# Thread: Big Bang - impossibility

1. A Big Bang is a mathematical impossibility, because there is one simple equation that proves that;
And the equation is;

Fc=Fo2/R , Where Fc=centripetal force, or (g)=m/s2 , Fo= orbital force=m/s1, and R= radius .

Example 1; mass 1. m=3.50x1040kg. Radius R=2.60x1013m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3,466m/s2 .
Example 2; mass 2. m=3.50x1043kg. Radius R=2.60x1016m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3.47m/s2.
Example 3; mass 3. m=3.50x1046kg. Radius R=2.60x1019m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3.47x10-3m/s2.

Notice how Fc (g) decreases as the mass and its radius keeps increasing. And remember that Fo cannot extend beyond the speed of light per second. Hence the Fo, Fc, and Radius are always proportional to one another, in the following manner;

Fo=RxFc (square rooted). Fc= Fo2/R , and R= Fo2/Fc .

This proves that the entire mass of the universe couldn't ever existed as one single conglomerate, because the mass always comply to these three quantities.

2.

what is orbiting what?

where did you get your equation?

4. Radius of the mass: Orbital force has its velocity: And the equation pertains the relationship of all four basic quantities;
mass, radius, orbital force (fo), and centripetal force (Fc). To verify this try these four equations:

M=Fo^2xR/G, or, M=FcxR^2/G.
Fo=FcxR(square rooted), or Fo=MG/Fc(square rooted),
Fc=Fo^2/R, or, Fc=MG/R^2.
R=Fo^2/Fc, or R=MG/Fo^2, or, R=MG/Fc (square rooted).

5. You're using mathematics alone to disprove the big bang, a zero point of everything?

Wow.

Who do you work for?

No one here right?

6. "If a single point in space was orbiting itself..."

Can you see where you went wrong?

7. divinum1, the equation you are quoting is used in classical mechanics for the circular motion of bodies, and has nothing to do with the evolution of the universe. You cannot apply a classical equation to a system that is not classical, like the universe...that's like using garden tools to perform surgery...the results aren't going to be too impressive.

8. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
divinum1, the equation you are quoting is used in classical mechanics for the circular motion of bodies, and has nothing to do with the evolution of the universe. You cannot apply a classical equation to a system that is not classical, like the universe...that's like using garden tools to perform surgery...the results aren't going to be too impressive.
I never mentioned the evolution of the universe: I represented four basic equations with which you can easily verify the present state of the universe, and within the universe, such as galaxies, or star systems, etc.

9. Originally Posted by divinum1
A Big Bang is a mathematical impossibility, because there is one simple equation that proves that;And the equation is;Fc=Fo2/R , Where Fc=centripetal force, or (g)=m/s2 , Fo= orbital force=m/s1, and R= radius . Example 1; mass 1. m=3.50x1040kg. Radius R=2.60x1013m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3,466m/s2 .Example 2; mass 2. m=3.50x1043kg. Radius R=2.60x1016m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3.47m/s2.Example 3; mass 3. m=3.50x1046kg. Radius R=2.60x1019m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3.47x10-3m/s2.Notice how Fc (g) decreases as the mass and its radius keeps increasing. And remember that Fo cannot extend beyond the speed of light per second. Hence the Fo, Fc, and Radius are always proportional to one another, in the following manner;Fo=RxFc (square rooted). Fc= Fo2/R , and R= Fo2/Fc .This proves that the entire mass of the universe couldn't ever existed as one single conglomerate, because the mass always comply to these three quantities.
Does this not refer to the Big Bang ?? You are contradicting yourself...
I say it again, these equations have nothing to do with Big Bang !

10. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by divinum1
A Big Bang is a mathematical impossibility, because there is one simple equation that proves that;And the equation is;Fc=Fo2/R , Where Fc=centripetal force, or (g)=m/s2 , Fo= orbital force=m/s1, and R= radius . Example 1; mass 1. m=3.50x1040kg. Radius R=2.60x1013m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3,466m/s2 .Example 2; mass 2. m=3.50x1043kg. Radius R=2.60x1016m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3.47m/s2.Example 3; mass 3. m=3.50x1046kg. Radius R=2.60x1019m. Fo=c/s1. and Fc=3.47x10-3m/s2.Notice how Fc (g) decreases as the mass and its radius keeps increasing. And remember that Fo cannot extend beyond the speed of light per second. Hence the Fo, Fc, and Radius are always proportional to one another, in the following manner;Fo=RxFc (square rooted). Fc= Fo2/R , and R= Fo2/Fc .This proves that the entire mass of the universe couldn't ever existed as one single conglomerate, because the mass always comply to these three quantities.
Does this not refer to the Big Bang ?? You are contradicting yourself...
I say it again, these equations have nothing to do with Big Bang !
Yes, all three equations disprove that a Big Bang, or Singularity for that matter, do not comply to the physical limits of nature, such as; "c" (speed of light) and "G" (universal gravitational constant). It is these two constants,c and G, that predetermine all conditions within and without the universe. Therefore Big Bang and Singularity should also comply to the same. But according to the present theory they do not. And the three basic equations of; mass, radius, Fo, and Fc, prove that they do not comply to it.
therefore, they are a false imagination, because there is no mathematical evidence that can support that, nor can there be one.

11. If your trying to disprove the big bang then what are you trying to prove? If it's any religious stuff then I totally respect your beliefs (if you have them )but also totally DISAGREE!

12. Just jump right in! Can't anyone see how it's "the big money game", and "who you know" game? There have been many theories with as much evidence and no way to disprove. A lot just jump on "the band wagon" even if it's not the most believable concept. Many theories before and I'm sure many more to come. Quite difficult to believe all matter in the universe came from one single point.

13. Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Just jump right in! Can't anyone see how it's "the big money game", and "who you know" game? There have been many theories with as much evidence and no way to disprove. A lot just jump on "the band wagon" even if it's not the most believable concept. Many theories before and I'm sure many more to come. Quite difficult to believe all matter in the universe came from one single point.
You don't follow mainstream science, do you?

14. Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Quite difficult to believe all matter in the universe came from one single point.
Oh, you find it hard to believe. That's it then. It must be wrong.

15. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Quite difficult to believe all matter in the universe came from one single point.
Oh, you find it hard to believe. That's it then. It must be wrong.
Hold on, I have a potential problem. You see, I find it hard to believe that this is not the case. What a conundrum!

16. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Hold on, I have a potential problem. You see, I find it hard to believe that this is not the case. What a conundrum!
Hmmm... tricky.

You know what we need? A rigorous methodology for gathering and evaluating evidence. Perhaps based around peer review and replication of results. How does that sound?

Now we just need to think of a good name for the "method"...

17. I was going to say 'religion', but apparantly that's already taken. 'Philosophy' doesn't quite sound right either. Maybe something starting with an 's'?

18. huh, Two screen names Divinum and Gilgamesh, I smell ulterior motives here , but that's cool ------- (continued)

Just jump right in! Can't anyone see how it's "the big money game", and "who you know" game? There have been many theories with as much evidence and no way to disprove. A lot just jump on "the band wagon" even if it's not the most believable concept. Many theories before and I'm sure many more to come. Quite difficult to believe all matter in the universe came from one single point.
-- because I am not religious and have a similar opinion but less cynical, concerning the BB model. But in no way do I think the above equations have anything to do with disproving the BB model. There are all kinds of new physics required that have not been proposed to explain a BB beginning and a pile more new physics needed to allow for the Inflation era, which has many versions. Such a BB beginning including Inflation will forever be impossible to prove or disprove.

I think the beginning of eventually irrefutable evidence against the BB model will begin in the next decade after the James Webb is up. At that time I believe they will continue seeing very large and old appearing galaxies, bright middle aged galaxies, and young galaxies, the same kinds of galaxies as far back as they can look, that we are presently observing with the Hubble telescope, Long Baseline radio-scopes, and infra-red scopes, and which we see in our local neighborhood and in the same proportions.

That being said, don't count on Creationism being considered as a replacement or ever having a valid place in science other than "knowledgeable" creationists sometimes voicing valid criticisms which could be part of a load voice to remind theorists not to decide on theories that are too ridiculous. But if you think creationism will ever be redeemed in the eyes of science then I think you will be waiting a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. But don't worry, I don't bite much and assert that the afterlife will be painless for all

19. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Hold on, I have a potential problem. You see, I find it hard to believe that this is not the case. What a conundrum!
Hmmm... tricky.

You know what we need? A rigorous methodology for gathering and evaluating evidence. Perhaps based around peer review and replication of results. How does that sound?

Now we just need to think of a good name for the "method"...
Yes! That would work very well until a new observation disproved the old ones .. and then something like, "Oh .. we'll just add something called imaginary Inflation to account for the discrepancy. Imaginary Inflation then becomes sound science.

20. Imaginary Inflation
Have you ever looked at any of the evidence for inflation that you're dismissing?

21. Please present what you have. As far as I know there is none. It was a simple add on to make up for the fact that observations didn't match theory.
The originator simply said, "Oh, there must have been a period of rapid inflaction." The Big Bang hangers on all shouted AMEN.

22. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Please present what you have. As far as I know there is none. It was a simple add on to make up for the fact that observations didn't match theory.
The originator simply said, "Oh, there must have been a period of rapid inflaction." The Big Bang hangers on all shouted AMEN.
Not that it will do much good because judging by your previous posts across several threads I do believe you will just condemn it as either wrong, some form of conspiracy, or after-the-fact reasoning; here it is anyway, for the benefit of other visitors who may be browsing this thread :

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, no one ever said there is irrefutable evidence for either BB or inflation; it just seems that these models seem to fit current observational evidence pretty well. Once a full theory of quantum gravity has been established we may get a better model. Until then I see no reason to doubt its validity as it makes no predictions that are observably wrong.
Or do you have a better model that fits all the observational evidence described in above articles ( and many more easily accessible in this age of Google, Yahoo! etc ), while seamlessly tying into both high energy physics and general relativity - if so we would be delighted to hear it. If not, then please do not be so quick in dismissing well established ideas.

23. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
[Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, no one ever said there is irrefutable evidence for either BB or inflation; it just seems that these models seem to fit current observational evidence pretty well. Once a full theory of quantum gravity has been established we may get a better model. Until then I see no reason to doubt its validity as it makes no predictions that are observably wrong.
Or do you have a better model that fits all the observational evidence described in above articles ( and many more easily accessible in this age of Google, Yahoo! etc ), while seamlessly tying into both high energy physics and general relativity - if so we would be delighted to hear it. If not, then please do not be so quick in dismissing well established ideas.
As a layperson my opinion might not really matter, but I believe what you say is accurate.
Your posts, along with those of one or two others, might even be as valuable as those of the good Doctor and some other posters who appear to have left.
Death to the pseudo-scientists and other assorted Philistines!

