with the inflaton Particle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton

Thanks again, and I think I prefer Chalnoth's formation word better also.

 

[bapowell]

Yes, the inflaton is a particle, but there isn't just one inflaton! To make good sense of what's going on, you need to think in terms of quantum field theory: the base entity is the field, and it is excitations in this field that manifest as particles. So there is an inflaton field permeating the universe during inflation, and localized excitations of this field would be inflaton particles. But the particles themselves don't play any active role during inflation -- it's the potential energy of the field that does that. The inflaton particles' main act is after inflation ends -- they are the particles that form the Bose-Einstein condensate I wrote about earlier. It is the inflaton particles that decay to all the other forms of matter.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks bapowell I did not understand what the inflaton was and there was in fact enormous numbers of them.

 

[skydivephil]

I've seen an alternative way to think of the origins of massive particles via inflation. Normally when a particle anti particle pair appear through vacuum fluctuations they recombine rather quickly. However during inflation the space between them is expanding so quickly they can't recombine, hence virtuall particles become real particles.

 

[Chalnoth]

I've seen an alternative way to think of the origins of massive particles via inflation. Normally when a particle anti particle pair appear through vacuum fluctuations they recombine rather quickly. However during inflation the space between them is expanding so quickly they can't recombine, hence virtuall particles become real particles.

Yes, but they also travel away from one another so fast that their density is negligible.