21

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 11/12/2019 23:57:16 »

I am not by any means suggesting that black holes are escapable in our universe except that they could in theory evaporate by Hawking radiation over an incredibly vast time provided the universe was cold enough. 

Currently the microwave background is far too hot for any stellar mass or larger black hole to loose energy.

From the Hawking radiation calculator, for a black hole to have a Hawking radiation temperature equal to the 2.725 deg K background radiation it would have to have a mass of .00754 of the mass of the earth (4.5E19 metric tons) and have a radius of  6.6 micrometers.  So for a black hole to evaporate it must be smaller than this.

What I am suggesting is that the newly created  universe expands in totally different "spatial" dimensions that exist in our universe but are currently very small and "wrapped up".  These "wrapped up" dimensions are an accepted part of most string and cosmological theories.

If you look at the maths  the collapse of some dimensions leads to an expansion of others.  The simplest illustration is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle  as you squash the space dimension the time dimension becomes more uncertain and expands.

As you cross an event horizon and continue the collapse space becomes "time like" in its unidirectional progress towards the "singularity" and time becomes space like and expands to become multidimensional and multidirectional through uncertainty.  ref Penrose "The road to reality"

22

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 09/12/2019 11:24:06 »

Halc you are producing fatuous and not properly thought out arguments here for example in talking about pulling things out with strings what about the weight and strength of the string. 

I appreciate that you are one of the moderators here and have some knowledge of physics but i would really like to have a proper discussion with a good mathematical physicist well versed in gravitation and cosmology and not someone who has been blinded by a lot of the "gee whizz" presentations of many popular authors.

Can I recommend that you start by reading Roger Penrose  "The road to reality"  this should clear out a lot of your initial hangups on what after all is only the preamble for what I am trying to get over.  It provides a really good introduction to proper mathematical physics.  I have read it several times and use it as a reference on many topics.

In reality  the most fundamental message that I am trying to get over is that:-

Not thinking seriously about the physical processes that happen inside event horizons, as defined by the point at which the escape velocity from a gravitational felt of a body reaches the velocity of light and no more information other than hawking radiation,   is just the same as thinking that what is happening in our own universe at the moment is not interesting because thermodynamics tells us that everything will in our universe will end with the "heat death" and stasis.

I am in the process of creating a third approach to my concept of an evolutionary cosmology in which I will present the concept in a series of small logical and scientific steps together with a simple statement of the cosmological concept.

I am also developing a slightly modified Penrose Diagram illustrating the whole process ver simply.

I plan to post these here shortly.

23

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 29/11/2019 23:48:00 »

Long lived Complex nuclei at least up to the complexity of iron (the last exothermal synthesis nucleus) are essential  for the development of stars as we know them today and the nucleosynthesis processes that lead to core collapse in supernovae that create black holes. 

If there were no stable nuclei beyond say lithium. Stars would be very different.  Smaller ones would fade out as the proton proton reaction ran out of fuel.  Large stars would evaporate to become smaller as the radiation pressure dispersed them by their stellar winds. 

The only black holes would be created by extreme mass stars (100s of solar masses) which can (in theory) collapse directly into black holes without first dispersing themselves by the pressure of the high radiation outflows.   

These conditions existed shortly after the end of the "dark ages" as the universe re-ionised although the large stellar winds seeded the universe with nuclei of carbon nitrogen and oxygen (ie created metallicy)  and allowed the standard population 1 stars (low metallicy) stars to form.  The sun is a population 2 star with a much higher metallicy.

We have not yet observed any of these high stellar mass primordial black holes all though a very high mass one (75 solar masses If I remember it right) has been observed in a binary star recently.

It is also essential to have a particularly accurately defined metastable resonance in a carbon nucleus (predicted originally by Fred Hoyle and later observed in fact to allow nucleosynthesis to jump the "beryllium gap" caused by the fact that 2 helium atoms do not have a metastable resonance to form an isotope of beryllium.

As all this involves bare nuclei in a very hot plasma.  The low temperature electron shell (chemical) interactions of carbon that are essential for life like us are totally irrelevant.

Another important aspect of the evolutionary cosmology concept is that the initial core collapse conditions from the Neutron (or possibly Quark) core star that that form a stellar mass black hole are probably quite precisely defined.  This happens when conditions exceed their version of the Chandrassakar limit in the formation of a white dwarf star.     This would in turn be expected to define quite precisely the size and properties of the emergent universe. 

