The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics  (Read 20690 times)

Offline Pr. snoerkel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #25 on: 19/02/2014 17:50:50 »
The BB as traditionally explained by science certainly violates the first law of thermodynamics. And what about the third law? It says that the Unirverse eventually will end up in a state where no mechanical energy can be produced. So, if masses exist at that point they must be either be collected in one point, a huge black hole, or be outside each others observation horizon. Otherwise it would be possible to create mechanical energy by mutual interaction between masses.
But a black hole would be radiating as shown by Hawking and that could in principle be utilized for mechanical energy. Same goes for any mass even the slightest above absolute zero temperature.
So, the only way to preserve the third law would be to imagine an end scenario somewhat in line with that proposed by ScientificSorcerer
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #26 on: 19/02/2014 18:06:08 »
The BB as traditionally explained by science certainly violates the first law of thermodynamics. And what about the third law? It says that the Unirverse eventually will end up in a state where no mechanical energy can be produced. So, if masses exist at that point they must be either be collected in one point, a huge black hole, or be outside each others observation horizon. Otherwise it would be possible to create mechanical energy by mutual interaction between masses.
But a black hole would be radiating as shown by Hawking and that could in principle be utilized for mechanical energy. Same goes for any mass even the slightest above absolute zero temperature.
So, the only way to preserve the third law would be to imagine an end scenario somewhat in line with that proposed by ScientificSorcerer

For the first law it all depends on what exactly happens in a black hole. We assume a singularity but if we consider that mass is torn apart beyond the event horizon then mass in a solid state is meaningless beyond this point. If gravitational feedback depends upon solidification and this is pure speculation on my part, then gravitation takes on an entirely different aspect within the confines of the horizon. There may well be a lot of energetic interaction at the core which prevents total collapse. As always with a system there may be a critical mass beyond which point a big bang is inevitable. Bearing in mind it is at infinity where the mathematics breaks down then removing the possibility of a singularity would resolve an awful lot of issues plaguing physics. While it is quite accepted that light speed is an absolute that cannot be obtained and the same with absolute zero the possibility that the singularity is an absolute seems to have been largely ignored.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 18:08:38 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #27 on: 19/02/2014 19:43:05 »
I agree with JP.

Simply put, the universe could not possibly be infinite (in size) Because the big bang shows us that the entire universe was contained in a single spot, would that single spot contain infinity? probably not because the big bang wasn't infinity large. Logically speaking the universe is only as big as the light traveled from the moment of the big bang.

If the Big bang took place 13.8 billion years ago then light could have only traveled 13.8 billion light years away in all directions so the universe is a sphere which is 27.6 billion light years in diameter "it's Big" but not infinity large.

I don't mean to say that the fabric of space isn't infinite But the area of space with "stuff in it" is finite. As I said in my last post the universe is expanding too but that wont go on forever because dark energy is just really big gravity waves. The force of gravity will inevitably pull everything together into a mega black hole which will implode into another big bang.

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/history.bigbang.jpg

JeffreyH posted an interesting point, Black holes are not infinite because you can calculate how much mass it's got by it's gravity. A black hole only appears to be infinite because it's so freaking condensed.

Most of us don't realize that atoms are 99.99999% empty space. Imagine blowing up an atom to the size of the sun the nucleus would only be about the size of you.  Atoms are kept away from each-other because of the electromagnetic repulsion force of the electron cloud. But In a black hole the force of gravity overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion and nuclei are forced into a Bois Einstein condensate in which the empty space within atoms is filled by other atoms. Creating something which is ridiculously condensed THAT IS A SINGULARITY.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 20:02:44 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline Pr. snoerkel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #28 on: 19/02/2014 21:02:31 »
The statement from ScientificSorcerer needs some supplement. Because of inflation, the Universe must be minimum 27.6 billion light years in diameter but could really be any size. Inflation theory is well established and cannot be ignored. You can say that you think it wrong for this or that reason, but you cannot ignore it
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #29 on: 19/02/2014 21:25:18 »
To me Inflation theory is just another theory that is probably purely mathematical, as in there is really no supportable evidence to it, just a bunch of crap. Not one part of that theory can be backed up by any physical observable evidence at all, we cant see anything beyond a certain point so they made up this Idea saying "what if" there's another universe beyond that point "what if" there are infinite universes out there, you simply can't prove it or disprove it because it's unknowable.

