The Metric Expansion of Space: this is the most accurate and current model of the universe to date. The expansion of space-time overpowers gravity and hence accelerates in expansion. We can determine the rate at which space-time accelerates using Hubble’s constant. Then, by extrapolating backwards, we can determine the precise time at which the universe began to expand, in other words, if we have the value of acceleration of the universe, we can work backwards and determine the moment of creation, that will be the origin or the singularity on that graph, when the distance between all material beings was negligible, in other words, we can work out when the Big Bang occurred.

The next principle we must understand is z, z is the change in wavelength as observed due to the recession of galaxies. It is defined as( λemitted x λobserved/λemitted). There are simple equations which link v, z, and H, but they only work for close galaxies. When the galaxies measured are too distant, any model which uses z for estimation of Hubble’s parameter must detail the precise change in z, D, and H due to the fact that the light has taken so long to get to Earth. But for close galaxies, these paramaters will not have changed much, so we can estimate v using v=zc, where c is the speed of light. We will not be doing this. For one, close galaxies blueshift due to gravity, which also, obviously, totally distorts any result we may glean by cosmological redshift. For galaxies which are far away, those which we measure redshift, it is possible to input the results into a more precise formula, which helps distinguish Cosmological and gravitational redshift.

 There are multiple ways, as we have seen, to express Hubble’s constant: As functions of velocity, distance, the FLRW metric, and z. As of 2007, all expressive functions of H are in concurrence. It is definitely between 50-90, and precisely where was hotly debated for some time. Now our equipment is very accurate and we have narrowed it down significantly and the best data indicates it is 71.

We need to find q, that is the parameter of acceleration, and in terms of Hubble’s constant, it is:

Q=-H^-2((dH/dt)+H^2)

Now, we have known since 1998 that q is a negative value, and this value must be integrated (not figuratively, as in literally integrated mathematically by means of the ∫ operator), and extrapolate from when the commoving horizon was zero, the moment of the Big Bang.

It is useful to know the 71km/s/Mpc value because it allows us our extrapolation. It allows us to calculate useful values like the Hubble length and the Hubble time. The Hubble lengths is a good value to work with, and is simply the c/Hubble Time, where the Hubble Time is 1/H0. These are crude ways to measure the age of the universe, but are helpful if you want to demonstrate the age of the universe using a calculator and a pen and a data table as opposed to a satellite. If Hubble length is c/H(t), where H(t)=1/H, then H(l)=Htc, which is 300,000/71=approximately 4220 Mpc, since we are working in km/s/Mpc. 4220Mpc is converted into light years by the fact that 1 Megaparsec is 3,262,000 light years, from which we derive: 1.37x10^10 light years or 13.7 billion ly.

Hubble Time is also useful as a rough estimate of the universe's age. The Hubble Time is a useful function of the recessional velocity, where if v=HD, then 1/H=d/v. Since it is a reciprocal, we have to reverse all of the units, and so (converting 71km/s/Mpc to 20km/s/Mly makes it easier), we have to reverse everything, so we end up with 10^6 light years per megalight year, and 9.5x10^12 km per light year, which can be demonstrated like this:

1 Light Second= 300,000km, one light year=3x10^5 x 60 x 60x 24 x 365=9.5x10^12km

The reason we need to add the 10^6 is because the second reciprocal has been changed to km/ly as opposed to km/Mly. This just makes it a lot easier. And since the H constant is in seconds, we need to express the function in seconds. One year contains 3.15x10^7 seconds Now:

 1/20x10^6x9.5x10^12x 1/3.15x10^7, which becomes roughly 1.45x10^10 years, or 14.5 billion years. As you can see, this is a crude method, but is good for quick calculation.

Back to redshift:

 For cosmological redshift, the formula given is:

1+z= (a_now/a_then).

a is the universe scale factor. The physical distance between commoving objects is given by L=λa(t), which is rearranged to give a(t)= L/λ

This can be expressed via Hubble’s Law (distance proportional to redshift) using this formula:

H=a₂(t)/a₁(t), where t is the time derivative of the equation

If the wavelength of light which we receive from a star is twice its original wavelength, that means that the universe in terms of space-time has doubled in size since that photon left the body which emitted it. This is because cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space-time itself, which stretches the wavelength of light being emitted over long distances.