So far I have been unable to find a good reference on this part of the process

24

New Theories / Re: Is the designation "positive" and "negative" in electricity arbitrary?

« on: 27/11/2019 10:43:59 »

I am sorry to contradict this.  There may be logical reasons why the choice was made in the first place but the choice is an arbitrary one.

25

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 27/11/2019 10:26:44 »

The only information that particles inside the event horizon receive are of course other particles and photons falling through the horizon if they chance to interact with them.

Now if you were in a space ship that thad fallen into a quiet supermassive black hole as described in my example on reply 18 above and also reply 5  (page 6)  above. 
That is chosen  to avoid being fried by the energy of material trying to lose angular momentum to get across the event horizon and the excessive gravitational gradients that would tear you apart.
You would see absolutely nothing at all except for the very cold residual radiation due to the hawking radiation associated with the increasing gravitational gradient.   As you continued your fall this radiation would gradually increase as the gravitational gradient increased.    However you would be torn apart by the gravitational gradient long before things got too hot to deny you that experience!

You must remember   from  http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ to  get a hawking radiation temperature of 40 deg C from the gradient the radius of the black hole has to have shrunk to a mere 600 nanometers.

26

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: A reported object travelling faster than the speed of light?

« on: 26/11/2019 18:00:36 »

You do not give us enough detail to identify precisely the report you talk about. 

However there are several cases of observations of  astronomical "objects" apparently moving faster than light.  The reason is that the moving source of light is not in fact moving but is a shell or layer that is illuminated by a pulse of light or a moving beam of light or particles that cause light emission.

Consider pointing a powerful continuous and steerable laser up at a low angle into the clear sky illuminating clouds in the distance and changing its angle by one radian  (around 60 degrees) in one millisecond.  Say there was a cloud 30 kilometres away  This is an experiment that can be done.

The spot of illumination by the laser on the cloud would move 30 kilometres in one millisecond  that is at an apparent speed of 30,000 kilometres per sec.  Now if this cloud was  300 kilometres away the spot would be moving at the speed of light.  Any further away and the spot will be moving faster than the speed of light.  Nothing is actually moving faster than light but it is possible to see a bright spot moving faster than the speed of light.

27

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 19/11/2019 17:30:52 »

Appendix 1

On the dimensionality of space-time

The Dimensionality of a potentially metastable and long lived universe
 
This is an important paper on this topic
 
“On the dimensionality of space-time”      By Max Tegmark 

Go to the link for the important image which is also attached below.  I have included the abstract and some further comments below
 
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf
 
Abstract. Some superstring theories have more than one effective low-energy limit corresponding to classical spacetimes with different dimensionalities. We argue that all but the (3 + 1)-dimensional one might correspond to ‘dead worlds’, devoid of observers, in which case all such ensemble theories would actually predict that we should find ourselves inhabiting a (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime. With more or less than one time dimension, the partial differential equations of nature would lack the hyperbolicity property that enables observers to make predictions. In a space with more than three dimensions, there can be no traditional atoms and perhaps no stable structures. A space with less than three dimensions allows no gravitational force and may be too simple and barren to contain observers.
 
     Additional comment
This concept is a vital trigger for the possibility of the matter - antimatter oscillation concept in the black hole evolutionary universe.  The important aspect of of CPT conservation is that a collapsing universe of matter by CPT transformation is turned into an expanding universe of antimatter.  The quoted description of Tachyons ( matter particles travelling faster than light)  is just another way of looking at antimatter  that is particles travelling backwards through time.  This gets over one of the more fundamental criticisms that is how does this concept obey the laws of thermodynamics which would apply in any universe.
 
 
The relationship between dimensionality and conservation laws
 
Noethers Theorem (QV)   demonstrates that symmetries define conservation laws notably  translational  and rotational symmetry require the conservation of energy and angular momentum respectively
 
Energy conservation laws constrain the laws relating to the forces associated with long range fields based on the local dimensionality.  The classic inverse square law for gravity and electric fields is because we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions because the surface area of a sphere around a point increases as the square of the radius.  This defines the way the radiated energy is spread out as one moves away from the point source.  I have used the term "local dimensionality"  because most root cosmological theories envisage larger numbers of dimensions (possibly infinite) at the most fundamental levels of the bulk from which universes originate.
 
