Early Big Bang Expansion

George Dishman wrote:

The BB model says the universe was expanding before matter was
created.

I never heard that before. But it seems compatible with both my
understanding of the standard BB model and my deviant version.
Can you elucidate?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Subtract 1 from my e-mail address above for my real address.
..

(Jeff Root) wrote in message . com...
George Dishman wrote:

The BB model says the universe was expanding before matter was
created.

I never heard that before. But it seems compatible with both my
understanding of the standard BB model and my deviant version.
Can you elucidate?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Youv'e got a nerve! You criticised my position re BB, and don't even know this??

Jim G

Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:

George Dishman wrote:

The BB model says the universe was expanding before matter was
created.

I never heard that before. But it seems compatible with both my
understanding of the standard BB model and my deviant version.
Can you elucidate?

Youv'e got a nerve! You criticised my position re BB, and don't
even know this??

Correct. You have shown that you don't understand even the
most basic ideas involved in the Big Bang, such as what causes
Doppler shift. You have shown that you don't even understand
some of the simplest analogies commonly used to describe it,
such as what happens to a piece of elastic when it stretches.
You have shown that you don't even understand the difference
between a theory and an analogy used to describe that theory.

Based on that ignorance, you make ridiculous assertions about
what the the Big Bang theory says, and declare the theory to
be completely wrong.

There is a *lot* that I don't know about the Big Bang theory.
I'm going to learn as much as I can. You apparently won't.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

"Jeff Root" wrote in message
om...
Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:

George Dishman wrote:

The BB model says the universe was expanding before matter was
created.

I never heard that before. But it seems compatible with both my
understanding of the standard BB model and my deviant version.
Can you elucidate?

Simply, it is the expansion that reduces the temperature
and hence the mean energy of the photons to the point
where particle pair production is slower than anihiliation.
Somewhere along the line, there is a breaking of symmetry
so that there are about 10^9+1 particles for every 10^9
anti-particles and matter is left behind.

Youv'e got a nerve! You criticised my position re BB, and don't
even know this??

Correct.

In fact Jeff is not alone, _nobody_ knows the details
of baryogenesis or what the mechanism is for breaking
the symmetry.

You have shown that you don't understand even the
most basic ideas involved in the Big Bang, such as what causes
Doppler shift. You have shown that you don't even understand
some of the simplest analogies commonly used to describe it,
such as what happens to a piece of elastic when it stretches.
You have shown that you don't even understand the difference
between a theory and an analogy used to describe that theory.

Based on that ignorance, you make ridiculous assertions about
what the the Big Bang theory says, and declare the theory to
be completely wrong.

There is a *lot* that I don't know about the Big Bang theory.
I'm going to learn as much as I can. You apparently won't.

I too know far less than I would like, but then that's
why I am here. You won't get all the answers in the group
Jim, but you will get pointers to papers and web sites
like Ned Wright's tutorial. It's up to you how much you
get out of them.

George

George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:

The BB model says the universe was expanding before matter was
created.

I never heard that before. But it seems compatible with both my
understanding of the standard BB model and my deviant version.
Can you elucidate?

Simply, it is the expansion that reduces the temperature
and hence the mean energy of the photons to the point
where particle pair production is slower than anihiliation.
Somewhere along the line, there is a breaking of symmetry
so that there are about 10^9+1 particles for every 10^9
anti-particles and matter is left behind.

Oh, okay, *that's* what you were referring to! I knew of those
events, but misinterpreted the phrase "matter was created", and
especially, the word "matter". I thought you were talking about
some even earlier event, when the precursors ("photons") of the
matter particles were created.

In fact Jeff is not alone, _nobody_ knows the details
of baryogenesis or what the mechanism is for breaking
the symmetry.

My speculation is that the symmetry is perfect, and there is
just as much antimatter in the Universe (including the part of
the Universe we can see) as ordinary matter.

My primary reason for coming to sci.astro two years ago was to
see if anyone could convince me that that is impossible. Maybe
now I'll finally get to it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

"Jeff Root" wrote in message
om...
George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:
....
In fact Jeff is not alone, _nobody_ knows the details
of baryogenesis or what the mechanism is for breaking
the symmetry.

My speculation is that the symmetry is perfect, and there is
just as much antimatter in the Universe (including the part of
the Universe we can see) as ordinary matter.

My primary reason for coming to sci.astro two years ago was to
see if anyone could convince me that that is impossible. Maybe
now I'll finally get to it.