24. Lots of cool comments on this thread by all. I believe all those with contrary opinions to the BB model will eventually be proven to be correct, and the mainstreamers have presented their retorts and position in a very polite and/ or well-spoken manner Even the sarcastic wit I think is funny and seemingly not mean spirited Merry Christmas to all

25. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Please present what you have. As far as I know there is none. It was a simple add on to make up for the fact that observations didn't match theory.
The originator simply said, "Oh, there must have been a period of rapid inflaction." The Big Bang hangers on all shouted AMEN.
Not that it will do much good because judging by your previous posts across several threads I do believe you will just condemn it as either wrong, some form of conspiracy, or after-the-fact reasoning; here it is anyway, for the benefit of other visitors who may be browsing this thread :

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, no one ever said there is irrefutable evidence for either BB or inflation; it just seems that these models seem to fit current observational evidence pretty well. Once a full theory of quantum gravity has been established we may get a better model. Until then I see no reason to doubt its validity as it makes no predictions that are observably wrong.
Or do you have a better model that fits all the observational evidence described in above articles ( and many more easily accessible in this age of Google, Yahoo! etc ), while seamlessly tying into both high energy physics and general relativity - if so we would be delighted to hear it. If not, then please do not be so quick in dismissing well established ideas.
Thank you for the url, Markus. "Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[4] "

As I said, observations did not fit the theory, not only that, but observations were very contrary to the theory. But by then the consensus was weighted heavily for Bang, and Bang was being taught as fact instead of theory, which to many Bang proponents it still is, fact that is rather than theory. Instead of trying to find out why observations did not meet the theory, or advancing to another theory, Alan Guth invented a magical excuse for why the observations did not meet the theory, an excuse he forumulated to fit the theory. Expansion was not a result of observation, but was a result that observation showed the theory wrong. It's like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, which is easy to do if you put the rabbit in the hat when no one is looking.

It is encouraging to see that you are accepting of the fact that Bang is theory instead of fact.

I think Quantum Fluctuation Seeding (an idea originating from my reading of Pascual Jordan who was one of the prime originators of quantum mechanics) giving rise to matter and gravity as well as giving rise to anti-gravity bubbles whose growth pushes space apart with space carrying matter (known as galaxies flying through space) is a better theory. "A star can be made out of nothing at all because at the point of zero volume its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy" (Jordan) No need of singularity. No need of Bang. I think why Jordan has been ignored was because unlike Einstein, who was a friend of his, he didn't leave Germany when the Nazi threat became obvious. Jordan was not a Jew, as far as I know, so wasn't made to feel uncomforatable in Germany. He was a major influence on Einstein though, and his revelation quoted in this post was said to have stopped Einstein in his tracks as he crossed a street at Princeton. I seem to remember that it was Neils Bhor who told him the quote, but I might be wrong about that, not that it matters much. The Quantum Fluctuation Seeding model explains voids, which Bang does not, a particularly peculiar problem as the biggest structure in the universe is said to be a void. As I have said before here, I believe a thermal measurement of the borders of voids will reveal that the expansion of the voids are compressing space at the borders, that compression driving the expansion of the universe. Someone in this forum answered the compression theory with the statement `space cannot be compressed because space is nothing`but it is obvious that space is something because mass curves it .. it logically follows that if space can be curved by mass then it can also be compressed. Space seems to be like foam rubber in that way, and that analogy has been made by people far more educated than myself. That space can be curved, bent and otherwise distorted is revealed by galaxies acting as lenses to the light coming from behind them. Quantum Fluctuation Seeding does not require Inflation to explain anything. I sure wish someone would take a crack at measuring the temperautures around the borders of voids. It may be that current technology will reveal the compression, or it may have to wait until more sensitive instruments are developed .. but it should be tried.

26. Aristarchus, I must admit that I have not previously come across a model called Quantum Fluctuation Seeding, nor have I heard of Mr Jordan. It would be plain wrong of me to comment on this idea unless I have had the opportunity to review it properly. Do you have a reference that presents this model in a mathematical way, preferably online as I am not currently in a position to spend lots of money on a print edition. Thank you.

27. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Aristarchus, I must admit that I have not previously come across a model called Quantum Fluctuation Seeding, nor have I heard of Mr Jordan. It would be plain wrong of me to comment on this idea unless I have had the opportunity to review it properly. Do you have a reference that presents this model in a mathematical way, preferably online as I am not currently in a position to spend lots of money on a print edition. Thank you.
Hello Markus. Merry Christmas. You can easily check Pascual Jordan out by search engine. He's one of those fascinating people who did so much (an originator of quantum mechanics for instance) but whose name has been almost burried by political ccorrectness. His ideas say that singularity is not needed, so of course he runs into the mass of Big Bangism in a bad way. Quantum Fluctuation Seeding is not found in mathematical model because I can't do math, and as it's my theory, inspired by Jordan's quotation saying "A star can be made out of nothing at all because at its point of zero volume its positive agravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy."

28. Markus - here is the wiki page for jordan: Pascual Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

29. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Aristarchus, I must admit that I have not previously come across a model called Quantum Fluctuation Seeding, nor have I heard of Mr Jordan. It would be plain wrong of me to comment on this idea unless I have had the opportunity to review it properly. Do you have a reference that presents this model in a mathematical way, preferably online as I am not currently in a position to spend lots of money on a print edition. Thank you.
Hello Markus. Merry Christmas. You can easily check Pascual Jordan out by search engine. He's one of those fascinating people who did so much (an originator of quantum mechanics for instance) but whose name has been almost burried by political ccorrectness. His ideas say that singularity is not needed, so of course he runs into the mass of Big Bangism in a bad way. Quantum Fluctuation Seeding is not found in mathematical model because I can't do math, and as it's my theory, inspired by Jordan's quotation saying "A star can be made out of nothing at all because at its point of zero volume its positive agravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy."
Alright I have found the Wikipedia article and briefly read two of the papers referenced therein. It appears Mr Jordan has done some great work, and he is not well known only because the particular formalism he was employing is no longer in general use, which of course does not make it any less true. However, I see no direct evidence that Mr Jordan considered the BB to be an inappropriate model.

30. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Aristarchus, I must admit that I have not previously come across a model called Quantum Fluctuation Seeding, nor have I heard of Mr Jordan. It would be plain wrong of me to comment on this idea unless I have had the opportunity to review it properly. Do you have a reference that presents this model in a mathematical way, preferably online as I am not currently in a position to spend lots of money on a print edition. Thank you.
Hello Markus. Merry Christmas. You can easily check Pascual Jordan out by search engine. He's one of those fascinating people who did so much (an originator of quantum mechanics for instance) but whose name has been almost burried by political ccorrectness. His ideas say that singularity is not needed, so of course he runs into the mass of Big Bangism in a bad way. Quantum Fluctuation Seeding is not found in mathematical model because I can't do math, and as it's my theory, inspired by Jordan's quotation saying "A star can be made out of nothing at all because at its point of zero volume its positive agravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy."
Alright I have found the Wikipedia article and briefly read two of the papers referenced therein. It appears Mr Jordan has done some great work, and he is not well known only because the particular formalism he was employing is no longer in general use, which of course does not make it any less true. However, I see no direct evidence that Mr Jordan considered the BB to be an inappropriate model.
Markus, please read my post instead of scanning it. You will see clearly that Jordan is not well known because "Jordan joined the Nazi party and became a brownshirt, a political affiliation which isolated him within the physics community." "Had Jordan not joined the Nazi party, it is conceivable that he could have shared the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Max Born. Bernstein (2005)[1] and Schroer[2]." "He secured election to the Bundestag standing with the conservative Christian Democratic Union. In 1957 Jordan supported the arming of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons by the Adenauer government, while the Göttinger 18 (which included Born and Heisenberg) issued the Göttinger Manifest in protest. This and other issues were to further strain his relationships with his former friends and colleagues."

His math is in general use today: "Jordan algebras have since been applied in projective geometry and number theory."

I remember nothing from my reading of a few years ago to suggest Jordan either supported or denounced Bangism, and I never hinted that he was opposed to Bangism. However, his statement, "A star can be made out of nothing at all..." suggests a singularity was not needed for creation of matter. It was reading other sources (not Wiki) that suggested or stated that Jordan believed matter can come into existance through quantum fluctuations. I suggest that God created matter through a process in which either his voice or a wave of his hand (for instance) initiated quantum fluctuations, like spreading grass seen onto a lawn.

In my view, some of the fluctuations created matter-antimatter, some created anti-gravity bubbles known as voids. I believe the voids' growth can be measured by temperature rises in the compressed space immediately surrounding voids. I believe my idea is at this time, apart from the possibility of creation through baryon acoustic oscillations the only idea which explains the existance of voids and their apparent shapes (roughly bubble-like.) I believe my idea is based on observations, observations of voids, as well as observations that other models fail to explain the shape or even the existance of voids, and particularly why a void is the largest known structure in the universe. That's all I have at this time. I began my thoughts with Jordan's statement that matter can be created from nothing.

I also believe Jordan is not well known because his statement proves that singularity is not needed, which then gives rise to the question as to why singularity was ever thought necessary in the first place, other than the observable universe seems in general to consists of matter which on large scale flies apart from matter, as if from an explosion, which was what the original concept of Bang was, that original concerpt needed a point source to originate the explosion from.

One more thing .. I believe there may be a possibility that the expansion of voids will orient galaxies to the void .. I would look for spirals lying parallel to the border of the void.

31. For those who may say 'anti-gravity is impossible' I found this in Wiki. I see no reason why "repulsive gravitation field" cannot simply be termed anti-gravity.

"Both general relativity and Newtonian gravity appear to predict that negative mass would produce a repulsive gravitational field. In particular, Sir Hermann Bondi proposed in 1957 that negative gravitational mass, combined with negative inertial mass, would comply with the strong equivalence principle of general relativity theory and the Newtonian laws of conservation of linear momentum and energy. Bondi's proof yielded singularity free solutions for the relativity equations.[10] In July 1988, Robert L. Forward presented a paper at the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 24th Joint Propulsion Conference that proposed a Bondi negative gravitational mass propulsion system.[11]""

"During the 1920s Thomas Townsend Brown, a high-voltage experimenter, produced a device he called the "gravitator" which he claimed used an unknown force to produce anti-gravity effects by applying high voltages to materials with high dielectric constants. Although it was claimed that the device operated independent of working mass, and was denounced by critics on those grounds, Brown continued his work and produced a series of ever more successful high-voltage devices in the following years.[citation needed]
Regardless of those earlier criticisms, today the idea of field propulsion independent of reaction mass is gaining credibility.[citation needed] The Biefeld–Brown effect continues to fascinate those interested in better space propulsion technologies[22]."

"During the close of the twentieth century NASA provided funding for the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program (BPP) from 1996 through 2002. This program studied a number of "far out" designs for space propulsion that were not receiving funding through normal university or commercial channels. Anti-gravity-like concepts were investigated under the name "diametric drive". The work of the BPP program continues in the independent, non-NASA affiliated Tau Zero Foundation [13]."

32. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Markus, please read my post instead of scanning it. You will see clearly that Jordan is not well known because "Jordan joined the Nazi party and became a brownshirt, a political affiliation which isolated him within the physics community." "Had Jordan not joined the Nazi party, it is conceivable that he could have shared the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Max Born. Bernstein (2005)[1] and Schroer[2]." "He secured election to the Bundestag standing with the conservative Christian Democratic Union. In 1957 Jordan supported the arming of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons by the Adenauer government, while the Göttinger 18 (which included Born and Heisenberg) issued the Göttinger Manifest in protest. This and other issues were to further strain his relationships with his former friends and colleagues."

His math is in general use today: "Jordan algebras have since been applied in projective geometry and number theory."

I remember nothing from my reading of a few years ago to suggest Jordan either supported or denounced Bangism, and I never hinted that he was opposed to Bangism. However, his statement, "A star can be made out of nothing at all..." suggests a singularity was not needed for creation of matter. It was reading other sources (not Wiki) that suggested or stated that Jordan believed matter can come into existance through quantum fluctuations. I suggest that God created matter through a process in which either his voice or a wave of his hand (for instance) initiated quantum fluctuations, like spreading grass seen onto a lawn.