This can be seen in the cases of pseudo restricted dimensionality. For a source which is an “infinite” line we have only two local dimensions  and the energy is spread over the perimeter.  This becomes a simple inverse law and for an infinite plane flat surface radiator this spreading becomes a constant because the energy does not fall off.   This produces the reciprocal relationships in string theory.
 
Expanding this concept to more than three dimensions implies that the fields fall off as the number of dimensions less one;  for example, the case of four dimensions results in an inverse cube falloff of force with distance.  Inverse cube and higher laws do not allow stable orbits to form although other sorts of resonances may be possible.  As the dimensionality gets higher the and the inverse power laws related to force get higher the tendency to collapse to a singularity or a lower dimensionality becomes greater if there is any disturbance on total uniformity.   In all cases total uniformity is an unstable equilibrium and any disturbance causes expansion or collapse.
 
The inverse square law is the only one that allows reasonably stable orbits to form.  Any variation from this results in collapse or breakup of an orbit with the slightest disturbance from its metastable position.
 
The "relativity" of dimensions.
 
There is a strong tendency to consider our dimensions of space and time as sacrosanct and immutable.  This I believe is a mistake they are local properties of our universe and do change as event horizons are crossed where space becomes time like and time expands and becomes space like.  On needs to free one's thinking in this respect and think of dimensions more in the way that communications and information theory treats them.  See A2 Insights from communications and information theory.
 
As in Einsteinian Relativity of time and space dimensions are themselves relative so new dimensions can expand without interfering with dimensions that collapse.
 

28

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 19/11/2019 17:11:19 »

Page 0 of 10

Background to an evolutionary cosmology concept

I hope these notes help to provide a bit of the background thinking to the evolutionary cosmology theseis

Fundamental physics currently appears to be rather bogged down in a vast and complex array of potential theories produced by mathematical modelling.  What is needed is some way of creating some sort of guide as to how an area of theories that can be explored at a greater depth.  Some sort of physical insight will probably be needed to focus studies in the most productive directions.

It is also known that the laws of physics are very finely balanced to allow stars to make complex atoms that then explode to distribute these to catalyse the formation of stars and stellar mass black holes.  This thinking is most definitely not anthropic in origin.   It is probably purely coincidental that the availability of complex atoms and complex chemistry at modest temperatures this also allows intelligent and self aware life like ours to evolve.

The  concept of an Evolutionary Cosmology introduces a potentially disprovable idea that might help to stimulate  some new areas of study for theoretical physicists and cosmologists.  This might just help to unblock this impasse even if a lot of what is presented here is incorrect. 

The concept of an evolved universe has already been introduced by Lee Smolin in this book  "The Life Of The Cosmos"  where he suggests that the physical laws are balanced in a way that maximises the creation of black holes.  This takes this idea further and suggests the processes that might have allowed this to happen and makes initial suggestions as to how some aspects may be tested.

The first and most critical aspect of the concept is that the collapse of a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon (the Schwarzschild radius or Kerr radii for rotating black holes) to create the theoretical singularity at its centre will during this process release an infinite quantity of gravitational energy.

This is in some ways similar to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in electromagnetic theory which predicted unlimited energy coming from an unlimited electromagnetic collapse  This lead to the development of quantum theory in the first place and has therefore stimulated studies into generating quantum gravity by mathematical synthesis.  This approach suffers from the similar problems of many possibilities like fundamental particle string theory.

Although I personally see no reason not to consider the potential gravitational interactions at frequencies in a reasonable number of space-time dimensions where gravitational wave energies defined by the plank constant are similar to the rest masses of the particles.  OK I fully appreciate the scales will be fantastically small and well within the Planck scale of things but this could provide some insight.  It is also possible that these scales may also be the scales involved in the evolutionary cosmology proposals.

At the moment I am working on putting some reasonable numbers into these ideas.

There is also one other important reference that I would like to quote in relation to these ideas  this concerns the available dimensionalities of space time for reasonably metastable long lived universes.

29

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 18/11/2019 09:46:05 »

You are incorrect Halc and what you say is easily disproved.

It is obvious that from this point particles cannot be launched with sufficient energy to escape and similarly light cannot escape  it is after all a black hole.