 We are beginning to see how the expansion of the universe, redshift, wavelength, the distance and recessional velocities of galaxies and the time taken for this to occur all tie together and all converge to give us the age of the universe. a or the scale factor is a simple ratio of wavelength emitted: wavelength received, which allows us to account for the change over large times. If the wavelength of light which we receive from a star is twice its original wavelength, that means that the universe in terms of space-time has doubled in size since that photon left the body which emitted it. This is because cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space-time itself, which stretches the wavelength of light being emitted over long distances.

Using our newfound understanding of Hubble's constant and redshift, we can understand how we determine the BB, and in turn, this helps us appreciate what the BB. What we have done is simply extrapolate backwards, just like the graph shows.

The cosmic background radiation is the most distant and old thing that humans have ever observed. The universe was initially opaque but as it cooled and spread out, it became black roughly 380,000 years After The Big Bang. The microwave background, in other words, is a picture of what the entire universe looked like just moments after the transition, and a COBE photograph of it was taken by spectroscopes and microwave radiation probes by a device called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. This is a picture of what the entire universe looked like just after BB (and by "just" I mean 3.8x10^5 years).

Bearing our newfound understanding of the BB in mind, we can discuss possible theories of the manner in which it occured. Keep in mind that what I am presenting is hypothetical, and at the forefront of modern physics.

With our understanding of Hubble's Law and background radiation, we can provide a much better definition of the BB:

 All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from a very dense, extremely low entropy prior state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occurances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.There is absolutely nothing, repeat nothing whatsoever, in modern physics, that states, hints, or even implies the possibiltiy of ex nihilo creation, or the idea that energy was "created" in the literal sense. Physics is all about transitions, changes of state. That's what the Big Bang was, a change of state. The prior state is a mystery, but the current state is as described. Four distinct forces, gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear bonding governing the interaction between material bodies. This is our current universe, and absolutely every single thing that inhabits this universe is a direct consequence of one or more of these forces.

Knowing that we now have a much more precise definition of BB theory now, we may continue. The gist is that all the BB says is that the universe expanded from a symmetrical low entropy state which may have been a false vacuum which inflated, via which the force disengagement could have been created and matter could form since it is no longer too excited below Planck temperature.

According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy.

Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, points out that the actual matter/energy content of the universe may be very low (or leaving aside fluctuations from the broken symmetry, essentially zero) because the false vacuum from which the universe as we understand it is conjectured to have come has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunneling event which broke the false vacuum (which, being that it is of absolutely perfect symmetry, has nearly zero entropy, and is hence an extremely unstable state with singularity properties), and released a huge tide of positive energy, canceling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood). It should be noted, however, that Guth's original inflation has been superseded by Russian Physicist Andre Linde's Chaotic Inflation. At any rate, the purpose of inflation is to solve a relatively large problem associated with the universe. It is isotropic and homogeneous. Yet, according to the Big Bang, it should be very curved and non-homogenous. If inflation's rate of initial expansion were correct, then the problem would disappear since the ration of spatiotemporal expansion is so fast that the curvature of the original universe smooths very quickly, on the order of the Planck era. However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is acceptable though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, much less than even one Planck second, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable only for the tiniest intervals of time at the microcosmic level (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect, as

We need to understand spontaneous breaking, which relates more to SLOT than to FLOT. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust. This is the principle of SLOT: Things fall to their lowest energy state. A ball perched on top of a high wall is at a higher energy state than one on the floor. Water being held back by a dam is at a higher and hence more unstable energy state than water which flows freely according to the path of least resistence. SLOT dictates that all things fall towards their lowest energy state, hence: If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe. We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined.

The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one. As the four forces are unified into one, there is no coherent mathematical relationship, also called a singularity. This arrangement is extremely unstable, and as it spiralled asymptotically towards infinity and zero (because it has no mass), it breaks like a dam bursts, and the more stable arrangement (the four forces are broken) is born. The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement. Since the false vacuum is unstable, in terms of SLOT, things fall to their lowest energy state and the symmetry is broken. Hence, the universe may have begun with no entropy, and progressed downwards from there. In this state of perfect and absolute symmetry, existence as we understand it would be nonsensical, and being that such a state is incredibly unstable, it would take only the tiniest fluctuation to break the vacuum, and then, by SLOT, the symmetry would break, and from this would spring forth existence as we understand it, with four seperate physical forces.

A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. Whatever caused the false vacuum fluctation, the symmetry broke. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force). There was no charge in the symmetry. None at all. Being that the universe iwas orignally in a state of symmetry, there is no charge in the entire universe. The electromagnetic force works both ways, it attracts and it repels (unlike gravity, which is purely attractive). It's attraction/repulsion is very, very precisely balanced, to the tune of 10^-32 electron volts difference, which is probably experimental error. This is good because the electromagnetic force is tremendously powerful, almost 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more powerful than gravity (this explains why you can cancel the entire gravity of the Earth by picking up bits of paper with the static electricty of your comb). And that means that if the electromagnetic force was any less balanced, you would be ripped to shreds instantly.

This does not violate special relativity since empty space has no information. To explain the beginning of the universe, both Guth and Linde to negative-pressure driven quantum vacuum fluctuations to circumvent the First Law of Thermodynamics (not break it), since a true vacuum has a negative energy total, which means that the net energy total of the entire universe is zero, or rather, absurdly close to zero to account for quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations in the Planck era give birth to large scale structures in the Universe (this is demonstratable).For now I simply wish to explain how cosmologists overcome the First Law of Thermodynamics. The negative vacuum pressure effect is demonstrated by the Casimir effect, which relies on the generation of virtual quantum field particles which flit in and out of existence. We can demonstrate the Casimir effect. However, the technology to recreate this is far beyond us, as it would mean creating two metal bolts on the order of the Planck length in separation. The symmetry breaking of inflation Su(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) is the subject of another essay. For now I must continue with my explanation of how Inflation complies with thermodynamics, since it appeals to false-vacuum collapse, which is fully compliant with the first and second laws. A false vacuum is highly unstable due to the quantum field effect, and basic entropy mechanistic probabilities dictate that it will collapse. The creation of a true vacuum is in accordance with basic free energy decay mechanics in entropy. The Casimir effect shows that such virtual quantum particles can destroy the vacuum, and they exist plentifully where nothing else does, but only for periods of time on the order of the Planck length. This does not violate Thermodynamics since it is an extremely short lived and extremely tiny quantum effect. This is verifiable. Quantum virtual particles exist in the vacuum, and they would act as the trigger to destroy the negative energy vacuum, from which the true vacuum and hence matter and energy may spring forth. Guth’s original problem was solved by Linde, where the false vacuum fluctuations would generate many different inflating regions of space time called “bubbles”.

The problem is that the theory necessitates the nucleation of the bubbles (imagine it as analogous to heating water on a stove). While the collapse of a false vacuum would dictate that the expansion of the space between the bubbles would multiply logarithmically faster than the actual bubbles themselves. The universe would expand extremely rapidly, but it would never stop in Guth’s model. Inflation necessitated an extremely fast, but extremely short burst. Guth’s model had no way to wind down the inflation. Linde’s solution was that the expansion which triggered the universe was originally very slow, and accelerated in a scalar-field to become competitively fast compared to actual expansion of space time, and when it does, inflation stops, so the bubbles nucleate and thus the universe heats. For the purpose of this exercise, it becomes necessary to merge inflation with quantum cosmology. The original symmetry would have been broken as a trigger to inflation, and the negative energy associated with the vacuum would have been cancelled by the collapse (Since it is mechanistically so unstable. This means that matter, may arise). Note this is not an explanation of the philosophical problem of why the universe exists, since we have to include things existing before the univirse, the inflaton, the scalar field, etc. but it is a solution to how matter may form without contradicting the first law of thermodynamics. Note that your solution would contradict the FLOT because you believe the universe was created ex nihilo.

This is completely incorrect. You are obviously completely unfamiliar with modern cosmology. For fuck's sake, I just spent the last 10,000 words explaining to why this was not the case. If you are unprepared to make your countercase then you can leave and not come back. The falsehood of your above assertion was precisely the point I was trying to get through your thick idiotic skull. I presented the ideas of the physics community. I did not present my own super-clever new ideas. What don't you understand about this?  If there was nothing prior to the BB, our existence would contradict the first law of thermodynamics, and if this was shown, it would cause the biggest revolution in physics since Newton!

Now, I have one final thing to say:

I am not talking to you anymore, unless you meet the following conditions.

1) Write properly. I hate reading your posts because they are strewn with errors of syntax, grammar and spelling. They are very difficult to read.

2) Read, then respond. If you are unprepared to read what your interlocutor writes, you should not be so hasty to write a response.

Do you realize the absurdity of the situation at hand? I have effectively answered your question. Twice. And here you stand, rambling incoherently with piss-poor writing skills, not answering. Why ask a question if you won't acknowledge an answer?