I was wondering that myself in light of Jim's questions.
Since we see little evidence of anti-matter in our region,
it would imply we are embedded in a region where 'normal'
matter is predominant that is much larger than the
observable volume.

If the average is balanced, there must be similar regions
where anti-matter predominates. There would be a natural
spread of both in the initial universe but since particles
could not travel far before being annihilated, the regions
would be extremely small so the question would be how they
could be grown to what we now observe.

I guess that would need some sort of inflation in the way
that we think it solves the flatness problem but the rate
and factors involved would be enormous. You would need to
work through some maths to quantify it but my gut feel
would be that it would work in principle but not in
practice.

George

George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:

My speculation is that the symmetry is perfect, and there is
just as much antimatter in the Universe (including the part of
the Universe we can see) as ordinary matter.

My primary reason for coming to sci.astro two years ago was to
see if anyone could convince me that that is impossible. Maybe
now I'll finally get to it.

Since we see little evidence of anti-matter in our region,
it would imply we are embedded in a region where 'normal'
matter is predominant that is much larger than the
observable volume.

That's something I question. It is clear that all the matter
in any cluster of galaxies is either entirely ordinary matter
or entirely antimatter, but if clusters are separated from one
another by empty space, couldn't some clusters be ordinary
matter and others antimatter?

If the average is balanced, there must be similar regions
where anti-matter predominates. There would be a natural
spread of both in the initial universe but since particles
could not travel far before being annihilated, the regions
would be extremely small so the question would be how they
could be grown to what we now observe.

My speculation is cluster-scale domains, well-separated by
empty space. If clusters are in fact not well-separated,
that tends to invalidate my speculation. I don't know how
well-separated clusters are. Two clusters which are both
matter or both antimatter would not need to be separated,
though.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Subtract 1 from my e-mail address above for my real address.
..

"Jeff Root" wrote in message
om...
George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:
snipped
That's something I question. It is clear that all the matter
in any cluster of galaxies is either entirely ordinary matter
or entirely antimatter, but if clusters are separated from one
another by empty space, couldn't some clusters be ordinary
matter and others antimatter?
....
My speculation is cluster-scale domains, well-separated by
empty space. If clusters are in fact not well-separated,
that tends to invalidate my speculation. I don't know how
well-separated clusters are. Two clusters which are both
matter or both antimatter would not need to be separated,
though.

Searches have been made and I think the conclusion was
that it had to be larger than that. I haven't had a
chance to dig up any references though. Things have been
hectic lately.

George

George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:

It is clear that all the matter
in any cluster of galaxies is either entirely ordinary matter
or entirely antimatter, but if clusters are separated from one
another by empty space, couldn't some clusters be ordinary
matter and others antimatter? ...
My speculation is cluster-scale domains, well-separated by
empty space. If clusters are in fact not well-separated,
that tends to invalidate my speculation. I don't know how
well-separated clusters are. Two clusters which are both
matter or both antimatter would not need to be separated,
though.

Searches have been made and I think the conclusion was
that it had to be larger than that.

Searches for what? Light from electron/antielectron and
proton/antiproton annihilation? If the matter and antimatter
are separated, there should be very little such light.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Subtract 1 from my e-mail address for my real address.
..

"Jeff Root" wrote in message
m...
George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:

It is clear that all the matter
in any cluster of galaxies is either entirely ordinary matter
or entirely antimatter, but if clusters are separated from one
another by empty space, couldn't some clusters be ordinary
matter and others antimatter? ...
My speculation is cluster-scale domains, well-separated by
empty space. If clusters are in fact not well-separated,
that tends to invalidate my speculation. I don't know how
well-separated clusters are. Two clusters which are both
matter or both antimatter would not need to be separated,
though.

Searches have been made and I think the conclusion was
that it had to be larger than that.

This sort of justifies my view and may be the sort of
comment that stuck in my mind:

http://fy.chalmers.se/~torkel/Popular/cosm_anti.html

"Based on this absence of gamma rays we can confidently
say that there are no galaxies or clusters of galaxies
consisting of antimatter within at least a billion light
years, and most likely not anywhere in the observable
universe. "

Searches for what? Light from electron/antielectron and
proton/antiproton annihilation? If the matter and antimatter
are separated, there should be very little such light.

Mainly gamma rays from annihilation. I can't find much in
the way of reference other than this:

http://blois.in2p3.fr/2002/plenary/m...is2002Paul.pdf

I had a look at the Integral site but nothing leapt out.

George