Science done like that isn't science at all, it's religion. heck the big bang theory borders on religion but at least there is real observable evidence supporting it.

I lean towards a big crunch type of theory because it makes logical sense. It's simple the force of gravity attracts everything together, you can see evidence of it already happening with the formation of galaxies and black-holes, the only thing keeping that idea from being undeniable is dark energy, which I have explained wont go on forever and wont impede the big crunch.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 21:35:08 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #30 on: 19/02/2014 23:10:37 »
Quote from: JP
Another infinity thread?

Lest anyone should suspect that I have a vested interest in introducing infinity (I can’t imagine why they would) into as many threads as possible, I wish to point out that I am not guilty in this case.  :D

I accept that any suggestion as to what there might have been before the BB is speculation, with no real scientific or experimental evidence to back it up.  However; Would I not be correct in thinking scientific data stops short at about 10^-35s after the Big Bang?

Three questions arise here:

1. If there is no data prior to that, why would any scientist accept that there was a Big Bang? After all, "no data is no data".

2. If it is acceptable to extrapolate back 10^-35s. why not 2X10^-35s, which would take us back beyond the (proposed) Big Bang?

3. Who decides how much extrapolation is acceptable, and in what circumstances?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #31 on: 20/02/2014 00:04:03 »
The big bang theory basically arose from looking at stars though a big telescope, the farther you look into space the farther back in time your looking at in the universes life, This is because light has to travel a long distance to reach us from that far away. when you look through a nasa grade telescope you can see millions of light years away, In effect your looking millions of year in the past. This practice has allowed scientists to see what the universe looked like along time ago. This combined with noting the temperature of space that long ago allowed use to paint a picture of the rebirth of the universe. Just look at the link in my last post.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #32 on: 20/02/2014 21:36:56 »
Quote
This practice has allowed scientists to see what the universe looked like along time ago.This combined with noting the temperature of space that long ago allowed use to paint a picture of the rebirth of the universe.

This I have no problem with; It just seems, sometimes, that deciding what is and is not permissible extrapolation is an arbitrary decision.     

 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #33 on: 21/02/2014 05:03:39 »
Bill S

You have to remember that all of these "extrapolations" are just theories, that's why the Big Bang theory is just a theory, it's not fact that means anything is "permissible" as long as it stands up to scientific scrutiny which is just smart people's educated opinion.

As Democritus ones said


Nothing exists except atoms and empty space everything else is just an opinion

He also said that "people can know a great many things but lack wisdom"

What he means is you can't just take someone's word for it just because they are a leader, or in this case a leader of the scientific community.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #34 on: 21/02/2014 16:47:00 »
Quote from: SS
...you can't just take someone's word for it just because they are a leader, or in this case a leader of the scientific community.

Absolutely!  A quick look through some of the blogs and discussion forums would leave you in no doubt as to the confused mess your ideas would be in if you took every expert's statements of "fact" at face value. 

 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #35 on: 22/02/2014 05:21:44 »
But despite all of the opinions, some of it is true fact. If you want to Find the truth "some of it is out there" you have to use your brain to determine what is truth and what is false. I have a theory (educated opinion) as to what caused the big bang, which correlates to scientific fact.  I want to hear your opinion on it  :)



It starts with a black hole, Whats in a black hole? I "think" I know what is in there, I think that In a black hole the force of gravity is so strong that it overcomes the electromagnetic force, namely the electron cloud. I think that the gravity inside a black hole squishes the atoms together so much that the nuclei of each atom actually touch and bypass the electron cloud, they act sort of like one big super-atom.

I back up this statement with the Bois-Einstein condensate (BEC). An actual 5th state of matter! It is characterized by the nuclei of atoms in the BEC state coming together to form a super-atom. We know it exists because you can make it in the lab. look at this link describing the BEC.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html

Scientists can make this stuff by freezing matter down to near absolute zero, But the BEC state in a black hole is pressure induced by gravity "not" temperature induced. Atoms in it's normal states of matter are 99.999% empty space BUT in the BEC state atoms are condensed into being 0% empty space Thus all the atoms in a black hole are 9999999 times more condensed then normal matter THATS WHAT I THINK happens to matter in a black hole.
Light that enters a black hole is literally stopped in it's tracks apon entering a black hole, look at this video of how that works.


So now you know what "I think" happens to matter and light inside a black hole. I think Matter in a black hole is in the BEC state and Light is trapped inside the BEC.

This relates to my theory on the big bang because I believe that before the big bang everything was contained in one spot, "a super black hole" In which all the light and matter in the universe was contained in the BEC state. The combined gravity of the entire universe in one spot caused the atoms inside the black hole to "break" or "squish" and in the process be converted into energy. (because you know what happens when you split an atom)

When one atom split, it caused a chain reaction with all the other atoms, causing all the matter in the universe to be converted into energy (giving you the big bang)

All that matter got into one spot because of the attractive force of gravity. The same process that causes little black holes to form, billions of years from now the universe will come together into a super black hole. look at this video describing how that works.


They make it sound all dramatic but the big crunch will take billions/trillions of years.
Big bangs are just like the clock of the universe hitting 12 and starting over, It's still the same clock but it's a new day, I hope this makes sense.

This theory of mine has one problem "dark energy theory" which states that the universe is flying apart, and will soon overcome the attractive force of gravity. this video explains.


I believe that dark energy is NOT continuous expansion of space, instead "I think" dark energy is the result of gravity waves generated during the big bang. let me explain, Gravity waves exist, that's a fact and they they were first observed by looking at to black holes orbiting each other and these gravity waves act a lot like dark energy from an outside perspective.

you see before the big bang everything was contained in a single spot and all that mass in a single spot created a huge gravity well.



when the big bang occurred all that mass was converted into energy and that huge gravity well disappeared instantly because energy has no mass and no gravity. all that gravity gone in a split second caused rippling gravity waves, imagine this, imagine a rubber sheet with a ball on it.



now imagine what would happen if that ball just disappeared, that rubber sheet would return to it's normal state but it would bounce up and down first because of the elastic nature of the rubber sheet.  the fabric of space is no different exept a wave in the fabric of space is the distortion of space, space stretching and contracting.



we live in this massive gravity wave, at the crest of this massive wave space in that spot is most condensed and at the wave trough gravity is closest to it's normal state. space looks like it's spreading out because we are heading toward a wave trough (on the down slope of the wave) so space is coming from a more condensed state caused by the gravity wave back down to it's normal state. I hope that makes sense.

This is my theory, it's based on physics facts, not physics theories. the only thing that I assumed which is not based on fact is that a BEC state can be induced via pressure and that the big bang caused gravity waves. Both assumptions have a basis in scientific facts.

What do you think about my theory/educated opinion?
 

Offline Conspirologist

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #36 on: 22/02/2014 05:59:30 »
ScientificSorcerer

I hope you don't mind that I've been looking at some of your posts and I found that one thing is an enigma to me and that's how much of a firm grasp you have on concepts like gravity waves, superconductors, invisibility, theoretical particles, Tesla coils, piezo-electricity and what ever the heck "BEC" is. Just all forms of science, How the heck do you know this stuff???

I can barley understand some of the stuff on this forum, especially stuff posted by you. How do you do it??  Did you go to Harvard or something?

I like how you said that the "truth is out there" you just have to use your head to see it sitting right in front of you. I firmly agree with that! indubitably
« Last Edit: 22/02/2014 06:07:23 by Conspirologist »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #37 on: 22/02/2014 06:15:43 »
If atoms are pushed so tightly together then you would ultimately have feedback in the coulomb field in the same way feedback occurs in gravity fields. This would also be true of gluon confinement. The problem is that all the particles are either likely to tend to be in the form of neutrons or free quarks and gluons. In the case of neutrons having neutral charge I would doubt they would have much effect on light directly. Feedback in quark confinement would have a dramatic effect but you would need to formulate a link between gluons and gravity. A daunting task.

http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/from-cold-atoms-to-quark-gluon-plasmas.html
« Last Edit: 22/02/2014 06:21:02 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #38 on: 22/02/2014 17:51:59 »
I tend to like non-mainstream ideas, and believe that an idea that has had a lot of thought put into it is a thing of value, even if the experts can shoot so many holes in it that it begins to look like a colander.  (You will have no difficulty believing that I’ve been there).  Finding such an idea that is defended by someone who doesn’t descend into ad hominem attacks and insults is a rare treat.

 To me, such ideas have the considerable value that they tend to make me think of questions I might not otherwise have considered, so I am going to kick off with some of these questions.

“It starts with a black hole

Does a black hole have to be a hole in something?  If so, what would that be?

Gravity waves exist, that's a fact….”

This is true, if you really mean “gravity waves”, but I suspect you are referring to gravitational waves.  As far as I am aware there is no direct proof of their existence, but I may be way out of date.

…before the big bang everything was contained in a single spot and all that mass in a single spot created a huge gravity well.

Does a gravity well have to be a well in something?  A gravitational field would seem the most likely thing, and if that’s the case, does a gravitational field have to have something in which it can exist?

Is the universe completely contained in the central matter, or is the gravity well/gravitational field part of the universe?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #39 on: 23/02/2014 04:08:45 »
Bill S
For an answer to your first question about black holes. If you look at the animated gif of a black hole in my last post, you can clearly see why they call it a black hole. Its not really a "hole" in space It's just got so much gravity that not even light can escape it's gravitational pull (light gets sucked into it) so that light never reaches us, as a result you see an optical distortion called a black hole.

as for your second question about gravity waves. Indeed gravity waves/gravitational waves may or my not exist But there is a lot of evidence supporting there existence. I think these short videos will clarify any confusion as to what gravitational waves are.
you can see how this correlates to "Dark energy" they seem like very similar things to me. As I mentioned earlier you would need huge gravity waves to correlate dark energy and gravitational waves. I think the big bang created these huge gravity waves.

and as for your last question about gravity wells and before the big bang.
You see if the big bang did in-fact produce gravitational waves then that proves that the singularity before the big bang did exist and that it had mass, a lot of mass, an entire universe of mass. Because without mass you can't get gravitational waves. that would mean that matter did exist before the big bang and that dark energy's expansion is the result of gravity waves and that it wont last forever and concepts like the "big rip" would be ruled out leaving only one explanation as to how the universe will end. (in a big crunch) which will create a super black hole with the entire universe in it, which will implode into another big bang.

and sorry about my terminology (gravity well =gravitational field) (gravity waves=gravitational waves)

Jeffrey H
I am admit-ably not too knowledgeable in the area of quarks and gluons, I know what they are and the basics as to how they work But To the best of my knowledge quarks don't normally propagate by themselves in free space, I thought they just turn into energy within a split second after the smashing of the atoms.
I personally think that "both" quarks and gluons are exotic forms of plasma and that the "plasma" is made of light spinning around around those tiny particles, I forget the name of those tiny theoretical particles at the moment, you know the ones that they are trying to measure underground, they do the experiments underground to filter out cosmic rays. Dang it what were they called  :P

Conspirologist
I have actually never gone to college, and I appreciate your complement I'm flattered  ;)
« Last Edit: 23/02/2014 04:40:13 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #40 on: 23/02/2014 18:03:57 »
SS.     I realise that a black hole is not a hole of the sort you might dig in the ground.  The question about a black hole being a hole in something arose because I was asking the question as a part of an ongoing thought train linked to the idea that if the entire universe were contained in the “singularity”, and if that were surrounded by a gravitational field, where would the field be?  On the other hand, if the gravitational field is part of the universe, how could the entire universe be within the singularity?

I suspect that what we need is an expert to tell us what the standard version definitions are for black holes and singularities, so that we have a solid scientific base for our discussion.  I have a feeling, though, that that might not be straightforward.

I have some difficulty with the concept of a singularity, which links directly to my thoughts about infinity.  The frequently encountered definition of a singularity involves spacetime being infinitely curved.  It would be absurd to suggest that anything finite could actually become infinite, so one can only assume that we are dealing with a mathematical infinity which is an approximation.  If this applies to black holes, does it also apply to the Big Bang singularity?

If the infinite curvature of the BB singularity is just an approximation, then there is a finite amount of matter/energy present at the BB.  This seems to fit well with your idea.

On the other hand, if we are really being told that at the BB spacetime is infinitely curved, this raises all kinds of questions.  At least, it does for me.

If spacetime is infinitely curved, then the amount of matter/energy it contains must be infinitely small.  What does infinitely small mean?  Can we distinguish between infinitely small and non-existent?

If infinitely small means non-existent, then there was absolutely nothing at the BB, but something after it.  Where did the something come from?  Is that a bit like asking difficult questions about God in a catechism class/Sunday school, where asking such things equates to lack of faith?

The floodgates of questions are gradually opening, but modestia in omnibus.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #41 on: 24/02/2014 01:37:13 »
Bill S
I see were your coming from, and why you think that. To start off the matter contained inside a black hole is not "infinity small" But it's pretty darn close which is why people tend to think that the singularity is infinitely small.

when the black hole condenses matter into being 0% empty space it can take the mass of an entire star and condense it into being microscopic, scratch that, it can condense a star into being the size of one atom now that's saying something. When mathematicians calculate the curvature of space of a black hole they see that it correlates to the near infinitely compressed matter within a black hole. the matter inside a black hole is "almost" infinitely compressed and the curvature of space is "almost" infinitely compressed.

I mean to say that it's so freaking compressed that it seems infinite. the math is so close to reading that it's infinitely compressed that they assume it is.

and because the curvature of space directly correlates to the condenseness of matter that too appears to be infinity curved. I hope this makes sense.
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 01:39:23 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #42 on: 24/02/2014 03:33:11 »
Quote from: SS
because the curvature of space directly correlates to the condenseness of matter that too appears to be infinity curved. I hope this makes sense.

It makes perfect sense to me.  Its what I have been saying in different ways, in different threads for a long time.  Mathematical infinities are approximations.  They have their value, in the right place, but suggesting that they are actually infinite causes confusion, because, as in the case under discussion, the conclusions are completely different.

It seems that in your scenario all the matter/energy from the "retiring" universe survives the bounce, so each universe is recycled.  Is that right?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #43 on: 24/02/2014 05:10:29 »
Bill S

Yes, exactly right!  Even the light form the far edges of the universe will be recycled, Because gravity will still pull on that light (even if that that pull is so weak you can't measure it) The force of gravity never actually disappears, it just gets weaker with distance, I believe that light is in a huge orbit around the universe with "stuff in it" (I like to call the area of the universe with "stuff in it" the "finite universe") It's a bit like how planets orbit the sun but the force of gravity at that distance is really weak, the same is true with the orbit of light around the finite universe the only difference is that the force of gravity acts on light very very very weakly but it still acts on it at any distance so light must orbit the finite universe and eventually be pulled into the singularity at the end of this universal cycle. "that will take a very long time" and be one of the last things that will happen before the second big bang.

Only when every last bit of the old universe (including light) is contained in the singularity will it implode, this is partly do to the uncertainty principle and partly do to the singularity reaching critical mass.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #44 on: 24/02/2014 18:23:33 »
You have lost me with the bit about light orbiting the “finite universe”.  Does your scenario not have light permeating the Universe?

You refer to the universe with "stuff in it" as the "finite universe". 
Is the orbiting light entirely outside that? 
Is there an infinite universe?

Returning to the idea that everything survives the bounce, I assume this includes time.  Am I right in thinking that time is continuous through a succession of universes, rather than being created at the start of each universe?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #45 on: 24/02/2014 19:08:23 »
Bill S

Ok there are 2 parts to the universe, the finite universe (with stuff in it) and the fabric of space which represents the infinite universe.

The finite universe represents the area of space with matter and light in it (stuff). I posted what I thought of the finite universe a wile back on this thread. It works like this. All the light and matter of the universe was contained in a single spot before the big bang, after the BB happened, it sent matter and light shooting off in all directions. So logically speaking the finite universe is only as big as the light traveled in all directions from the singularity at the moment of the BB.

If the big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago then light could have only traveled 13.8 billion light years in all directions, so that represents the radius of the finite universe, the diameter is 2 times the radius so the finite universe is a sphere 27.6 billion light years in diameter and growing at nearly the speed of light, THAT IS THE FINITE UNIVERSE the area of the finite universe with matter in it is much smaller then the area of space with just light in it, because light travels much faster then matter. The area of the finite universe with matter in it is the only part of the universe with gravity. Like I was saying gravity never actually disappears, it just get's weaker with distance, so no matter how far away you are from the source of gravity, gravity still acts on you even if that force is incredibly weak.

Gravity acts on light, just very weakly I know this to be true because light gets pulled into a black hole via the force of gravity there-fore gravity acts on light. so even on the far edges of the finite universe (which is only occupied by light) gravity still acts on that light just super weakly, over the coarse of billions of years light will be curved a fraction of a degree until eventually it gets bent enough to find its orbit around the finite universe. I hope that clarified what I meant when I said the "finite universe" and "light orbit", This concept is not exactly simple so I understand why you were confused, I should have described that bit in more detail. If you still have questions concerning this concept feel free to ask.

look at this diagram (it should help you understand what I'm talking about if your a mathematical kind of guy)



This diagram represents the finite universe. Q represents the area of the finite universe with matter and light in it. A represents the area of the finite universe with "just" light in it and E represents the rate at which the "A" is expanding. Right now the diameter of A is 27.6 billion light years across and expanding at the rate of E which is the "nearly" speed of light, it will slow down as light is curved over billions of years untill it stops and light finds it's orbit.
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 19:32:43 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #46 on: 24/02/2014 20:26:32 »
Thanks SS, that makes the picture clearer.  Not being one who has any facility worth mentioning in maths, it will take me a while to mull over the bits about the size of the Universe, but I feel sure there will be questions.

So far, I have this mental image:  The inner “sanctum” is the universe with matter.  This is expanding into the universe with only light, which, in turn, is expanding into the infinite universe.  The universe with light is expanding faster than the universe with matter, so the latter will never catch up with, or fill the former.  Am I on the right track so far?

BTW, I hope you don't mind my referring to you as "SS"; it's pure laziness, so I can stop if it offends you.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #47 on: 24/02/2014 20:53:35 »
Bill S

It sounds like you get the gist of what I'm talking about. But I wonder if you got the part about "light orbit" around Q (the inner sanctum) the force of gravity will pull on the light on the outer edges of A (the part of the finite universe with only light in it) The pull will be very weak but will eventually cause light to orbit Q This orbit will be super gigantic because light is barley effected by gravity. At that point light will spiral inward slowly and eventually get sucked into the singularity. In much the same way planets orbit the sun and will eventually get sucked into it. When this happens the finite universe will stop expanding and begin to shrink.

The same is true for Q Which will eventually become the singularity. all the matter in the Q will become a super black hole. then billions of years will pass before the light on the outer edges of A will be pulled in too. when the singularity pulls in every last photon then it will implode into another big bang.

And no I'm not offended by the nick name SS, it makes no difference to me if you chose to call me that (it's just a nick name)   :D
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 20:55:07 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline Conspirologist

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #48 on: 25/02/2014 01:48:31 »
Seems legit, a brilliant theory sorcerer! But what do you call this theory of yours? I know it shares many parallels with the big crunch theory but you describe it in so much more detail you even account for dark energy and in the process you may have actually figured out what dark energy is! Incredible!

I know it's not my place to name your theory but might I suggest the universal atom theory? Because according to you the universe is like one big atom, and instead of an electron cloud the universe has a photon cloud.

I was thinking about your theory a little and I was wondering something, you leave out "dark matter" from your theory, I'm curious to hear what you think dark matter is. you've convinced me that dark energy is in fact gravity waves. well what's dark matter?
« Last Edit: 25/02/2014 04:31:35 by Conspirologist »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #49 on: 25/02/2014 22:22:09 »
SS.

I get the bit about the "light orbit" around Q.  What I am not clear about is the relationship between the finite universe and the infinite universe.

Is the infinite universe a permanent fixture?  Does it provide space and/or time through which the finite universe travels?

Because you have light and matter travelling at different speeds, I assume they are travelling through something rather than being carried along by expanding spacetime.  Is that a right impression?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #49 on: 25/02/2014 22:22:09 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums