Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cosmic inflation: before or after
#1

Cosmic inflation: before or after
So, I was reading this article this morning (while still half asleep, in bed... perfect for understanding  Angel ), about dark matter originating *before* the Big Bang (yes, @Bucky Ball, people did comment on the whole no "before" before spacetime even existed Big Grin ), when this kinda stumped me: "Using a new, simple mathematical framework, the study shows that dark matter may have been produced before the Big Bang during an era known as the cosmic inflation when space was expanding very rapidly. The rapid expansion is believed to lead to copious production of certain types of particles called scalars. So far, only one scalar particle has been discovered, the famous Higgs boson."

So, what exactly *am* I missing, seeing as so far as I knew cosmic inflation occurred a fraction *after* the Big Bang?

Show ContentSpoiler:
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 5 users Like Vera's post:
  • Alan V, Paleophyte, Marozz, Gwaithmir, TheGulegon
Reply
#2

Cosmic inflation: before or after
Funnily enough I've just been reading this article about information and entropy and how dark matter may not be needed. And they don't provide a proper definition of information.

I don't like their last sentence that they think that there is an actual morphogenic field between entropy and information. Not being an astro-physicist though I can't comment on how well their work explains actual observations. Nevertheless I found the article really interesting with regard to self organising systems which is my area.

Kepler’s forgotten ideas about symmetry help explain spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter – new research
The following 4 users Like Mathilda's post:
  • Alan V, Fireball, Paleophyte, Vera
Reply
#3

Cosmic inflation: before or after
Vera,

i have exactly the same issue(s) with the article. It seems to define *big bang* as the start of the inflationary epoch, NOT t=0 , wich imho does not conform to the common usage of these terms. I do however understand that dark matter may have been there somewhere in between t=0 and somewhen *before* the inflationary epoch.

I also do understand that once we are able to directly observe dark matter, we may be able to observe some of its properties some of which may give us information about the early universe before the inflationary epoch. Currently we cant see behind the curtain of the CMB which is long after that (when the universe was cool enough for regular matter to condense and become transparent).
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
The following 3 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • Paleophyte, Vera, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#4

Cosmic inflation: before or after
(08-08-2019, 02:40 PM)Mathilda Wrote: Funnily enough I've just been reading this article about information and entropy and how dark matter may not be needed. And they don't provide a proper definition of information.

I don't like their last sentence that they think that there is an actual morphogenic field between entropy and information. Not being an astro-physicist though I can't comment on how well their work explains actual observations. Nevertheless I found the article really interesting with regard to self organising systems which is my area.

Kepler’s forgotten ideas about symmetry help explain spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter – new research

Ugg! That paper is a classic example of modelers trying to explain phenomena that they don't appear to understand. Aside from ignoring all of the other evidence for dark matter and invoking Kepler's dead morphogenic field the authors use Sgr A* to approximate the Milky Way. Approximating a few hundred billion radiant stars as a ~4.3 million solar mass black hole is the sort of rookie mistake that might make you suspect that the authors weren't astronomers or cosmologists. Those suspiscions would be spot on. A quick browse through the many linked terms in the article shows that none of the lead to the information that you need to figure out where they've gone wrong. It's a lovely example of Pop-Sci writing at its worst and should be stuffed and mounted to show future writers how not to do it.

The peer-reviewed paper behind the pop-sci is jargon-heavy but the way that they extrapolate between modelling DNA helices and modelling galactic spiral arms should set off a few alarms. So should the liberties that they take with geometry. Nice spiral. Too bad it doesn't match the actual galaxy very well. And it's actually an image of NGC 1566, which is a lousy proxy for the Milky Way if that's what they were aiming for. This paper probably should have been caught in peer-review.

[Image: 41598_2019_46765_Fig2_HTML.png]
The following 6 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Vera, Marozz, Deesse23, Mathilda, brewerb, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#5

Cosmic inflation: before or after
(08-08-2019, 05:22 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: It's a lovely example of Pop-Sci writing at its worst and should be stuffed and mounted to show future writers how not to do it.

Giggle

I've found The Conversation to be largely a hit and miss - some fascinating articles and some really cringe-worthy ones. I don't usually read their scientific articles, though. Being a totally lay person I have to rely on popular scientific magazines but I try to keep it as little pop-sci-ey as possible while still being graspable by someone like me (hint: I fucking love science, Science Daily and Live Science have not made the cut. The latter two I might read occasionally but by and large I tend to avoid them)
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
Reply
#6

Cosmic inflation: before or after
Finding good pop-sci is difficult. There's an awful lot of truly dreadful stuff out there that's written just to sell ad space.

In this particular case there's a really easy way for them to test their hypothesis. We have decent approximations of the mass of the supermassive black holes in several nearby galaxies. It would have been relatively simple for the authors to have compared their model results for those galaxies to the actual geometries. This is the sort of basic test hat a reviewer should have suggested to make the paper more robust.
The following 3 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Mathilda, Thumpalumpacus, Inkubus
Reply
#7

Cosmic inflation: before or after
The progress in cosmology is so slow that I imagine all we hear on a day-to-day basis are pop-sci speculations for people who enjoy that kind of thing.
Reply
#8

Cosmic inflation: before or after
Thanks for the review Paleo. It gave me a few red flags as well but not being my field I couldn't say how it compared to other papers. I definitely felt that they were overreaching by assuming that because their model sort of fit that this was enough evidence in itself. I also find The Conversation hit and miss. But I also think The New Scientist has gone downhill. There always seems to be some other wacky idea in Physics being proposed that never gets heard of again.

What I found interesting about the paper is that it never occurred to me that snowflakes are so symmetrical. But a simpler explanation seems to me that it is a consequence of it spinning around in the sky while falling or rising through air masses with different levels of temperature and moisture than evidence of a morphogenic field.

The other thing I am interested in is their idea of entropy and information being linked in a way similar to a magnetic field and an electric current. One question that interests me is at what stage does a self organising system become complex enough to start using information and what effect does it have on the system? Unfortunately the paper didn't really help answer that question. The best I can come up with is that information is some correlating signal that the system can use to adapt before it has to. Much like how Pavlov's dogs started slobbering before the food arrived.
The following 1 user Likes Mathilda's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#9

Cosmic inflation: before or after
(08-08-2019, 10:09 PM)Mathilda Wrote: Thanks for the review Paleo. It gave me a few red flags as well but not being my field I couldn't say how it compared to other papers. I definitely felt that they were overreaching by assuming that because their model sort of fit that this was enough evidence in itself. I also find The Conversation hit and miss. But I also think The New Scientist has gone downhill. There always seems to be some other wacky idea in Physics being proposed that never gets heard of again.

What I found interesting about the paper is that it never occurred to me that snowflakes are so symmetrical. But a simpler explanation seems to me that it is a consequence of it spinning around in the sky while falling or rising through air masses with different levels of  temperature and moisture than evidence of a morphogenic field.

The other thing I am interested in is their idea of entropy and information being linked in a way similar to a magnetic field and an electric current. One question that interests me is at what stage does a self organising system become complex enough to start using information and what effect does it have on the system? Unfortunately the paper didn't really help answer that question. The best I can come up with is that information is some correlating signal that the system can use to adapt before it has to. Much like how Pavlov's dogs started slobbering before the food arrived.

Snowflakes are typically highly symmetrical because they are an extremely small part of an extremely large system. That means that conditions are pretty much uniform across the entire snowflake giving rise to nearly identical growth patterns. If you look very closely you can often spot differences in the fine details.

Entropy and information are related, though likely not in the way that paper suggests. Every system employs information to some extent. Every self-organizing system relies on the information abut how the various components behave. They don't do this consciously of course, they're just moving toward a stable, minimum energy state. It's an interesting observation that it takes information to recognize information, so the simplest system that can actively use information is probably a simple self-replicator on the border between chemistry and biology. Or on the border between raw data and AI.
The following 3 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Vera, Alan V, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#10

Cosmic inflation: before or after
I have a question related to the topic. I think that the Big Bang Theory indicates that our currently known universe had a beginning roughly 13.8 billion years ago.
[https://www.universetoday.com/83370/cosm...beginning/]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe]

However, this thinking has faced some objections that I don't really understand. See quotes below from another thread. Only relevant sections shown and bold dark green sections are formatted by me showing to parts that doesn't make sense to me:

(08-13-2019, 03:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The Big Bang Theory says nothing about any beginning.
Wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe[ from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, <cut out>"

(08-13-2019, 05:33 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(08-13-2019, 04:57 PM)Kimdal Wrote:
(08-13-2019, 04:42 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: <cut out>
#5 As bucky already mentioned, the Big bang describes what happened immediately after the *beginning* of the universe
Yes, so it indicated there was a beginning <cut out>
No, the BBT states that we can calculate back to a planck time, where time and space started. There is no *before* and therefore no *beginning* looking back beyond that point from our point of view. <cut out>

Discussing this became difficult and was off-topic anyway in that thread. So maybe I can get some clarification here: What's wrong in saying that the BBT is indicating that our currently (*) expanding universe had beginning 13.8 billion years ago? 

(*) current in the context of Cyclic model.
Reply
#11

Cosmic inflation: before or after
When time and space do not (yet) exist you can't say something WITHIN fine and space BEGINS to exist. Without space and time the term *beginning* is meaningless.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
Reply
#12

Cosmic inflation: before or after
(08-08-2019, 02:40 PM)Mathilda Wrote: Funnily enough I've just been reading this article about information and entropy and how dark matter may not be needed. And they don't provide a proper definition of information.

I don't like their last sentence that they think that there is an actual morphogenic field between entropy and information. Not being an astro-physicist though I can't comment on how well their work explains actual observations. Nevertheless I found the article really interesting with regard to self organising systems which is my area.

Kepler’s forgotten ideas about symmetry help explain spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter – new research

Order from chaos?
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)