One thing is still missing from the 'Big Bang Theory"

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Neither Hawking radiation nor particle materialization in a high energy field is directly analogous to the initial moment of creation. I posted that in response to the comment about conditions under which virtual particles might not mutually annihilate before crossing the perceptive threshold. (Yeah, lan Fan, I think you are right about the balancing factor for Hawking radiation. I really need to brush up on my Hawking.)

The initial moment of creation often generally discussed as a quantum singularity (or a bubble in the quantum foam, if you prefer) which for reasons that may or may not defy explanation undergoes an incredibly rapid perios of expansion in 4 dimensions (and collapse in 6 or more others, for those who like playing with string). Standard cosmology does not propose an explanation for the rapid expansion and does not, to the best of my knowledge, have a good model for those intial instants before the collapse of the “extra” dimensions.

Hawking and Hartle (thanks for the link, knappy, I knew I needed to brush up) have propsed a quantum cosmological model that purports to account for both the initial boundary condition and the cause of the expansion. I haven’t found anything yet to indicate whether it accounts for the collapse of supernumerary dimensions.

IF[sup]1[/sup] I understand correctly, Hawking and Hartle have created a mathematical model (4-dimensional hypersphere–all dimensions spatial) whose ground-state topography (curvature and matter fields), if taken as boundary conditions, can successfully account for the intial 3-space (“classical” dimensinal model) of our Universe.

Under this theory, the predicted perturbations in the wave form (required by HUP–and modeled as virtual black hole materializations by Hawking-Hartle) are sufficient to generate the intial 3-space of our Universe (basically the first cross-section of our 4-dimensional Universe[sub]not the 4-space hypershpere[/sub]). The probability that the initial hypersphere will generate that particular 3-space topography can be derived from the probability amplitude of our spacetime as a whole.[sup]2[/sup]

If Hawking and Hartle are correct, the first cause is simply a perturbation in a Heisenberg waveform.

I have to say, though, that I found Smith’s (author of the paper in Knappy’s link) arguments for the necessary consequences of quantum cosmology on the existence of God to be overblown and unconvincing. To argue that God is necessarily excluded as a cause if natural probability can account for the effect is no more convincing than arguing that God cannot be an active force in the natural world since all outcomes have a natural probability of occurring.

Of course, if Hawking and Hartle are correct, then it does directly contradict the argument that God is a necessary factor to explain creation.

[sup]1[/sup] I would welcome input from anyone more familiar with Hawking and Hartle’s work. I wasn’t able to find any decent treatments in the cursory search I ran in the planck interval before the urge to post overwhelmed me.

[sup]2[/sup]I think there is an error (typo) in the page linked. Where the author has: The function psi[h[sub]ij[/sub], phi] is the probability ‘amplitude for the occurrence of a given spacetime [as a whole]’ he should have written psi[g[sub]uv[/sub], phi]. I stumbled for a bit until I realized that.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I read somewhere explaining how it arose that there became an excess of matter over anti-matter, but I don’t remember the reasoning. Perhaps some one else can refresh my memory.

I believe that recent theories predict not that there “became” and excess of matter over antimatter, but rather that there was more matter than antimatter to begin with, thus more matter survived mutual annihilation. Charge parity violation in B-mesons (verified at the Fermi accelerator, I believe) has been argued as the cause for the unequal initial distribution.

[barbitu8]

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**I believe that recent theories predict not that there “became” an excess of matter over antimatter, but rather that there was more matter than antimatter to begin with, thus more matter survived mutual annihilation. Charge parity violation in B-mesons (verified at the Fermi accelerator, I believe) has been argued as the cause for the unequal initial distribution. **

That may be, but after a good night’s sleep and a refreshing morning run, my mind is clearer. I never came across that explanation, but I do remember now two others: (1) There are equal amounts, but most of the antimatter is at a different place in the universe; and (2)This is the more plausable to me. In the Beginning, all the matter and antimatter would have annihilated each other, leaving nothing but energy. We could never get out of the cycle of mutual annihilation and energy. Except that a very tine amount of matter managed to be left over after this Great Big Bang, and that has accounted for the vast preponderance of matter now. I believe that it was Guth who proposed this theory.

As I said, I never came across the charge parity violation, and if so, I’d have to buy that. After all, how did some matter manage to escape annihilation?

[Doc_Moss]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**DNFTT **

That’s pretty weak, The Ryan, regardless of your opinion.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

(1) There are equal amounts, but most of the antimatter is at a different place in the universe; and (2)This is the more plausable to me. In the Beginning, all the matter and antimatter would have annihilated each other, leaving nothing but energy. We could never get out of the cycle of mutual annihilation and energy. Except that a very tine amount of matter managed to be left over after this Great Big Bang, and that has accounted for the vast preponderance of matter now.

The problem I see with (1) is that our measurements of the Universe increasingly suport the idea that the intial stages were remakaly homogeneous. this would seem to counterindicate any great concentration of antimatter in some “dark corner”.

(2) is really the same idea as uneven intial distribution of matter/antimatter, only Guth had no explanatory mechanism. Parity violation provides the mechanism.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I was really hoping that someone more current in cosmology than I am would give some input on the Hawking-Hartle hypothesis.

[sub]Pay no attention, just a bubble in the quantum foam.[/sub]

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
Standard cosmology does not propose an explanation for the rapid expansion and does not, to the best of my knowledge, have a good model for those intial instants before the collapse of the “extra” dimensions.

I believe the symmetry breaking of forces is used to explain expansion, though perhaps the initial rapid expansion which causes the symmetry breaking in the first place is what has us boggled here. I had always taken it for granted that this was some quantum fluctuation, but that that would lead us to conclude that the laws governing the universe were there before the universe (else we would, I think, see fluctuations in which our laws don’t apply).

I haven’t found anything yet to indicate whether it accounts for the collapse of supernumerary dimensions.

There is still much debate about whether or not they exist, at least as Dr. Matrix would tell it. They are certainly not testable, and from what Chronos had told me, they aren’t a 100% theory yet either (as in, not complete, already mentioned it can’t be tested directly).

Last time I did a web search on String Theory I couldn’t find anything on generalities, apart from some vague definitions of strings, D-Branes, P-Branes, and the different forms of string theory and how some reduce to others.

In essence, I didn’t find out much apart from what I [didn’t]already know.

The problem with extra spatial dimensions is that many laws of physics don’t seem to apply. Knots can only stay tied, for example, in three dimensions.