But consider a spaceship trying to accelerate away from there even if it could manage the thrust needed ?
This is done with a simple total energy calculation that is independent of the method used to generate thrust.
Any particle falling freely from a great distance directly towards the black hole would have gained one rest mass of energy as it passed the horizon at something less than the speed of light.  ie Mgh +Mv²  ie Mc² where h is very big
That comes from integrating the inverse square law to this point .

It follows that it requires the input of one rest mass as defined by E= M.c²
So for every unit of mass you need the energy contained in another unit of mass to escape, but every unit of mass you add to your space ship you require another, so the ship cannot ever get out "under its own steam".

The real point I am trying to make at this stage of the argument is that there is absolutely nothing special about the Scwartschild radius it is just somewhere in space near a big mass that particles can only travel through in one direction.

Once we can get over this we can then proceed to a worthwhile discussion.

I think that I will express the main points what I am trying to describe in a different way 

After more than 20 years hard work on this topic having arguments with myself as to how to describe the concept of an Evolutionary Cosmology and failing to get others to understand what I am talking about I have tried a lot of different approaches.

There are several other approaches in http:/iankimber.pbworks.com   

30

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 17/11/2019 23:54:43 »

Yes, that gets you the Schwarzschild radius according to the escape velocity formula,

Ah  I think I now understand the problem in our communication.  This is the meaning of the term "event horizon".

When I say event horizon I mean the Schwarzschild radius for a simple isolated non rotating black hole.  That is the point at which no further communication to a distant observer is possible. This is more complex in the Kerr or rotating case

since I don't understand the meaning of a frame of reference of something at a singularity

It appears you are talking about what happens near a theoretical "singularity"  my arguments are essentially that this never happens.

What prevents it from happening.  In the first simple arguments it is just that a stasis can be reached via the energy outflow caused by the increasing gravity gradient at the "surface" (hawking radiation) overcomes the energy created by any further contraction towards the singularity.  I tend to equate this with what other writers have called the quantum firewall.

If we can get over this impasse we can work towards a proper discussion of the main thesis involving more realistic rotating (Kerr) black holes dealing with dimensionality and how the time like collapse of space towards the "linear" singularity of a Kerr black hole (the new time) and the three dimensional expansion space-like  time (space) can result in an expanding universe similar to ours dominated by antimatter and not matter as ours is. 

That is that alternate generations of an evolutionary cosmology are matter and antimatter dominated.

Maybe then I can even go on to present the predicted observations that could be made to help to confirm that this thesis may be correct or prove it incorrect

31

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 17/11/2019 18:34:40 »

Halc  You are still thinking incorrectly.  The reference you give from Wikipedia refers to what you would "see"and measure from a distant viewpoint as things vanished into the event horizon.  I am not talking about that.  What you see from a distance is not what is observed by the particles falling through a gravitational Field.

The viewpoint I am taking is what you would see and measure if you were travelling along with the particles and observing what is happening to other particles nearby,  True there are relativistic effects but they are not as severe from this viewpoint and things are much more "normal" and understandable and are in fact what is really going on.

Please remember that one of the most misunderstood fundamental truths about relativity is that things always look normal to you and anything else that is travelling at non relativistic velocities.   In the classic twin experiment both of the twins would say that time appeared to pass at a perfectly normal rate even though there may be a considerable difference in the the elapsed times shown by the clocks that they were both carrying.

let us now try to come to some points of agreement.

I presume that you agree that the radial position of the black hole event horizon in a spherical gravitational field created by an isolated (point) mass is defined by the point where the escape velocity equals the velocity of light according to the inverse square law  The rest of the properties follow simply from this according to the reference that I gave you.

32

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 16/11/2019 23:55:35 »

Sorry Halc but you are most definitely wrong in your thinking.

I have already given you the reference three times in this note.  Look at it.  It is a very well respected java tool.   http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

The event horizon is at the point where the escape velocity is equal to the velocity of light. 

Gravitational acceleration is not directly related to escape velocity
The gravitational acceleration of the earth is around 10 meters /second squared its escape velocity is around 11Km/second.  Note if the earth was converted into a black hole its radius would be just under 1cm but its escape velocity from a distance equal to the radius if the earth would not change  similarly if the sun was changed into a black hole it would have a radius of around 3km and the earth's orbit would not change.

