3-A Tier revision

[KLOL506]

I'm with DontTalkDT on keeping the 3-A standards where they are.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I think we should just keep it where they are.

 

[Jasonsith]

Or we can do this
"creation / destruction of 'all' random things in a universe" - assume just observable universe; 3-A
"destruction of 'all' random things in seen and unseen part of the universe" - a bigger 3-A (merit should still be given to authors who distinguish the seen and unseen part of the universe)
Big bang is at least 3-A, far higher over time.

(basically just keep most of what it is but adjust the standings of the Big Bang)

 

[Antvasima]

As usual, I am also inclined to agree with DontTalk.

 

[KLOL506]

Assuming this gets rejected, best to make a rule about it that until and unless further scientific development occurs in this topic and is universally accepted, that we refrain from bringing up this topic.

TL;DR- Don't make threads for changing 3-A until and unless there is a universal scientific agreement on new, peer-reviewed calculations regarding the universe's size.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems like a reasonable suggestions to me, but it depends on what other staff members think.

We would also need to decide where to place the new rule. In a new section for our discussion rules page?

 

[KLOL506]

That seems like a reasonable suggestions to me, but it depends on what other staff members think.

We would also need to decide where to place the new rule. In a new section for our discussion rules page?

That seems like a good idea.

DT would be the first guy I'd ask about whether to implement this rule or not.

***ASSUMING THIS THREAD GETS REJECTED OF COURSE.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. DontTalk is awesome. We would barely have had a wiki without him.

 

[Jasonsith]

Just for one affirmation:

@DontTalkDT - Should the baseline of 3-A be remaining as energy to create a fireball engulfing "every matter" in a universe at the observable size (and therefore "destruction of 'all' random things in seen and unseen part of the universe" be just a bigger 3-A), should we tune the attack potency value of the Big Bang to "at least 3-A, possibly far higher"?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

If we want to talk about universal agreement I'd like to point out that Alan Guths Cosmic Inflation Theory is the new Cosmological Standard Model... but as I proposed I believe that should only be for provably inflationary big bangs which would only scale to very, extremely very few verses.

 

[KLOL506]

Just for one affirmation:

@DontTalkDT - Should the baseline of 3-A be remaining as energy to create a fireball engulfing "every matter" in a universe at the observable size (and therefore "destruction of 'all' random things in seen and unseen part of the universe" be just a bigger 3-A), should we tune the attack potency value of the Big Bang to "at least 3-A, possibly far higher"?

Depends on whether the big bang is shown to be that way in fiction.

Even if it is the case IRL, doesn't mean it is the case for all fictional universes.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The massive sizes is needed to solve several issues.

"Thus, the incredibly vast and fast expansion of the universe caused by inflation "solved" both Robert Dickes flatness problem and Guth's own monopole problem. But it also solved the horizon problem: according to the inflation theory, the universe blew up so quickly that there was no time for the essential homogeneity to be broken, and the universe after inflation would therefore have been very uniform, even though the parts of it were not still in touch with each other.""

A truly massive sizes is needed to solve the Monopole problem, Flatness problem The Horizon Problem, and the essential Homogeneity (fine-tuning) issues. Thus, a truly massive size was needed to solve these for the theory of inflation.

The assumption in the video is correct at the point being made of that inflation happened at a very specific time and blew to a very specific size before slowing down its expansion.

Edit: Full quote of the paragraph mentioning some issues got solved are in the box below.



Edit 2: Hopefully I understood what you were trying to say.. i am sorry if i didn't...

Edit 3: Question, is it the timeframe and size what you are questioning?

Yeah, it's not cosmic inflation itself that is the main questionable part. It's the idea that at the specific time it is assumed to have started it had that specific size.

Just for one affirmation:

@DontTalkDT - Should the baseline of 3-A be remaining as energy to create a fireball engulfing "every matter" in a universe at the observable size (and therefore "destruction of 'all' random things in seen and unseen part of the universe" be just a bigger 3-A), should we tune the attack potency value of the Big Bang to "at least 3-A, possibly far higher"?

IMO the baseline should remain where it is. Any universe destruction feat is possible higher, but those that explicitly destroy more than the observable universe would be higher to some extent.
What the big bang is concerned... I wouldn't necessarily rank it different than a universe creation feat? That reminds me that I should check out that big bang revision thread.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Yeah, it's not cosmic inflation itself that is the main questionable part. It's the idea that at the specific time it is assumed to have started it had that specific size..

Currently, no one has a solid answer on how inflation began. That is a complete mystery. The "how did inflation start?" Currently does not have an agreed answer.

The 2 most common answers you will see on scientific articles are going to be Quantum Fluctuations and Vacuum Energy.

This is to say that we don't know why inflation happened at that specific time.

However we do have an approximation of the duration of this rapid growth of inflation (Also called something like "De Sitter Expansion." [Aka "How long did this period of inflation last before slowing down?]) This duration is actually very critical to the theory of Cosmic Inflation. [[[The word Approximation is very important here]]]

The reason the duration is 10e-35 and the for the massive size is because the universe blew up so quickly that there was no time for the essential homogeneity to be broken, and the universe after inflation would therefore have been very uniform, even though the parts of it were not still in touch with each other.

The Size of Universe at Inflation in Alan Guths Equation solves these issues that previous Cosmological Models had. (see the quote box below Nasa explains it pretty well.)

HOW DOES INFLATION SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS?​

• The Flatness Problem:
  Imagine living on the surface of a soccer ball (a 2-dimensional world). It might be obvious to you that this surface was curved and that you were living in a closed universe. However, if that ball expanded to the size of the Earth, it would appear flat to you, even though it is still a sphere on larger scales. Now imagine increasing the size of that ball to astronomical scales. To you, it would appear to be flat as far as you could see, even though it might have been very curved to start with. Inflation stretches any initial curvature of the 3-dimensional universe to near flatness.
• The Horizon Problem:
  Since Inflation supposes a burst of exponential expansion in the early universe, it follows that distant regions were actually much closer together prior to Inflation than they would have been with only standard Big Bang expansion. Thus, such regions could have been in causal contact prior to Inflation and could have attained a uniform temperature.
• The Monopole Problem:
  Inflation allows for magnetic monopoles to exist as long as they were produced prior to the period of inflation. During inflation, the density of monopoles drops exponentially, so their abundance drops to undetectable levels.

As a bonus, Inflation also explains the origin of structure in the universe. Prior to inflation, the portion of the universe we can observe today was microscopic, and quantum fluctuation in the density of matter on these microscopic scales expanded to astronomical scales during Inflation. Over the next several hundred million years, the higher density regions condensed into stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.

WMAP Inflation Theory

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov

Edit: 1

Motivation​

Inflation resolves several problems in the Big Bang cosmology that were pointed out in the 1970s. These problems all suggest that the universe has wildly absurd initial conditions, but are resolved very nicely in the context of cosmic inflation.

Horizon problem​

The horizon problem is the problem of determining why the universe appears statistically homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle. The gas molecules in a canister of gas are distributed homogeneously and isotropically because they are in thermal equilibrium: gas throughout the canister has had enough time to interact to dissipate inhomogeneities and anisotropies. The situation is quite different in the big bang model without inflation, because gravitational expansion does not give the early universe enough time to equilibrate. In a big bang with only the matter and radiation known in the Standard Model, two widely separated regions of the observable universe cannot have equilibrated because they have never come in to causal contact: in the history of the universe, back to the earliest times, it has not been possible to send a light signal between the two regions. Because they have no interaction, it is impossible that they have equilibrated. This is because the Hubble radius in a radiation- or matter-dominated universe expands much more quickly than physical lengths and so points that are out of communication are coming into communication. Historically, two proposed solutions were the Phoenix universe of Georges Lemaître and the related oscillatory universe of Richard Chase Tolman, and the Mixmaster universe of Charles Misner. Lemaître and Tolman proposed that a universe undergoing a number of cycles of contraction and expansion could come into thermal equilibrium. Their models failed, however, because of the buildup of entropy over several cycles. Misner made the (ultimately incorrect) conjecture that the Mixmaster mechanism, which made the universe more chaotic, could lead to statistical homogeneity and isotropy.

Flatness problem​

Another problem is the flatness problem (which is sometimes called one of the Dicke coincidences, with the other being the cosmological constant problem). It had been known in the 1960s that the density of matter in the universe was comparable to the critical density necessary for a flat universe (that is, a universe whose large scale geometry is the usual Euclidean geometry, rather than a non-Euclidean hyperbolic or spherical geometry). Therefore, regardless of the shape of the universe the contribution of spatial curvature to the expansion of the universe could not be much greater than the contribution of matter. But as the universe expands, the curvature redshifts away more slowly than matter and radiation. Extrapolated into the past, this presents a fine-tuning problem because the contribution of curvature to the universe must be exponentially small (sixteen orders of magnitude less than the density of radiation at big bang nucleosynthesis, for example). This problem is exacerbated by recent observations of the cosmic microwave background that have demonstrated that the universe is flat to the accuracy of a few percent.

Magnetic monopole problem​

The magnetic monopole problem (sometimes called the exotic relics problem) is a problem that suggests that if the early universe were very hot, a large number of very heavy, stable magnetic monopoles would be produced. This was a problem with Grand Unified Theories, which were popular in the 1970s and 1980s, proposed that at high temperatures (such as in the early universe) the electromagnetic force, strong and weak nuclear forces are not actually fundamental forces but arise due to spontaneous symmetry breaking from a much simpler gauge theory. These theories predict a number of heavy, stable particles which have not yet been observed in nature. The most notorious is the magnetic monopole, a kind of stable, heavy "knot" in the magnetic field. Monopoles are expected to be copiously produced in Grand Unified Theories at high temperature, and they should have persisted to the present day. To very high precision, magnetic monopoles have been shown not to exist in nature whereas according to the big bang theory (without cosmic inflation) they should have been copiously produced in the hot, dense early universe and since become the primary constituent of the universe.

Cosmic inflation

www.cs.mcgill.ca

---

Edit 2: Forgot about this. This is just in regards to Guth's Calculations. The overall point is that the very fast (Duration) and rapid growth (Size) the sheer speed of the Inflation at its Epoch was needed to solve these issues.

Guth hypothesized that the reason why the universe appears to be flat is because it is actually fantastically big (in the same way that the spherical Earth appears flat to those on its surface), and that the observable universe is actually only a very small part of the actual universe. In fact, Guth's calculations suggest that the entire universe may be at least 10^23 times bigger than the size of the observable universe (the part within the horizon, that we are able, at least in principle, to see), roughly equal to the ratio of the size of the observable universe to the planet Earth. Thus, although the observable universe may appear to be effectively flat, the entire universe may be completely different in nature. Also, although an enormous number of magnetic monopoles could well have arisen in the inflationary early universe, the chances of actually observing even one magnetic monopole are infinitesimally small in a universe of such immense size. Thus, the incredibly vast and fast expansion of the universe caused by inflation "solved" both Robert Dickes flatness problem and Guth's own monopole problem. But it also solved the horizon problem: according to the inflation theory, the universe blew up so quickly that there was no time for the essential homogeneity to be broken, and the universe after inflation would therefore have been very uniform, even though the parts of it were not still in touch with each other.

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

The Physics of the Universe - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - Cosmic Inflation

www.physicsoftheuniverse.com

---

Edit 3:

I do recommend this link as it goes into further detail with extensive paragraphs on the subject

(PDF) A Review on Cosmic Inflation

PDF | The Standard Big Bang Cosmology gives the most accepted concept about the beginning and evolution of the Universe. However, it has problems: the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[AKM sama]

This has been discussed many times before too. I also agree with keeping the standards as they are. DT already said all that needed to be said. I'm also fine with addition of a discussion rule.

 

[KLOL506]

This has been discussed many times before too. I also agree with keeping the standards as they are. DT already said all that needed to be said. I'm also fine with addition of a discussion rule.

Aight then. Does this wording work fine after linking this thread to it regarding how many times this has been discussed?

"Don't make threads for changing 3-A until and unless there is a universal scientific agreement on new, peer-reviewed calculations regarding the universe's size. The topic has been discussed many times and was recently concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until such a time comes where the universe's size is recalculated by official-and-universally-accepted peer-reviewed scientific reports."

 

[Antvasima]

This has been discussed many times before too. I also agree with keeping the standards as they are. DT already said all that needed to be said. I'm also fine with addition of a discussion rule.

Aight then. Does this wording work fine after linking this thread to it regarding how many times this has been discussed?

"Don't make threads for changing 3-A until and unless there is a universal scientific agreement on new, peer-reviewed calculations regarding the universe's size. The topic has been discussed many times and was recently concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until such a time comes where the universe's size is recalculated by official-and-universally-accepted peer-reviewed scientific reports."

Is this acceptable for you @DontTalkDT ?

 

[KLOL506]

Is this acceptable for you @DontTalkDT ?

Gotta admit I added the same point twice there so corrections would be appreciated.

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps something like this then?

"Don't make threads for changing 3-A until and unless there is a scientific consensus regarding new, official and peer-reviewed calculations for our universe's size. The topic has been discussed many times and it was recently concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until the above-mentioned requirements have been fulfilled."

 

[KLOL506]

Perhaps something like this then?

"Don't make threads for changing 3-A until and unless there is a scientific consensus regarding new, official and peer-reviewed calculations for our universe's size. The topic has been discussed many times and it was recently concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until the above-mentioned requirements have been fulfilled."

Seems fine.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think DontTalk?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I want to too iterate that that i support 3-A remaining the same

But.... There is a bit of a problem with that note... The quotes and sources below should suffice to explain that...

The inflationary paradigm is now part of the standard cosmological model as a description of its primordial phase.

Inflation in the standard cosmological model

The inflationary paradigm is now part of the standard cosmological model as a description of its primordial phase. While its original motivation was t…

www.sciencedirect.com

Inflation is part of the current standard model of the universe, called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model.

This Cyclic Model of the Universe Has Cosmologists Rethinking the Big Bang

Meet the Big Crunch: In this theory on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang was not the beginning, but a repeating pattern of expansion and contraction.

www.discovermagazine.com

ΛCDM Model of Cosmology (NASA)​

​

The initial conditions of this early plasma are currently thought to be established during a period of rapid expansion known as inflation.​

LAMBDA - ΛCDM Model of Cosmology

LAMBDA - Educational Resources

lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov

Cosmological Models of the Universe- Overview

Astronomical Image Gallery

www.cosmotography.com

The 33 declared that “inflation is not only testable, but it has been subjected to a significant number of tests and so far has passed every one.” They framed that statement with the rhetorical appeal to authority: “According to the high-energy physics database INSPIRE, there are now more than 14,000 papers in the scientific literature, written by over 9,000 distinct scientists, that use the word ‘inflation’ or ‘inflationary’ in their titles or abstracts. By claiming that inflationary cosmology lies outside the scientific method, IS&L are dismissing the research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial contingent of the scientific community.”

That theme of inflation theory’s dominance dominates the rebuttal’s ending:

During the more than 35 years of its existence, inflationary theory has gradually become the main cosmological paradigm describing the early stages of the evolution of the universe and the formation of its large-scale structure. No one claims that inflation has become certain; scientific theories don’t get proved the way mathematical theorems do, but as time passes, the successful ones become better and better established by improved experimental tests and theoretical advances. This has happened with inflation. Progress continues, supported by the enthusiastic efforts of many scientists who have chosen to participate in this vibrant branch of cosmology.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.3.20170605a/full/

evidence for cosmic inflation was made possible by the contributions of hundreds of scientists—including many from Department of Energy national laboratories.
Craig Hogan and Glennda Chui
On Monday morning, scientists around the world felt a wave of ecstasy as they learned of a breathtaking discovery: A particular pattern of light coming from the early universe, imprinted on the cosmic expansion during its first moments, had been seen by the BICEP2 collaboration. This polarization of cosmic background light displays a faint but distinctive pattern of swirls that can be created only by an extraordinarily exotic process—a stretching of space-time called gravitational waves—caused by subatomic, quantum fluctuations in the early universe. Its unique signature reaches us intact across all the vast stretches of space since the beginning of time. (See Physicists find evidence of cosmic inflation.)

The discovery, which looks back at the infant universe when it was only a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old, was made possible by researchers from 11 institutions in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Many hands enable discovery of cosmic inflation

The discovery of the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation was made possible by the contributions of hundreds of scientists—including many from Department of Energy national laboratories.

www.symmetrymagazine.org

 

[Antvasima]

So how do you suggest that we reword the new rule then?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Perhaps reword it as saying we should not change it until our telescope technology grows more advanced to the point where the "Observable Universe" becomes larger.

The Observable Universe isn't technically like a galaxy or the whole universe full of boundaries, but it's best describe as the field of view with out best telescope technology. Which is a 4.65 * 10^10 lightyear range and thus the diameter of the spherical observance is 9.3 * 10^10 lightyears. And thus is an idea we created based on our field of range. But the baseline of 3-A will raise if our field of view raises and still haven't found the an end point in the universe.

Though, not sure how to rewrite the exact wording. But definitely replace "Scientific research" with technology advancements and Observable Universe becoming larger.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I 100% agree with DDM. he summed up what i wanted to say the best lol

 

[Antvasima]

Well, let's wait to see if @DontTalkDT has any suggestion.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Currently, no one has a solid answer on how inflation began. That is a complete mystery. The "how did inflation start?" Currently does not have an agreed answer.

The 2 most common answers you will see on scientific articles are going to be Quantum Fluctuations and Vacuum Energy.

This is to say that we don't know why inflation happened at that specific time.

However we do have an approximation of the duration of this rapid growth of inflation (Also called something like "De Sitter Expansion." [Aka "How long did this period of inflation last before slowing down?]) This duration is actually very critical to the theory of Cosmic Inflation. [[[The word Approximation is very important here]]]

The reason the duration is 10e-35 and the for the massive size is because the universe blew up so quickly that there was no time for the essential homogeneity to be broken, and the universe after inflation would therefore have been very uniform, even though the parts of it were not still in touch with each other.

The Size of Universe at Inflation in Alan Guths Equation solves these issues that previous Cosmological Models had. (see the quote box below Nasa explains it pretty well.)

WMAP Inflation Theory

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov

While the flatness of the universe suggests larger size, I don't yet see why it justifies that particular size. It's like WMAP measurements suggest it's probably infinite, but that isn't the minimum size possible.

Perhaps something like this then?

"Don't make threads for changing 3-A until and unless there is a scientific consensus regarding new, official and peer-reviewed calculations for our universe's size. The topic has been discussed many times and it was recently concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until the above-mentioned requirements have been fulfilled."

I want to too iterate that that i support 3-A remaining the same

But.... There is a bit of a problem with that note... The quotes and sources below should suffice to explain that...

Let's just say:

Don't make threads for changing the baselines of 3-A until the scientific community as a whole has a majority consensus on a specific minimum size of the universe. The topic has been discussed many times and it was recently concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until the above-mentioned requirements have been fulfilled.

As said, acceptance of the inflation model doesn't equate to acceptance of the specific estimate of minimum universe size, so put like this should be fine.

 

[Bobsican]

I know I'm not staff, but I'd remove the "recently" as it'll make the rule misleading in the long run, out of the "recently" aspect naturally becoming old.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I know I'm not staff, but I'd remove the "recently" as it'll make the rule misleading in the long run, out of the "recently" aspect naturally becoming old.

Makes sense. Then:

Don't make threads for changing the baselines of 3-A until the scientific community as a whole has a majority consensus on a specific minimum size of the universe. The topic has been discussed many times and it was concluded that the baseline value for Universe level will stay where it is until the above-mentioned requirement has been fulfilled.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk's latest suggestion seems good to apply to me. Thank you for helping out.

Should we place it in our Discussion Rules or in the notes section of our Attack Potency page?

 

[KLOL506]

DontTalk's latest suggestion seems good to apply to me. Thank you for helping out.

Should we place it in our Discussion Rules or in the notes section of our Attack Potency page?

I'm thinking both.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply. I will wait for some further input before I do so though.

 

[AKM sama]

It seems good to add.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will add it then.

 

[Antvasima]

I have added the new rule to our Attack Potency page:

Attack Potency

Destructive Capacity is the term used to determine the amount of damage a character can produce. It is normally the deciding factor of VS matches along with Speed. It is measured in units of energy. An alternative term for Destructive Capacity which has more direct meaning: The Destructive...

vsbattles.fandom.com

It would likely seem rather out of place in our Discussion Rules page though, given that we currently have no appropriate section for it. Should I really add it there as well?

 

[KLOL506]

It would likely seem rather out of place in our Discussion Rules page though, given that we currently have no appropriate section for it. Should I really add it there as well?

Hmmmmmmm, that is indeed a weird situation, maybe we should make sections for stuff like this in the Discussion Rules page in the future then.

 

[Antvasima]

What would this section be called in that case? "Statistics Pages"?

 

[KLOL506]

What would this section be called in that case? "Statistics Pages"?

Probably. I'm open to suggestions tho. It could include all our rules regarding calculations, statistics, AP charts and so on and so forth.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Bobsican]

I think "Site Policy" would be better to represent what this section would cover.

 

[AKM sama]

I guess mentioning it once in the AP page is enough and serves our purpose just fine.