In my view, some of the fluctuations created matter-antimatter, some created anti-gravity bubbles known as voids. I believe the voids' growth can be measured by temperature rises in the compressed space immediately surrounding voids. I believe my idea is at this time, apart from the possibility of creation through baryon acoustic oscillations the only idea which explains the existance of voids and their apparent shapes (roughly bubble-like.) I believe my idea is based on observations, observations of voids, as well as observations that other models fail to explain the shape or even the existance of voids, and particularly why a void is the largest known structure in the universe. That's all I have at this time. I began my thoughts with Jordan's statement that matter can be created from nothing.

I also believe Jordan is not well known because his statement proves that singularity is not needed, which then gives rise to the question as to why singularity was ever thought necessary in the first place, other than the observable universe seems in general to consists of matter which on large scale flies apart from matter, as if from an explosion, which was what the original concept of Bang was, that original concerpt needed a point source to originate the explosion from.

One more thing .. I believe there may be a possibility that the expansion of voids will orient galaxies to the void .. I would look for spirals lying parallel to the border of the void.
A few points here :

1. When I said he is not well known because his formalism is no longer in use, I meant this in the context of quantum mechanics only - my apologies, I should have made this clear. His formalism has been superseded by the better suited Von-Neumann Algebra simply because these can be more easily defined over Hilbert spaces. You are of course right that the Jordan Algebra still plays an important part in purely mathematical number & group theory.
2. I don't use Wikipedia in this context, because the information provided for Pascual Jordan is too limited. I am actually referring to this article in my arguments : [hep-th/0303241] Pascual Jordan, his contributions to quantum mechanics and his legacy in contemporary local quantum physics
3. I am not sure you are using your quote from Mr Jordan in the right context - perhaps you could provide a reference, because I couldn't find the quotation in his original texts ( I might have overlooked it, though ). Anyway, I believe what he is saying is only that the ( negatively signed ) gravitational energy exactly offsets the mass energy of a body, which is of course true, but nowhere does he seem to describe a mechanism to create "matter from nothing" - please correct me with a reference if I am wrong. I am no expert on Jordan or his works.
4. The idea of a singularity at the time of the BB stems from the application of General Relativity only, which doesn't account for quantum effects. Modern models of quantum gravity like M-Theory, loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation specifically exclude the possibility of the existence of point-like singularities. In this regard you are right in saying that singularities aren't needed or even physically possible. This does not, however, rule out a model based on BB and inflation.

Btw, I do indeed read all posts, not just scanning it. It is just that I do not wish to involve either politics or religion on a science forum. The reasons for using Von-Neumann algebras instead of Jordan algebras in the modern treatment of QFT are, to the best of my knowledge, purely mathematical in nature, which is not to say that Mr Jordan's politic affiliations are not controversial. But this shouldn't play a role in evaluating his work.

33. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
For those who may say 'anti-gravity is impossible' I found this in Wiki. I see no reason why "repulsive gravitation field" cannot simply be termed anti-gravity.

"Both general relativity and Newtonian gravity appear to predict that negative mass would produce a repulsive gravitational field. In particular, Sir Hermann Bondi proposed in 1957 that negative gravitational mass, combined with negative inertial mass, would comply with the strong equivalence principle of general relativity theory and the Newtonian laws of conservation of linear momentum and energy. Bondi's proof yielded singularity free solutions for the relativity equations.[10] In July 1988, Robert L. Forward presented a paper at the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 24th Joint Propulsion Conference that proposed a Bondi negative gravitational mass propulsion system.[11]""

"During the 1920s Thomas Townsend Brown, a high-voltage experimenter, produced a device he called the "gravitator" which he claimed used an unknown force to produce anti-gravity effects by applying high voltages to materials with high dielectric constants. Although it was claimed that the device operated independent of working mass, and was denounced by critics on those grounds, Brown continued his work and produced a series of ever more successful high-voltage devices in the following years.[citation needed]
Regardless of those earlier criticisms, today the idea of field propulsion independent of reaction mass is gaining credibility.[citation needed] The Biefeld–Brown effect continues to fascinate those interested in better space propulsion technologies[22]."

"During the close of the twentieth century NASA provided funding for the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program (BPP) from 1996 through 2002. This program studied a number of "far out" designs for space propulsion that were not receiving funding through normal university or commercial channels. Anti-gravity-like concepts were investigated under the name "diametric drive". The work of the BPP program continues in the independent, non-NASA affiliated Tau Zero Foundation [13]."
1. Anti-gravity per se is not ruled out by any physical law, it is just that the energy configurations needed to create such an effect ( negative mass ) are not currently thought to exist; once again though, there are no laws specifically excluding the possibility. If there was "negative mass" than the existence of a repulsive gravitation field would directly follow from the Einstein Field Equations.
2. The "Biefeld-Brown Effect" is an effect of Hydrodynamics caused by ionization of a gas or fluid in the presence of a strong electric field; even though it can be used to construct certain propulsion systems, it has absolutely nothing to do with anti-gravity. This effect is not present in a vacuum.
3. The "Diametric Drive", while a very interesting concept in principle, depends on the existence of "negative mass". Unfortunately no such thing has been observed to exist, and the propulsion system remains hypothetical.

34. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Markus, please read my post instead of scanning it. You will see clearly that Jordan is not well known because "Jordan joined the Nazi party and became a brownshirt, a political affiliation which isolated him within the physics community." "Had Jordan not joined the Nazi party, it is conceivable that he could have shared the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Max Born. Bernstein (2005)[1] and Schroer[2]." "He secured election to the Bundestag standing with the conservative Christian Democratic Union. In 1957 Jordan supported the arming of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons by the Adenauer government, while the Göttinger 18 (which included Born and Heisenberg) issued the Göttinger Manifest in protest. This and other issues were to further strain his relationships with his former friends and colleagues."

His math is in general use today: "Jordan algebras have since been applied in projective geometry and number theory."

I remember nothing from my reading of a few years ago to suggest Jordan either supported or denounced Bangism, and I never hinted that he was opposed to Bangism. However, his statement, "A star can be made out of nothing at all..." suggests a singularity was not needed for creation of matter. It was reading other sources (not Wiki) that suggested or stated that Jordan believed matter can come into existance through quantum fluctuations. I suggest that God created matter through a process in which either his voice or a wave of his hand (for instance) initiated quantum fluctuations, like spreading grass seen onto a lawn.

In my view, some of the fluctuations created matter-antimatter, some created anti-gravity bubbles known as voids. I believe the voids' growth can be measured by temperature rises in the compressed space immediately surrounding voids. I believe my idea is at this time, apart from the possibility of creation through baryon acoustic oscillations the only idea which explains the existance of voids and their apparent shapes (roughly bubble-like.) I believe my idea is based on observations, observations of voids, as well as observations that other models fail to explain the shape or even the existance of voids, and particularly why a void is the largest known structure in the universe. That's all I have at this time. I began my thoughts with Jordan's statement that matter can be created from nothing.

I also believe Jordan is not well known because his statement proves that singularity is not needed, which then gives rise to the question as to why singularity was ever thought necessary in the first place, other than the observable universe seems in general to consists of matter which on large scale flies apart from matter, as if from an explosion, which was what the original concept of Bang was, that original concerpt needed a point source to originate the explosion from.

One more thing .. I believe there may be a possibility that the expansion of voids will orient galaxies to the void .. I would look for spirals lying parallel to the border of the void.
A few points here :

1. When I said he is not well known because his formalism is no longer in use, I meant this in the context of quantum mechanics only - my apologies, I should have made this clear. His formalism has been superseded by the better suited Von-Neumann Algebra simply because these can be more easily defined over Hilbert spaces. You are of course right that the Jordan Algebra still plays an important part in purely mathematical number & group theory.
2. I don't use Wikipedia in this context, because the information provided for Pascual Jordan is too limited. I am actually referring to this article in my arguments : [hep-th/0303241] Pascual Jordan, his contributions to quantum mechanics and his legacy in contemporary local quantum physics
3. I am not sure you are using your quote from Mr Jordan in the right context - perhaps you could provide a reference, because I couldn't find the quotation in his original texts ( I might have overlooked it, though ). Anyway, I believe what he is saying is only that the ( negatively signed ) gravitational energy exactly offsets the mass energy of a body, which is of course true, but nowhere does he seem to describe a mechanism to create "matter from nothing" - please correct me with a reference if I am wrong. I am no expert on Jordan or his works.
4. The idea of a singularity at the time of the BB stems from the application of General Relativity only, which doesn't account for quantum effects. Modern models of quantum gravity like M-Theory, loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation specifically exclude the possibility of the existence of point-like singularities. In this regard you are right in saying that singularities aren't needed or even physically possible. This does not, however, rule out a model based on BB and inflation.

Btw, I do indeed read all posts, not just scanning it. It is just that I do not wish to involve either politics or religion on a science forum. The reasons for using Von-Neumann algebras instead of Jordan algebras in the modern treatment of QFT are, to the best of my knowledge, purely mathematical in nature, which is not to say that Mr Jordan's politic affiliations are not controversial. But this shouldn't play a role in evaluating his work.
An excellent reply, Markus. Thanks. I apologize for suggesting that you did not read posts, my responses are influenced by the responses of all posters, I can't keep individuals' identities totally separated one from the other.

I can't remember the source of the Jordan quote, except that it was from a PHD written book. For a couple of winters ending four years ago I spent my spare time reading everything I could find on cosmology. the quote was so stunning that I wrote it down in my address book and have carried it ever since as a refute to those who insist that singularity is needed.

I agree with you that Jordan's politics should not influence what others think of his work, but when he was denied the Nobel it was reported to be for his politics, and of course that would put the Nobel winner in the forefront of influencing up-and-coming minds. Such was the effect that in my experience on these forums Jordan has nearly been erased from cosmological consciousness, despite ..
"One of the primary founders of Quantum Mechanics (others were Max Born and Werner Heisenberg), and also Quantum Electrodynamics. Jordan's main contribution was no less than quantum field theory, but he never attained the fame of the other scientists, who considered him somewhat of a mathematician. The seminal 1925 paper with Max Born, Zur Quantenmechanik, was authored largely by Jordan. He believed that fundamental constants of the universe were variable, an idea which persists to this day. A history of physics Jordan wrote during the Nazi period gave credit to prominent Jews in the field, when the rest of the German establishment was attempting to discredit their work."

Poor Jordan obviously ran afoul of both the German establishment for giving credit to the Jews, and the Jews for joining the Brownshirts. No wonder his name is burried.

35. Here's something else very interesting:

HQ1, Max Planck Institute for History of Science, Berlin, July 2–6, 2007

Pascual Jordan’s resolution of the conundrum
of the wave-particle duality of light
Anthony Duncan Michel Janssen
Department of Program in the History
Physics and Astronomy, of Science, Technology, and Medicine
University of Pittsburgh University of Minnesota
In 1909, Einstein derived a formula for the mean square energy fluctuation in a small subvolume of a box filled with black-body radiation. This formula is the sum of a wave term and a particle term. Einstein concluded that a satisfactory theory of light would thus have to combine aspects of a wave theory and a particle theory. In the following decade, various attempts were made to recover this formula without Einstein’s light quanta. In a key contribution to the 1925 Dreimännerarbeit with Born and Heisenberg, Jordan showed that a straightforward application of Heisenberg’s Umdeutung procedure, which forms the core of the new matrix mechanics, to a system of waves reproduces both terms of Einstein’s fluctuation formula. Jordan thus showed that these two terms do not require separate mechanisms, one involving particles and one involving waves.

And yet, everything I read today insists that light is composed of waves and particles. It seems Jordan also ran afoul of Einstein fans.

Here are some of the books I read back in 2008. According to my notes the books were all written by PHDs.

Einstein’s lectures: The theory of relativity; e=mc2; Physics and Reality; the fundamentals of theoretical physics; the common language of science; the laws of science and the laws of ethics; an elementary derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy.

Origins, Neil de Grass Tyson, 2004

Hyperspace – Our Final Fronteir, John Gribbin, 2001

In the Beginning – After Cobe and Before the Big Bang – John Gribbin, 1993

Through a Universe Darkly, Marciaa Bartusiak, 1993

Shadows of Creation – Dark Matter and Structure of the Universe – Michael Riordin and David N. Schramm, 1991

Electric Universe – How Electricity Switched On the Modern World - The story of Michael Faraday and other scientists and industrialist, by David Bodanis – Three Rivers Press, New York

And I have read a bit from Hannes Alfven – Nobel Winner 1950s 1960s – Plasma Cosmolgy from Kristian Birkeland early 1900s

36. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
I agree with you that Jordan's politics should not influence what others think of his work, but when he was denied the Nobel it was reported to be for his politics, and of course that would put the Nobel winner in the forefront of influencing up-and-coming minds.
Yes, this is a shame, and a part of history that we really can't be proud of. That is why I am strong in never mixing politics and religion with science - the results are usually disastrous.

37. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Here's something else very interesting:

HQ1, Max Planck Institute for History of Science, Berlin, July 2–6, 2007

Pascual Jordan’s resolution of the conundrum
of the wave-particle duality of light
Anthony Duncan Michel Janssen
Department of Program in the History
Physics and Astronomy, of Science, Technology, and Medicine
University of Pittsburgh University of Minnesota
In 1909, Einstein derived a formula for the mean square energy fluctuation in a small subvolume of a box filled with black-body radiation. This formula is the sum of a wave term and a particle term. Einstein concluded that a satisfactory theory of light would thus have to combine aspects of a wave theory and a particle theory. In the following decade, various attempts were made to recover this formula without Einstein’s light quanta. In a key contribution to the 1925 Dreimännerarbeit with Born and Heisenberg, Jordan showed that a straightforward application of Heisenberg’s Umdeutung procedure, which forms the core of the new matrix mechanics, to a system of waves reproduces both terms of Einstein’s fluctuation formula. Jordan thus showed that these two terms do not require separate mechanisms, one involving particles and one involving waves.

And yet, everything I read today insists that light is composed of waves and particles. It seems Jordan also ran afoul of Einstein fans.
When I first started to learn about quantum mechanics I just couldn't get my head around this - how can a quantum object like a photon be both particle and wave ? So long as I kept mentally picturing a photon to be either a tiny little ball-shaped object, or a ripple-like wave spreading out from its source, the two pictures remained unreconcilable. However, there came a time when I realized that trying to compare a photon with any classical object that we know about from our everyday world of experiences is just plain wrong. The problem only arises if we keep insisting quantum objects are anything like our everyday objects - they are not. Once you let go of this concept and accept that you are dealing with an entirely new class of objects which are nothing like anything you can experience as a human being, then the conundrum never arises in the first place. Just accept the photon for what it is - neither a particle nor a wave, but a new class of object that exhibits both particle and wave properties, even though it is actually neither of those. I know it is hard, and it requires a bit of a "leap of faith", but at the end of the day this duality is the reality of things in the quantum world. Only because quantum objects are outside of direct human experience does not make them any less true or any more mysterious. They are just different from how our perceptions normally work. For me, this has long sinced ceased to be a problem, I now rather see it as making our universe just that bit more interesting !

38. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Here's something else very interesting:

HQ1, Max Planck Institute for History of Science, Berlin, July 2–6, 2007

Pascual Jordan’s resolution of the conundrum
of the wave-particle duality of light
Anthony Duncan Michel Janssen
Department of Program in the History
Physics and Astronomy, of Science, Technology, and Medicine
University of Pittsburgh University of Minnesota
In 1909, Einstein derived a formula for the mean square energy fluctuation in a small subvolume of a box filled with black-body radiation. This formula is the sum of a wave term and a particle term. Einstein concluded that a satisfactory theory of light would thus have to combine aspects of a wave theory and a particle theory. In the following decade, various attempts were made to recover this formula without Einstein’s light quanta. In a key contribution to the 1925 Dreimännerarbeit with Born and Heisenberg, Jordan showed that a straightforward application of Heisenberg’s Umdeutung procedure, which forms the core of the new matrix mechanics, to a system of waves reproduces both terms of Einstein’s fluctuation formula. Jordan thus showed that these two terms do not require separate mechanisms, one involving particles and one involving waves.

And yet, everything I read today insists that light is composed of waves and particles. It seems Jordan also ran afoul of Einstein fans.
When I first started to learn about quantum mechanics I just couldn't get my head around this - how can a quantum object like a photon be both particle and wave ? So long as I kept mentally picturing a photon to be either a tiny little ball-shaped object, or a ripple-like wave spreading out from its source, the two pictures remained unreconcilable. However, there came a time when I realized that trying to compare a photon with any classical object that we know about from our everyday world of experiences is just plain wrong. The problem only arises if we keep insisting quantum objects are anything like our everyday objects - they are not. Once you let go of this concept and accept that you are dealing with an entirely new class of objects which are nothing like anything you can experience as a human being, then the conundrum never arises in the first place. Just accept the photon for what it is - neither a particle nor a wave, but a new class of object that exhibits both particle and wave properties, even though it is actually neither of those. I know it is hard, and it requires a bit of a "leap of faith", but at the end of the day this duality is the reality of things in the quantum world. Only because quantum objects are outside of direct human experience does not make them any less true or any more mysterious. They are just different from how our perceptions normally work. For me, this has long sinced ceased to be a problem, I now rather see it as making our universe just that bit more interesting !
For me, classical reality is outside direct human experience as well .. and I don't have much difficulty imagining possibilities .. I think cellphones working on non-locality are possible with today's technologies, just some fine tuning somewhere. Maybe I'm wrong though, it might take new technology.

Markus, have you ever heard of an experiment in which light is sent through pinholes (this is not the two slit experiment) and then measured on the other side, with measurements showing more light than the pinholes should have allowed? I read of it a few years back, can't remember the source, and few people seem to have heard of it.

39. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Markus, have you ever heard of an experiment in which light is sent through pinholes (this is not the two slit experiment) and then measured on the other side, with measurements showing more light than the pinholes should have allowed? I read of it a few years back, can't remember the source, and few people seem to have heard of it.
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the big bang theory, but I guess you are thinking of Plasmons:

- Light through a blocked hole? Plasmonics is the answer - physics-math - 11 February 2011 - New Scientist

- Holes block light in very thin films - physicsworld.com

40. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Jordan showed that a straightforward application of Heisenberg’s Umdeutung procedure, which forms the core of the new matrix mechanics, to a system of waves reproduces both terms of Einstein’s fluctuation formula. Jordan thus showed that these two terms do not require separate mechanisms, one involving particles and one involving waves.

And yet, everything I read today insists that light is composed of waves and particles.
I think that is just because the mathematical description (whether the Heisenberg/Born/Jordan version or the more modern equivalents) are beyond most people. Popular books and articles therefore have to talk in terms of analogies such as "particles" and "waves".

41. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Jordan showed that a straightforward application of Heisenberg’s Umdeutung procedure, which forms the core of the new matrix mechanics, to a system of waves reproduces both terms of Einstein’s fluctuation formula. Jordan thus showed that these two terms do not require separate mechanisms, one involving particles and one involving waves.

And yet, everything I read today insists that light is composed of waves and particles.
I think that is just because the mathematical description (whether the Heisenberg/Born/Jordan version or the more modern equivalents) are beyond most people. Popular books and articles therefore have to talk in terms of analogies such as "particles" and "waves".
Strange my friend,

Greenwich mean time ? I better make it short My major in college was math. But math, I think, is absolutely nothing and totally worthless by itself without concepts. Without concepts what one is talking about mathematically would seem meaningless. No matter how many times one solely asserts numbers alone when trying to explain the universe, there will be no audience. The reason is that math alone has no explanations or ability to predict anything unless there is an interpreter. Interpreters are many but their collective is equal to interpretations by the zealots who have foregone conclusions. I think you and I realize that the mainstream is generally a consensus at any given time frame. What sayeth thou?

42. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Markus, have you ever heard of an experiment in which light is sent through pinholes (this is not the two slit experiment) and then measured on the other side, with measurements showing more light than the pinholes should have allowed? I read of it a few years back, can't remember the source, and few people seem to have heard of it.
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the big bang theory, but I guess you are thinking of Plasmons:
Light through a blocked hole? Plasmonics is the answer - physics-math - 11 February 2011 - New Scientist
Holes block light in very thin films - physicsworld.com
No, I haven't heard of this one before...a curious effect, but nothing particularly mysterious about it.

43. Originally Posted by forrest noble
But math, I think, is absolutely nothing and totally worthless by itself without concepts. Without concepts what one is talking about mathematically would seem meaningless. No matter how many times one solely asserts numbers alone when trying to explain the universe, there will be no audience. The reason is that math alone has no explanations or ability to predict anything unless there is an interpreter. Interpreters are many but their collective is equal to interpretations by the zealots who have foregone conclusions. I think you and I realize that the mainstream is solely a consensus at any given time frame. What sayeth thogh?
The fact that you would like everything to be explainable in terms of concepts we are familiar with from the macro world is irrelevant. There is no reason why the universe must be like that.

44. Originally Posted by forrest noble
But math, I think, is absolutely nothing and totally worthless by itself without concepts. Without concepts what one is talking about mathematically would seem meaningless. No matter how many times one solely asserts numbers alone when trying to explain the universe, there will be no audience. The reason is that math alone has no explanations or ability to predict anything unless there is an interpreter. Interpreters are many but their collective is equal to interpretations by the zealots who have foregone conclusions. I think you and I realize that the mainstream is generally a consensus at any given time frame. What sayeth thou?
(Strange' quote)
The fact that you would like everything to be explainable in terms of concepts we are familiar with from the macro world is irrelevant. There is no reason why the universe must be like that.
Yes, I believe everything often can be easily explained since I ascribe to hidden variables (unobservable) within the ZPF (aether field) that totally would explain quantum mechanisms/mechanics exactly the same as the macro world. Since we cannot know these variables at any location or time, statistical predictions are accordingly needed.

Nice read on the Plasmon effect

45. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Jordan showed that a straightforward application of Heisenberg’s Umdeutung procedure, which forms the core of the new matrix mechanics, to a system of waves reproduces both terms of Einstein’s fluctuation formula. Jordan thus showed that these two terms do not require separate mechanisms, one involving particles and one involving waves.

And yet, everything I read today insists that light is composed of waves and particles.
I think that is just because the mathematical description (whether the Heisenberg/Born/Jordan version or the more modern equivalents) are beyond most people. Popular books and articles therefore have to talk in terms of analogies such as "particles" and "waves".
Possibly.

Plasmonics is pretty interesting.

46. Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile
Plasmonics is pretty interesting.
Interesting, but is it relevant?

47. I'm sure that the tiniest particle is relevant to all of physics and therfore relevant to all of cosmology, and I am sure that every piece of seemingly irrelevant information concerning physics is relevant to all of cosmology. However, I only asked the question because it has remained unanswered for so long in so many forums, most people never having heard of the experiment or results. I thought I'd raise the question here because participants here appear to be more knowledgeable about physics and cosmology than any other forum. I sure wish I could remember the name and date of the publication I read about the experiment in .. I believe it was one of the science magazines available at a public library.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement