Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jsaldea12 on 04/03/2010 03:32:00
-
Could there be many smaller big bangs, instead of one biggest big bang?
There are many black holes in the universe…could be by several billions. A black hole is conceived to collapse to infinity, to a size of a point, uncannily,just like the point source of that one Big Bang. At the center of galaxy is suspected a monster black hole..cold but too infinitely collapsed as to sustain average of 100-500 billions of orbiting satellite stars, and there are, within the visible universe, some 20 billion galaxies! Why do galaxies formed uncannily similar to one another, disk-liked, separate from one another. Could it be that, like rain, galaxies could have been the make-up throughout the vast universe, Are there galaxies from the ,so far, unreachable universe.
Could it be that there are, instead, smaller big bangs, the size of galaxies, the galaxies, themselves, are the many big bangs, ...not just one big bang whose source such one big bang cannot even be localized. The CMBR could have been thicker at the source of that one big bang and should havbe been identified by now.. But there is none.. The cycle of the universe could just be repeating itself, just like rain?.
Just food for thought.
Jsaldea12
3.4.10
-
As usual, you should do some more reading.
The big bang happened everywhere so this "not just one big bang whose source such one big bang cannot even be localized. The CMBR could have been thicker at the source of that one big bang and should havbe been identified by now.. But there is none."
doesn't make sense.
-
The only thing evidence suggests is that there was once a very dense stage in the universe and that at a particular point in time it underwent a rapid expansion.
-
CMBR is blackbody radiation..evidence of explosion, not just expansion or inflation. Originally conceived by priest Lemaitre, Big Bang was an explosion. Thus, the original location of explosion should have thicker CMBR. Just food for thought.
jsaldea12
3.5.10
-
The CMBR is evidence that there was a causally connected hot dense phase to the universe. It says nothing about how we get from then to now. There is other evidence that suggests a rapid expansion period. I don't know what is meant by "thicker CMBR". It was certainly hotter.
-
"Thus, the original location of explosion"
The original location of the big bang is everywhere. Where could it be hotter than?
Is this thread going to get locked when someone realises the Jasldea isn't listening to what people tell him?
-
I do listen, bored chemist. I thought we are having fun having animated exchanges. I am sorry if I hurt unintentionally.
Thicker CMBR?, i mean hotter CMBR. BuI think you and bored chemist have something more valid...
it is just that the law of the universe is infinity. What is on the deepest recesses of the universe, is infinity. Big Bang is conceived to be accelerating faster at the deepest recesses of the universe. The concept is that beyond that, there is void. This is against the law of infinity of the universe. It is like this too, before, people thought the world was flat, that sailing will fall into the abyss until Columbus and Magellan sailed around the world and proved it is not flat.
jaldea12
3.6.10
Jsaldea12
3.6.10.
-
"The concept is that beyond that, there is void. "
There is nowhere "beyond" the universe.
-
The creation of this universe is based on infinity. There is nothing we can know nor reach, the beginning nor the end, that is why hundred years ago, the wisest of all Greeks, Socrates, made the famous remark, “I am the greatest of all Greeks because I alone know that I know nothing”.
Jsaldea12
3.7.10
-
Hi jsaldea12, Bored chemist, graham.d etal,
The expansion of the universe is continuous and it's rate of expansion depends on the current separation to a first approximation. It stands to reason that parts of the Universe would be so distant at some point at least in the future of the universe that a light signal sent from one point to attempt to reach another far distant point will "fail" because this inertial spreading of the fabric of spacetime will mean that because of the separation alone the distance between certain regions will be increasing at faster than the speed of light. This is possible since the spreading is not due to "inertial acceleration" but simply in it's changing geometry which is getting bigger in volume like the two dimensional surface a balloon being blown up... opposite sides of the balloon are getting further and further apart without any particle of the balloon actually accelerating away from the other points on the "hypersurface".
In the limit parts of the universe will effectively "pop out of existence" both optically and gravitationally (since both gravity and optics are ruled by the speed of light). In fact they still exist in what has been termed a "Rindler Foliation" which is a sub-universe... no longer observable to us from our position in the cosmos.
Packing Universes In Spacetime - Rindler Foliations - Mathpages (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm)
This process may have occurred in the past and space is not only being "spread out" it may be appearing to get very empty. We may eventually be alone in the universe with our galaxy the milky way. I am suspicious that dark force and dark energy are related strongly to this mechanism. If the overall mass of the universe is falling then this spreading will behave as being less confined and begin to accelerate away in the fullness of time as our visible universe "hollows out".
On the other hand I think it may be possible that all particle creation events actually spawn universes in their own right and in the brief instant of their existence in our time before they annihilate each other each particle and antiparticle act as matter wave mirrors to the external universe imaging it into the surface of the particles as "fully functional" matter wave" images only in a reciprocal surface. So the "cosmic fireball" is the creation of the particle bubble itself and the universe we see is an image of an ancient and more mature universe in it's surface as a topological flatland. This process happens over and over and over and over.... "the universe is hollow and we have touched the sky". A trans-universe holographic "projection" like Russian Dolls... each one inside the other yet "unaware" of the confining "doll" above ... on and on and on and on... a cosmic hall of mirrors made with matter waves.
Secrets of Almaden - An elegant experiment at a Bay Area lab echoes through the world of quantum physics (http://www.sfweekly.com/2000-04-05/news/secrets-of-almaden/)
... gotta have some deeper meaning...
Big fleas have little fleas
upon their backs to bite them,
and little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so ad infinitum
And the great fleas themselves, in turn,
have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still,
and greater still, and so on.
[1872 A. De morgan Budget of Paradoxes 377]
-
That is a very credible scientific research. Though I differ. I am inclined to agree in the original concept of cosmological constant of Dr. Einstein ad Dr. Fred Hoyle. The universe is complete, in itself. It does not need to expand, for to consider that expansion into the void would mean setting a limit to the making of the universe. .the limit is up to that expansion, even though it is continuing expansion. .that therefore, what is not reached or beyond that expansion is not PART of the universe..not part of the making of the universe. Such concept appears not right, for the law of this universe is infinity. The universe is infinitely complete...What is beyond is included in the complete making of the universe. It is not perfect void. There is explanation for the red-shifting of all galaxies.
-
Hi jsaldea12, Bored chemist, graham.d etal,
That is a very credible scientific research. Though I differ. I am inclined to agree in the original concept of cosmological constant of Dr. Einstein ad Dr. Fred Hoyle. The universe is complete, in itself. It does not need to expand, for to consider that expansion into the void would mean setting a limit to the making of the universe. .the limit is up to that expansion, even though it is continuing expansion. .that therefore, what is not reached or beyond that expansion is not PART of the universe..not part of the making of the universe. Such concept appears not right, for the law of this universe is infinity. The universe is infinitely complete...What is beyond is included in the complete making of the universe. It is not perfect void. There is explanation for the red-shifting of all galaxies.
Certainly the Steady State Theory is not currently the way in which the universe is to be described. Speaking experimentally... "things" are actually changing over time such as Hubble Expansion. What existed in the dim past may have changed over an immensity of time. Parametric expansion may have nothing to do with some independently verifiable expansion which may or may not be accessible to our instruments. Hubble Expansion certainly "appears" to be happening and even accelerating over and above a "simple process" leading to questions of "dark energy". For instance it could be that the clumped matter in the universe is parametrically reducing in size but occupying a "fixed void" so our global yardsticks may be altering relative to our local yardsticks over the period of the age of the universe as it "cools down"... all of this is beyond our knowledge thus far.
Seems a fair guess some of this may be what is happening... assumptions about the early universe are currently in "flux" due to experiments currently undertaken in Brookhaven (http://www.physorg.com/news186931143.html). The universe appears not to be infinitely old so it does not need to be "infinity complete" and our universe is still evolving towards some destiny that may appear different to what we are seeing just now. Forget Philosophy since Physics is about what we measure not what we like to imagine being there. If it cannot be measured it is not physics. If yardsticks are altering relative to scale then this might provide an answer to the "mysterious dark force" while "dark energy" has it's origins in this "hollowing out process" due to Rindler Foliations forming and "stretching" in the voids. One possibility is the regions of the universe occupied by galaxies are "sagging in spacetime" undergoing "densitification" (black hole formation and collapse into stars and so on perhaps also modifying the local geometry of spacetime while the surrounding void may be "compacted" relatively speaking due to the lack of local concentrations of matter way out there. More simply... Hook's Law may not apply uniformly to spacetime everywhere. Hook's Law does not strictly apply to black holes so it may not apply to galaxies too... just in a more subtle way. The universe is not uniform and the clumping of matter may be providing this asymmetry needed to explain the problem entirely. At the same time the voids are expanding away from each other into Rindler Foliations "hollowing out" the remaining visible universe accelerating it's overall "expansion" (or "contraction"... whatever).
I am not seeking "ultimate answers" but relatively better answers to the questions we already have. After all our perspective on this universe is like that of a microbe sitting somewhere on the surface of our earth... we are dominated by the "local perspective".
Cheers
-
There is often confusion arising from the often used conflation of the terms "universe" and "observable universe". In most discussions these both refer to a "theoretically knowable universe", for want of a better or simpler phrase. The concept is explained well in the mathpages cited by Good Elf. This does not mean we cannot postulate the existence of something more than what is observable, just that we can never get any information from it.
-
Hi graham.d, jsaldea12, Bored chemist etal,
There is often confusion arising from the often used conflation of the terms "universe" and "observable universe". In most discussions these both refer to a "theoretically knowable universe", for want of a better or simpler phrase. The concept is explained well in the mathpages cited by Good Elf. This does not mean we cannot postulate the existence of something more than what is observable, just that we can never get any information from it.
Hmmm.... "never" is one of my "no no" words!
It "may" be possible to get information from Rindler Foliations regardless of the fact that the matter is moving relatively faster than the speed of light away from us... this is because the universe was once more compact back near the Big Bang and the mutual proximity of "everything" would have been smaller than the nucleus of a single atom. This means that the Big Bang "entangled" everything that came from it and this entanglement still may exist and still connects things at an infinite velocity beating this foliation barrier by relating "stuff" on our side of this barrier to "stuff" on the other side of the barrier. In fact some of our physics would be related to this fact right now ... just it is not currently interpreted in that way. One day this encrypted information about the rest of our universe might clear up some long standing mysteries??? Hindsight of a couple of hundred years of science may help us see this in a clearer light down the track! [;D]
-
I highly respect your erudite scientific research….but time will tell, perhaps, 10 to 20 years from now…when we have astronomical telescopes (I think such are in the making) that can peep much farther into that deepest, unknown recesses of the universe to unravel its secrets.
Jsaldea12
3.10.10
-
We may, in time find ways to get that information. But It won't tell us that there were "little bangs" in the way that J S Aldea seems to think. There might have been other big bangs but they are not in our universe.
-
I highly respect your erudite scientific research….but time will tell, perhaps, 10 to 20 years from now…when we have astronomical telescopes (I think such are in the making) that can peep much farther into that deepest, unknown recesses of the universe to unravel its secrets that there are just as many galaxies thereat, just as normally distributed/spread out like our present visible universe..
Jsaldea12
-
The visible universe isn't going to get significantly bigger in 30 years, or 30 million.
-
QuoteD, "The Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) will be a ground-based astronomical observatory with a 30-meter (98-foot) diameter segmented mirror capable of observations from the near-ultraviolet to the mid-infrared (0.31 to 28 μm). An adaptive optics system will correct for image blur caused by the atmosphere of the Earth. At wavelengths longer than 0.8 μm, this correction will enable observations with TEN TIMES the spatial resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. TMT will be more sensitive than existing ground-based telescopes by factors of 10 (natural seeing mode) to 100 (adaptive optics mode). If completed on schedule, TMT will be the first of the new generation of Extremely Large Telescope
jsaldea12
3.18.10
-
The visible universe still isn't going to get significantly bigger in 30 years, or 30 million.
We might get a better look at it, but that's not the point.
We have already seen things that took place in a very young universe.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/042809-nasa-satellite-spots-oldest-most.html
-
You have provided me with the most beautiful burst (of the most distant object) I have ever seen...is that all in 10 seconds?
jsaldea12
3.19.10