Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Ethos on 24/04/2009 20:45:51
-
Consider the posibility that our universe is static. That is to say, "always was and always will be."
Could the cosmic background radiation only be the result of many outbursts of energy local to our present observable region? The mechanism for this release of energy might be something of a lesser scale than the purposed Big Bang. Something like a limit being reached for the size of massive bodies, where the definition of a Black Hole may not exactly fit the circumstances.
For example; Let's imagine for a minute that there exists a limit for the amount of mass that can be concentrated into a single body. We've already discussed the possibility of White Holes and I can visualize a so-called Black Hole reaching the point of compaction where it would reverse it's function and become a White Hole. Now let's assume that these events are few and far between relative to our local region of space. So few in number and wide spread enough that we might assume the rational explanation for these events are what we now understand as the Big Bang.
If the Universe is infinite, then there should also be an infinite number of these Big Bangs which have occured throughout it's infinite past. The result of this would be a homogeneous backgound radiation as seen by us in our present state. It would be very difficult to distinguish between what we understand as the Big Bang and an infinite number of, possibly, smaller bangs spread out over an infinity of space and time.
..................Ethos
-
Could the cosmic background radiation only be the result of many outbursts of energy local to our present observable region? The mechanism for this release of energy might be something of a lesser scale than the purposed Big Bang. Something like a limit being reached for the size of massive bodies, where the definition of a Black Hole may not exactly fit the circumstances.
This is a possibility, but there is a more simple explanation. And there is evidence to support this more simple explanation. We see that the red shift from distant galaxies is quantized in units of about 74 km/sec worth of red shift. Hydrogen clouds in space interact with photons passing through. Some of the photons are absorbed and re-radiated as the Cosmic Microwave Background. Those not absorbed are red shifted by about 74 km/sec worth and passed on to the next cloud.
Black holes may be super-massive objects that recycle heavy metals and spew out gamma radiation perpendicular to their accretion disks. Some of these are observed when there is a suitable cloud near the black hole that the gamma radiation can energise.[:)]
Here's a link pointing to a study. (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html)
The analysis of dwarf irregulars was revised and improved when an extensive 21-cm redshift survey of dwarf galaxies was published by J. Richard Fisher and R. Brent Tully. Once the velocity of the solar system was accounted for, the irregulars in the Fisher-Tully Catalogue displayed an extraordinary clumping of redshifts. Instead of spreading smoothly over a range of values, the redshifts appeared to fall into discrete bins separated by intervals of 24 km per second, just 1/3 of the original 72 km per second interval. The Fisher-Tully redshifts are accurate to about 5 km per second. At this small level of uncertainty the likelihood that such clumping would randomly occur is just a few parts in 100,000.
-
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.
Since it is dark you can deduce that either there's something very odd about our bit of the universe (ie it's the only bit in an infinite space that happens to have stars) or that the universe is finite in time, space or both.
This was figured out centuries ago, but I can't remember to whom the deduction is usually attributed.
-
Since it is dark you can deduce that either there's something very odd about our bit of the universe (ie it's the only bit in an infinite space that happens to have stars) or that the universe is finite in time, space or both.
This was figured out centuries ago, but I can't remember to whom the deduction is usually attributed.
Olbers Paradox; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox) but it is not so. All of the infinite universe schemes provide a natural disposition for infinite starlight. In the Tired Light scheme, for example, light becomes mass as it is absorbed. It is then re-radiated. We observe this as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
Olbers paradox assumes that stars live forever, however they have fixed lifetimes. The thermodynamics assumption of continuous heating is wrong. The amount of matter and matter-equivalent energy in the universe remains the same. Galaxies convert matter to energy. Empty space converts energy to matter.
-
If (and it's a big if) the light looses energy in transit then it loses that energy to something. Eventually (given an infinite time) that something would have so much energy that it too would start to glow like a star. You would still not have anywhere in the sky that was dark.
(much the same argument holds for any ideas about dust getting in the way of the light- eventually it would be so hot it would glow too. Eventally isn't a long time if you have an infinitely od universe.
"Olbers paradox assumes that stars live forever, however they have fixed lifetimes. "
If the universe is infinite in time then, since stars are known to burn out and they are known to be present now, there must be a mechanism that creates them. The mechanism may not be known but it must exist.
If the star along a particular line of sight has burned out then it doesn't matter- we will see the light from an older star behind it.
"The thermodynamics assumption of continuous heating is wrong."
Good point, an infinitley old universe would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. Ours isn't at equilibrium therefore it's not infinitely old.
Please provide some evidence for the assertion that "Empty space converts energy to matter."
-
If the star along a particular line of sight has burned out then it doesn't matter- we will see the light from an older star behind it.
If in the infinite life of our universe an infinite number of burned out stars exist, brown dwarfs, neutron, ect...., how can we see stars beyond them? Wouldn't an infinite number of burned out stars block out this light?
-
Please provide some evidence for the assertion that "Empty space converts energy to matter."
We know that high energy gamma rays can interact to produce electrons and positrons. Electrons and positrons can collide to produce sub atomic particles. Lower energy light is absorbed by dust and debris and so becomes mass.
Good point, an infinitely old universe would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. Ours isn't at equilibrium therefore it's not infinitely old.
I know there's a theory that everything must eventually reach equilibrium. I'm not sure that applies to the universe.
But with my run of wrong thinking lately, I don't feel too confident about anything right now[:)]
-
I know there's a theory that everything must eventually reach equilibrium. I'm not sure that applies to the universe.
But with my run of wrong thinking lately, I don't feel too confident about anything right now[:)]
Join the crowd my friend,.... If we were never mistaken about our facts, we could never recognize the truth if and when it finally showed up. Recognizing our mistakes is necessary and the first step to intellectual growth.
-
It is good that there are people willing to point to the right direction when they see you're going in the wrong direction [:)]
I think though that Olbers paradox can be disposed of. The amount of energy per unit of spacial area doesn't increase because the same amount of energy departs as arrives. There is not an infinite amount of energy available.
-
I think though that Olbers paradox can be disposed of. The amount of energy per unit of spacial area doesn't increase because the same amount of energy departs as arrives. There is not an infinite amount of energy available.
I agree Vern.....There are way too many obstructions when considering this position about the character of the universe. For one, there's the question of tired light. And two, with the vast distances involved, how much material could be obstructing the lights travel. And the one that I think sinks the whole argument; With an infinity of distance as the standard, the greatest part of the light would not have even reached us yet. Olbers paradox just doesn't work for me..........Ethos
-
If the star along a particular line of sight has burned out then it doesn't matter- we will see the light from an older star behind it.
If in the infinite life of our universe an infinite number of burned out stars exist, brown dwarfs, neutron, ect...., how can we see stars beyond them? Wouldn't an infinite number of burned out stars block out this light?
Even if the fuel runs out, the stars can only cool down and become "red" or "brown" (ie not hot enough to glow) if there's somewhere for that energy to go. But, in just the same way that, in an infinite universe you can't find a dark spot in the sky standing on earth, if you were on that dead star looking out there would be a "sun" in every direction. It couldn't cool down because it would be surrounded by stars heating it up.
-
The universe we see is similar to the infinite one you imagine. Even if it is not infinite, it is large enough for there to be a star in every direction. So, how much do these stars warm the universe. Maybe about 2.7 degrees K [:)]
-
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.
The furthest stars we know of are not visible to the human eye. The red shift is so grate they can only be seen with infra-red detectors. It may simply be the microwave radiation in the background is the furthest stars ever detected. Maybe the light is so far shifted it is no longer light.
EDIT: Never mind I now see the error in my judgement. The red shift is the slow down of light and a microwave is in the wrong direction. I will admit it was a stupid mistake.
-
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.
Since it is dark you can deduce that either there's something very odd about our bit of the universe (ie it's the only bit in an infinite space that happens to have stars) or that the universe is finite in time, space or both.
This was figured out centuries ago, but I can't remember to whom the deduction is usually attributed.
Olber
-
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.
The furthest stars we know of are not visible to the human eye. The red shift is so grate they can only be seen with infra-red detectors. It may simply be the microwave radiation in the background is the furthest stars ever detected. Maybe the light is so far shifted it is no longer light.
EDIT: Never mind I now see the error in my judgement. The red shift is the slow down of light and a microwave is in the wrong direction. I will admit it was a stupid mistake.
Anyway, if there's a red shift then it's because the universe is expanding so it's not static.
(and, the fact that it was Olber has already been established)
-
I think it was in the 4th post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox) that I supplied this link.
Anyway, if there's a red shift then it's because the universe is expanding so it's not static.
(and, the fact that it was Olber has already been established)
Other things besides an expanding universe can cause a red shift, so I don't think that is a given. Lindon Ashmore (http://bigbangblasted.mywowbb.com/) makes a good case for electrons robbing energy from distant starlight. My speculation is that the universe is very dynamic. It is a humongous recycling machine, constantly converting mass to energy in galaxies, and converting energy to mass in free space.
-
If that were a good case (and I don't think it is) then the electrons would now have robbed so much energy (after an infinite time bathed in radiation) that they would be very hot and so they would glow too.
As hot electrons wizzed about they would get near eachother from time to time and they would repel one another because they are charged. This would cause them to accelerate.
Since accelerated charges emit radiation we would be able to see the energetic electrons.
We don't see them so they aren't there.
-
If that were a good case (and I don't think it is) then the electrons would now have robbed so much energy (after an infinite time bathed in radiation) that they would be very hot and so they would glow too.
They do glow and radiate the energy that they absorb. But it is not infinite. It only comes to about 2.7 degrees K.
I suspect that in your thinking you are not allowing for the continuous re-radiation of the absorbed energy. There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe. Each finite area radiates as much energy as it absorbs.
No matter the amount of these finite areas that you stack side by side, each can still radiate all the energy it receives.[:)]
-
"There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe."
That's exactly my point.
There's a finite amount of stuff in, for example, the solar system. If there are an infinite number of stars out there warming up that finite bit of stuff why isn't it infinitely hot?
-
"There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe."
That's exactly my point.
There's a finite amount of stuff in, for example, the solar system. If there are an infinite number of stars out there warming up that finite bit of stuff why isn't it infinitely hot?
I think the problem with that logic is, there is also an infinite amount of space to be warmed. Those infinite number of stars are not just warming up that finite bit of space you've mentioned. They are also warming up the rest of the infinite space we call the universe. The result is just, the 2.7 degrees Kelvin we observe................Ethos
-
The furthest stars we know of are not visible to the human eye. The red shift is so grate they can only be seen with infra-red detectors. It may simply be the microwave radiation in the background is the furthest stars ever detected. Maybe the light is so far shifted it is no longer light.
The idea still applies, it is just at the other end of the spectrum. What was once visible light may be radio waves. And if what we suspect is true, the radio waves representing red shifted starlight would still contain the tell-tale equivalently shifted spectrum.
-
The idea still applies, it is just at the other end of the spectrum. What was once visible light may be radio waves. And if what we suspect is true, the radio waves representing red shifted starlight would still contain the tell-tale equivalently shifted spectrum.
While it may be true the wave length would be so long an antenna the size of the moon or larger would be needed to detect the furthest stars. Therefore we may never (or at least in the precipitable future) be able to detect the furthest stars to see how big the universe really is. With in this point of time I am just keeping an open mind to all the possibilities.
I do however like to play devils advocate in any discussion to explore every theory. I think someone needs to or we may never know the truth.
-
We have equipment that can detect radiation below the visible spectrum. If the universe is ageless as we suspect that it is, much of the radiation will be below the visible spectrum. It will continue to exhibit its spectral structure however. That's how we know that the CMBR is not simply red-shifted starlight. It is black-body radiation. It is all very close to the same frequency.
-
"There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe."
That's exactly my point.
There's a finite amount of stuff in, for example, the solar system. If there are an infinite number of stars out there warming up that finite bit of stuff why isn't it infinitely hot?
I think the problem with that logic is, there is also an infinite amount of space to be warmed. Those infinite number of stars are not just warming up that finite bit of space you've mentioned. They are also warming up the rest of the infinite space we call the universe. The result is just, the 2.7 degrees Kelvin we observe................Ethos
OK you have made a good start. An infinite number of stars (each emiting a finite power) and an infinite space means that, for any finite density of stars there is a finite power density (and we know that there's a finite density of stars in our bit of the universe and one of the cop outs for Olber's paradox is that our bit of the universe is odd).
Now integrate that over the whole of time and you get an infinite total energy density which corresponds to an infinite temperature- so it should't go dark at night.
If at some time someone had set up a universe like that it might hypothetically explain the 2.7K background today. But if they had set it up an infinite time ago it would now be infinitely hot.
-
It the universe were infinitely hot, where did that infinite energy come from? We suspect that the laws of thermodynamics hold. Overall mass-energy can not increase unless there is some rule that we do not yet know about.
-
We have equipment that can detect radiation below the visible spectrum. If the universe is ageless as we suspect that it is, much of the radiation will be below the visible spectrum. It will continue to exhibit its spectral structure however. That's how we know that the CMBR is not simply red-shifted starlight. It is black-body radiation. It is all very close to the same frequency.
The problem with the equipment that we currently have to detect the low frequency it the wave length that might be required. The lower the frequency the larger the antenna must be to detect full wave. This is a simple concept that any first year electronics major learns. Maybe the current equipment is not capable of picking up the full wave length and therefore is seems to be the black-body radiation. Ii is really just a case of sensitivity.
-
We can tune an antenna by adding inductance and capacitance, but to study single sources of energy we need to focus on the source. At the frequencies of the CMBR, we have tuned the receivers to the extent that we can determine the frequency very accurately. It is not possible that the CMBR is red-shifted starlight. It is possible that the CMBR is absorbed and re-emitted starlight. I suspect that the latter is the reality.
It would be interesting to know if the longest wavelength radio sources we observe do contain the fine structure we see in the spectrum of visible starlight. If it does not, we can forget about our speculation that the universe is infinitely old. If it does, it is just one more piece of evidence that the speculation may be real.
-
It the universe were infinitely hot, where did that infinite energy come from? We suspect that the laws of thermodynamics hold. Overall mass-energy can not increase unless there is some rule that we do not yet know about.
That too is a reason why the universe can't have always been like it is (at least with the laws of physics as we know them). It would have required an infinite energy source.
The evidence is still piling up for Olber and against a perpetual universe, just as I have been saying all along.
Incidentally, there's another aproach to the problem you seem to be looking at. If the visible light has been red shifted so far to long wavelength that it's difficult to measure try looking at, for example, Xrays that have now been shifted to a more convenient region of the spectrum.
Of course, unless you can sort out Olber's paradox you will still be forced to accept that the simple answer to the original question is no.
-
Of course, unless you can sort out Olber's paradox you will still be forced to accept that the simple answer to the original question is no.
Olber's paradox has been sorted out.
I think though that Olbers paradox can be disposed of. The amount of energy per unit of spacial area doesn't increase because the same amount of energy departs as arrives. There is not an infinite amount of energy available.
You assume some sort of creation scheme when you require infinite energy to produce it. I have no problem thinking of an eternal universe that has always been much the same as it is now. Evidence to the contrary requires heavy bending of nature's rules as we know them.
Xray sources shifted into the visible range is interesting. I wonder if we would recognize that if we saw it. They will exist if our eternal scheme is the reality.
-
Xray sources shifted into the visible range is interesting. I wonder if we would recognize that if we saw it. They will exist if our eternal scheme is the reality.
Now that is an interesting thought. Would they not appear as stars?
-
Vern,
Stars burn out. If you don't have a scheme that creates them then they would all be dead by now (in an infinitely old universe).
There are still stars and so either there's something that has been making them, in violation of the law of conservation of energy, or the universe hasn't been around for ever.
As for "Olber's paradox has been sorted out."
Yes, it has; the universe isn't infinitely old so the paradox doesn't apply.
If you postulate an infinite universe then you have to answer Olber's paradox.
Please do so.
-
Stars convert matter to starlight of many frequencies. When stars burn out, they eventually end up at the centre of a galaxy where they are crunched into energy and spewed out as gamma rays and other forms of energy. The gamma-ray energy and starlight meet up in deep space and congeal into matter again.
Starlight warms space debris and this warmth is seen as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.[:)]
If you postulate an infinite universe then you have to answer Olber's paradox.
Please do so.
Olbers Paradox; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox) but it is not so. All of the infinite universe schemes provide a natural disposition for infinite starlight. In the Tired Light scheme, for example, light becomes mass as it is absorbed. It is then re-radiated. We observe this as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
-
Now that is an interesting thought. Would they not appear as stars?
I suspect that they would appear as stars; there should be something about their spectrum that would identify them as red-shifted Xray sources.
-
If I may be allowed point out; The use of the word "infinity" can and has been used somewhat carelessly within this thread. When we consider an infinity of mass within the infinity of space, one must concede that the volume of space is vastly larger than the mass contained within it. As we consider this great difference in scale, the infinity of mass becomes significantly smaller by comparison. If I remember correctly, the mass density of our universe is very small, only one atom of Hydrogen available in a much larger volume of space. To assume that the infinity of mass-energy will light up an even larger infinity of space is not taking into account the difference between these two values.
The infinity of mass in an infinite universe is not even close when we consider the volume of space within which it resides! And yes, some infinities are larger than others. Olber is wrong!