In an effort to leave disagreements behind I’ve come up with 2 points that may indicate whether or not void space was produced in the BB with the rest of the universe. The first is the nature of c and the second is the observation that shortly post BB spatial expansion accelerated. The second inclusion may have a more complex explanation than the context it has been included here because of. Are there other factors that indicate either way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

wiki refers to the acceleration in spatial expansion as occurring at z=0.5. As far as I can figure that is the halfway point between BB and now. As this appears to occur well after the recombination and reionazation epochs I wouldn’t know how to draw a direct connection and can only indicate that there is a vague suggestion void space and matter are both produced from BB.

Inconclusive without further input………

Postpocelipse said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

wiki refers to the acceleration in spatial expansion as occurring at z=0.5. As far as I can figure that is the halfway point between BB and now. As this appears to occur well after the recombination and reionazation epochs I wouldn’t know how to draw a direct connection and can only indicate that there is a vague suggestion void space and matter are both produced from BB.

Inconclusive without further input………

What would be a significant coincidence is if z=0.5 coincided with the universe surpassing a complexity threshold in neutron v proton density. This would indicate a strong relationship between void and matter. With matter and space interacting in this way it would then be concievable that gravitation is not the action of one mass on another but the action of space’s ground state against matters presence.

I have a question

Are there different types of space?

>Are there different types of space?

like does expansion characterize the thermodynamics peculiar to any space?

semantics, what d’u mean by “type”

transition said:

>Are there different types of space?

like does expansion characterize the thermodynamics peculiar to any space?

That could be one possibility

I was thinking that there might have been a different type of space before the big bang

maybe another question

Is there more than one type of space?

SCIENCE said:

semantics, what d’u mean by “type”

as in category I guess

> Are there different types of space?

Apart from differences in dictionary definitions of the word “space”, no. What types did you have in mind?

mollwollfumble said:

> Are there different types of space?

Apart from differences in dictionary definitions of the word “space”, no. What types did you have in mind?

Maybe Multiverses have different kinds of space

maybe they are all the same?

Does a different kind of space exist before a big bang moment

or if there are multiverses are they contained in some kind of space?

CrazyNeutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Are there different types of space?

Apart from differences in dictionary definitions of the word “space”, no. What types did you have in mind?

Maybe Multiverses have different kinds of space

maybe they are all the same?

Does a different kind of space exist before a big bang moment

or if there are multiverses are they contained in some kind of space?

The minimal properties of space suggest it is a baseline phenomena.

>Apart from differences in dictionary definitions of the word “space”, no. What types did you have in mind?

Probably assume it is a ‘where’ that thermodynamics and energy transformation does or might or can happen, the proposition of has happened is a bit more complicated but also applies. Of the latter proposition regions of ‘space’ can pop up, and disconnect the moment that happens (from an elsewhere that is annihilated, in a sense), as I say that’s a bit more complicated.

the OP is talking about two different events. the first spacial expansion is called the inflationary period which happened shortly after the BB event. the second z=0.5 is the era when dark energy become dominant and accelerated the expansion of the universe and began to occur when the universe was half the age it is now.

ChrispenEvan said:

the OP is talking about two different events. the first spacial expansion is called the inflationary period which happened shortly after the BB event. the second z=0.5 is the era when dark energy become dominant and accelerated the expansion of the universe and began to occur when the universe was half the age it is now.

I have referenced two different events seeking both an observable connection(rather than mathematical) of space and time in spacetime. It is only hypothesis that involves dark energy. Are you able to calculate the ratio of universal neutron weight in the universe at the time? I outlined the reason for this in the OP being the alternative hypothesis that metal production in stars determines that the neutron ratio of the universe is accelerating exponentially and seeking any observable correlation between this and expansion. I don’t need facts that are available in Wiki reiterated.

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the OP is talking about two different events. the first spacial expansion is called the inflationary period which happened shortly after the BB event. the second z=0.5 is the era when dark energy become dominant and accelerated the expansion of the universe and began to occur when the universe was half the age it is now.

I have referenced two different events seeking an observable connection(rather than mathematical) of space and time in spacetime. It is only hypothesis that involves dark energy in expansion. Are you able to calculate the ratio of universal neutron weight in the universe at the time? I outlined the reason for this in the OP being the alternative hypothesis that metal production in stars determines that the neutron ratio of the universe is accelerating exponentially and seeking any observable correlation between this and expansion. I don’t need facts that are available in Wiki reiterated.

fixed

Until I have researched the rate of neutron production through the history of the universe I have a related question. It is an accepted that there is no more energy in the universe no than at the time of the BB. If fusion products(neutrons) are heavier than the sum of their parts how is there not more energy in the universe now than at the beginnning? If there is greater mass through production of neutrons is there not greater energy present?

free neurons decay pretty quickly so unless they are bound in a nucleus then they really wont be around long. and to be bound in a nucleus means they are in atoms and we know from the mass of the universe this quantity. so unless the isotope ratio of existing elements is changing then i see no place for these extra neutrons.

I don’t need facts that are available in Wiki reiterated.

and yet you quote wiki in your second post. Hmmmm.

ChrispenEvan said:

free neurons decay pretty quickly so unless they are bound in a nucleus then they really wont be around long. and to be bound in a nucleus means they are in atoms and we know from the mass of the universe this quantity. so unless the isotope ratio of existing elements is changing then i see no place for these extra neutrons.

My point it is it did change significantly in the early universe with the first generation stars developing to greater isotopic production. I am trying to calculate if there is a corrolation between this and the acceleration of expansion.

ChrispenEvan said:

free neurons decay pretty quickly

Oh, I don’t know about that. I do use beer to speed up the process though.

ChrispenEvan said:

I don’t need facts that are available in Wiki reiterated.

and yet you quote wiki in your second post. Hmmmm.

as reference rather than unnecessary clarification. The question I pose here is entirely reasonable and calculable one way or the other. If you don’t have time or capacity for the calculations why play pedantry games?

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

free neurons decay pretty quickly

Oh, I don’t know about that. I do use beer to speed up the process though.

that’s enough out of you sir!!! :P

as we don’t know what dark energy is at this point in time this question is unanswerable. though to guess, seeing as neutrons are positive mass they would actually be part of the opposite of what DE is. the mass energy content of the universe doesn’t change. and so more neutrons now, if that is even the case, wont change this.

t

ChrispenEvan said:

as we don’t know what dark energy is at this point in time this question is unanswerable. though to guess, seeing as neutrons are positive mass they would actually be part of the opposite of what DE is. the mass energy content of the universe doesn’t change. and so more neutrons now, if that is even the case, wont change this.

I am not questioning DE in any way. I am seeking a timeline of isotopic mass generation so I can compare it to expansion acceleration.

i was also clarifying it for other readers who may not be au fait with the difference between inflation and expansion.

ChrispenEvan said:

i was also clarifying it for other readers who may not be au fait with the difference between inflation and expansion.

ok. thought you were simply quibbling

more isotopes wont change the mass of the universe.

ChrispenEvan said:

i was also clarifying it for other readers who may not be au fait with the difference between inflation and expansion.

Thanks, but we stopped reading the thread ages ago

:)

ChrispenEvan said:

more isotopes wont change the mass of the universe.

If creating neutrons adds mass that is not present in the sum of the parts, how has there not been a degree of energy added?

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i was also clarifying it for other readers who may not be au fait with the difference between inflation and expansion.

Thanks, but we stopped reading the thread ages ago

:)

barefaced lying that is. You’re just waiting for developments……

energy goes into making particles or comes out when they decay. the net result is 0. e=mc².

ChrispenEvan said:

energy goes into making particles or comes out when they decay. the net result is 0. e=mc².

The way I have read it the disparity is significant in neutron generation.

For all intents and purposes I’m going to concede on this issue.