What arguments can be given against the assumption that
Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) radiation at the cosmological horizon
is at the basis of the "creation" of matter and radiation?

In more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon could
continuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into 3K photons
and partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and more,

into baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:
"Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"

The model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady
state model; it would still allow for expansion and density reduction
of the universe, but it would include continuous matter and
radiation creation at the horizon.

Since this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,
there must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments
against it be?

The usual arguments against the steady state models do not seem
to apply, and the model is compatible with the standard model.
There is even an advantage, as one does not need to imagine that
matter exists behind the horizon that continuously crosses
over to this side of the horizon while the universe expands.
(Assuming the existence of (unobservable) matter behind the
horizon is one of the weaknesses of the standard model of
cosmology.)

Surely this has been already discussed; what is the status of the
issue?

Christoph

wrote in message
oups.com...
| What arguments can be given against the assumption that
| Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) radiation at the cosmological horizon
| is at the basis of the "creation" of matter and radiation?
|
| In more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon could
| continuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into 3K photons
| and partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and
more,
|
| into baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:
| "Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"

Hi Christoph. Could you post some simple mathematical results for this?
Or do you have a link to a document?

| The model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady
| state model; it would still allow for expansion and density reduction
| of the universe, but it would include continuous matter and
| radiation creation at the horizon.
|
| Since this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,
| there must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments
| against it be?

This concept is very similar to what John Polasek's describes in his
"Dual Space" book. He is a regular poster here and he would probably
sent you a copy of his book if you ask him. However, he discounts the
BB model. Un-necessarily, IMHO. Via his dual space concept, he does
reach the idea of maximum force being related to Newton's G and the
concept of contiunous mass-energy creation. Much like what you have
done. Even though John has not done it strictly mathematically, I
believe that it might be possible to show that GR is emergent from this
model using what you have done already that GR can be shown to be
derived from and consistent with max force.

| The usual arguments against the steady state models do not seem
| to apply, and the model is compatible with the standard model.
| There is even an advantage, as one does not need to imagine that
| matter exists behind the horizon that continuously crosses
| over to this side of the horizon while the universe expands.
| (Assuming the existence of (unobservable) matter behind the
| horizon is one of the weaknesses of the standard model of
| cosmology.)

I am a little confused by your statements above. Can you please explain
that in more detail?

| Surely this has been already discussed; what is the status of the
| issue?
|
| Christoph

Our naive model at the link below also requires a "dual space-time"
concept. Basically, it is a revival of a Dirac Sea concept only
modified so that it possibly can work. I will explain more about it if
you are interested.

Love your physics book and your current ideas. Keep up the good work.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

FrediFizzx wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
| In more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon
could
| continuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into 3K photons
| and partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and
more,
| into baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:
| "Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"
| The model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady
| state model; it would still allow for expansion and density
reduction
| of the universe, but it would include continuous matter and
| radiation creation at the horizon.
|
| Since this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,
| there must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments
| against it be?

This concept is very similar to what John Polasek's describes in his
"Dual Space" book. He is a regular poster here and he would probably
sent you a copy of his book if you ask him. However, he discounts
the
BB model. Un-necessarily, IMHO. Via his dual space concept, he does
reach the idea of maximum force being related to Newton's G and the
concept of contiunous mass-energy creation. Much like what you have
done. Even though John has not done it strictly mathematically, I
believe that it might be possible to show that GR is emergent from
this
model using what you have done already that GR can be shown to be
derived from and consistent with max force.

Well, these are not arguments against the idea of horizons as source
of matter... I want to show what is wrong about it and what is not.

Regards

Christoph

P.S. I will read whatever I receive per mail :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | In more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon
| could
| | continuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into 3K
photons
| | and partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and
| more,
| | into baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:
| | "Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"
| | The model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady
| | state model; it would still allow for expansion and density
| reduction
| | of the universe, but it would include continuous matter and
| | radiation creation at the horizon.
| |
| | Since this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,
| | there must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments
| | against it be?
|
| This concept is very similar to what John Polasek's describes in his
| "Dual Space" book. He is a regular poster here and he would
probably
| sent you a copy of his book if you ask him. However, he discounts
| the
| BB model. Un-necessarily, IMHO. Via his dual space concept, he
does
| reach the idea of maximum force being related to Newton's G and the
| concept of contiunous mass-energy creation. Much like what you have
| done. Even though John has not done it strictly mathematically, I
| believe that it might be possible to show that GR is emergent from
| this
| model using what you have done already that GR can be shown to be
| derived from and consistent with max force.
|
| Well, these are not arguments against the idea of horizons as source
| of matter... I want to show what is wrong about it and what is not.
|
| Regards
|
| Christoph

Yes, I know. I saw that you also posted this in s.p.research on May
14th with no one commenting about it. I am hoping that some of the
physicists that frequent here (or spr) would have some comment about it
as I am highly interested in seeing a good discussion about this topic
as I think it could be very important. But as you can see from my first
reply, I am slightly prejudiced in favor of constant mass-energy
creation into our "Universe" from possibly a "multi-verse" or whatever
might be "outside" of our event horizon. ;-)

Perhaps if you could post some of the math for the Unruh radiation
aspect, someone might respond?

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

On 21 May 2005 09:08:01 -0700, wrote:

What arguments can be given against the assumption that
Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) radiation at the cosmological horizon
is at the basis of the "creation" of matter and radiation?

In more detail, the question is whether the cosmological horizon could
continuously emit FDU radiation which is redshifted into 3K photons
and partly, after a longer process that includes annihilation and more,

into baryons. In simple words, one could rephrase the question as:
"Are we - humans - made of FDU radiation remainders?"

The model would be a mixture of big bang model and quasi steady
state model; it would still allow for expansion and density reduction
of the universe, but it would include continuous matter and
radiation creation at the horizon.

Since this model is in (slight) contrast with the standard model,
there must be something wrong with it. What would the arguments
against it be?

The usual arguments against the steady state models do not seem
to apply, and the model is compatible with the standard model.
There is even an advantage, as one does not need to imagine that
matter exists behind the horizon that continuously crosses
over to this side of the horizon while the universe expands.
(Assuming the existence of (unobservable) matter behind the
horizon is one of the weaknesses of the standard model of
cosmology.)

Surely this has been already discussed; what is the status of the
issue?

Christoph
Christoph
I just came across your message. I am all for developing theories from
first principles, and of the opinion that starting "in the middle"
with what is not even a proven concept, and extrapolating from there
is a losing game.
My Dual Space theory is complete from creation to present cosmology so
it's pretty thick going. My book tells the whole story, and I have put
10 papers on my web site explaining different aspects. Permittivity #1
paper describes that I have found a second space that is totally
uncreated electron-positron pairs and which is the source of this
universe. Creation consists of the creator causing electrons to part
from their partners the positrons, boiling into this universe, and at
the same time leaving the positrons as twin embodiments of this
universe. Our universe flies through time at c, yielding immediately
all the results of sp. and gen. relativity. See this in #4. #9
explains that creation is at a constant rate giving rise to the
maximum force you favor.
Maybe you should see the book. Look through the papers and believe
that I have proofs for every statement made.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net