Coming to your spaceship analogy
The most efficient propulsion system possible is that created by converting mass directly into energy of acceleration (This is not possible you can only get half of that in theory).  If you calculated the total energy consumption of the space ship needed to achieve that acceleration for long enough to escape the gravitational field to infinity it would have consumed its entire mass before it escaped.

The escape velocity of a gravitating body is
 v = sqrt(2GM/r). M is the mass of body, G is the gravitational constant, r is the radius of the body, and v the escape velocity
There are dozens of references to this on the web

Look at the formulae in black hole properties reference above and you will find the radius of a black hole is this formula rearranged to give a radius where this is the velocity of light.

33

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 16/11/2019 16:19:49 »

Thank you all for your arguments.  This is just the sort of criticism I was hoping for.  What I hear quoted to me is a lot of standard quotes from the many books that I have read on the properties of black holes and our vision of particles/objects that interact with them as viewed from the outside.

Can I stress again that What I am talking about is what based on our knowledge of physics and relativity will happen in the early stages of the collapse inside the event horizon 

To help illustrate this let me consider an isolated large black hole with a mass of around 10E9 solar masses  the sort of thing that exists at the centre of many large galaxies but without the complications of a lot of other material nearby orbiting it at high speeds  I will use the results from  the website http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/  to illustrate what it event horizon looks like.

Its radius is   19.75  AU  or about  3E9 KM   Very similar to the orbit of Uranus

Its surface gravity is  around 1550 earth gravities.    Compare this with the surface gravity of a white dwarf star of 350,000 gravities.   Physical laws are not distorted under these conditions.

The gravity gradient at the surface is only  about 1E-9  Less than that on the earth

It is quite clear that a theoretical space ship could cross this without any stress problems

Furthermore interacting particles at around the velocity of light could easily cause some to slow down and drop through this horizon with no problems.

Consider now a typical ten solar mass black hole with a radius of about 30 KM  the surface gravitational stress is
10e8 metres/second per meter.  Consider the gravitational stress on a hydrogen atom with a radius of about 0.5A as it passes across the event horizon.  It would be slightly distorted but not torn apart.  Large objects may be torn apart and spaghettified but atoms face no problems (other than the high temperature interactions with each other!)

So I am pretty sure that there is nothing special about the event horizon itself except that you are no longer interacting with the rest of the universe outside of it.

The rest of my arguments then follow using current well established gravitational and quantum mechanical theory.

So there is no reason not to look into the behaviour of material during the collapse inside the black hole right up to the energy limits set by the large Hadron collider.  This will be considerably short of the final limits where the collapse turns into an expansion as a nascent new big bang but may help to understand the processes that will be happening like the creation of lots and lots more particles and mass.

34

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 16/11/2019 09:21:08 »

Thank you all for your replies  now to get down to the answers which I will take in chronological order

Halc. 12:25   15 nov 
Clearly my title "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology possible?"  declares my bias.  I am trying to explain how I believe that an evolutionary cosmology could work within the bounds of current thinking  and cannot expand all the arguments in this restricted format.  For several views of my thesis go to my website and follow through into my PBworks PublicWiki.   Note I do not normally allow others to comment on this wiki it is just that I am used to working and organising my thinking in this format rather than a conventional web page.

       http://iankimber.pbworks.com/w/page/10732331/FrontPage

This text did not include the other attempt by a recongnised experienced scientist to take this approach to cosmology  that is Fred Hoyle's "continuous creation"  hypothesis back in the 1940s-50s  (I remember it well!)  This suggested that a continuously expanding universe could be a stasis by the creation of a very small and undetectable number of hydrogen atoms from the quantum mechanical vacuum.  This was proved not to be the case by the proof that our universe evolves and changes through time (big bang theory).

Halc. 15:59   15 nov 
The shadow left by your mother was your umbilicus and the placenta which came out some time after you were born. In the same way the black hole that internally created a universe as large and complex as ours in a different set of dimensions from ours will fade out and vanish in time.

Read further and think.  Consider the physical evolution of particles atoms and stars through time  which we understand quite well and use the analogy to consider ow physical laws might evolve.  physical evolution in a cooling universe favours things that last longest in time. our laws settle out forma an infinite dimensional potential the way they do because they tend to favour the things that last longest in a metastable state.

Thermodynamics is not violated by my proposals and the energy (and mass!) created by the collapse of the matter inside the event horizon cannot be observed outside.

Now a couple of general notes to thinkers on this subject

      There is no reason to believe that physical laws change abruptly as an event horizon is crossed.  Also the gravity and gravitational gradient at event horizons in our universe are not excessive in terms of individual particle interactions.  That only come much later in the collapse well inside the first horizon.

      What we see of material entering the event horizon is irrelevant what happens is what the individual leptons and quarks "experience" as they interact furiously a vast number of times in their relatively long passage towards the theoretical "singularity".

35

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 15/11/2019 12:07:04 »

ADDENDUM 

The above 9 pages plus page 0 below completes my first presentation on this complete topic
There are partial presentation on these concepts in the "new theories" area about 5 or 6 years ago

I have not posted or answered questions here for some years and had thought these pages had gone off air

This is a fuller development of ideas I presented some time ago

I would appreciate comments and confirmation that I have not made any fundamental mistakes in what I think is a concept well worth some serious study.

For a look at my work in progress and other approaches to describing this idea go to https://iankimber.org

36

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 15/11/2019 11:56:33 »

Page 9 of 10

Part 3  Local view of the particles and space time
 
This is a vital part of this thought experiment.  Relativity rules apply!  There is a strong tendency for people to visualise black holes as looking from the outside as if the event horizon was transparent this is bad thinking, it is important to consider what this "universe" looks like from the point of view of the particles involved as the space time collapses towards this theoretical ring (or toroidal) singularity.
 
Orbital motion implies that there is always a certain amount of coherency in the particle movements.  Initially the temperature will rise as gravitational energy is released and then “cool down” as particles are created and motions become more and more coherent,  The gravitational field and potential will become higher and particle velocities closer and closer to the velocity of light and particle interactions less frequent.
 
Although the particles are moving in a tight set of toroidal "orbits" around a linear orbit around the main centre of gravity,  from the point of view of the individual particles time dilation will mean that they will become more spaced out from their own point of view.
 
It is also important to consider the effects of the local "dimensional restriction" on the conservation laws.  The classic inverse square law requires the existence of three local dimensions. 
 
Now the standard texts describe that inside the event horizon space becomes time like and time space like.  Roger Penrose with his Penrose diagrams of space and time considers the possibility of moving past "the singularity" to get to another universe like a wormhole.  Can I now suggest that we consider that the "time like" space collapses towards a linear or toroidal surface singularity to become time in a new universe  and the "space like" time expands to become space in a set of dimensions different from the space that has just collapsed.
 
It is now interesting to note that antimatter is often described in texts as identical to ordinary matter running backwards through time so it seems likely that our new universe could be dominated by what is in our universe called antimatter.  It is also interesting to note that in a paper by Max Tegmark there are two stable universe conditions one with three dimensions and one of time and one with three dimensions of time and one of space but this latter universe contains only tachyons i.e. particles travelling faster than light now relativity states that particles travelling faster than light “move backwards in time” that is they would be identical to antiparticles in our universe.   Please note particle antiparticle asymmetry  is an important symmetry breaking that is not discussed properly in the standard theory of the development of our own big bang but is now observed in high energy physics experiments.
 
This could now represent a process similar to our observed big bang however the process has also been "seeded" with particles from our universe and although there may be changes on physical laws,  There will be restraints caused by this seeding.
 
After this collapse process has happened, further material may fall through the original event horizon  but it will appear only as a small number of extremely high energy (antimatter?)  particles in the vast new universe that has in effect expanded from the small amount of matter that first created the "singularity" in the black hole. This may result in one of the potentially observable confirmations of these concepts.

37

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 15/11/2019 11:51:33 »

Page 8 of 10

  Part 2  The Reversal Problem
I understand from comments in other review papers there are some mathematical Physicists working on the problem of converting a collapsing system into an expanding "big bang".  clearly this is a vital requirement for the concepts presented here to work and currently I can think of three physical properties that might do this of which any or all may describe the process of converting a collapse towards a singularity to a big bang when seen from the point of view of the particles involved.
 
To clear up any uncertainty it is clearly not possible  whatever happens for the results to explode out of the event horizon because that is irrevocably sealed and limited by the physical laws in our or any other similar universe.  There are however plenty more dimensions available for expansion to occur because all main theories of everything have far more than the conventional three of space and one of time available to them.
 
          Firstly Supersymmetry
Supersymmetry includes both bosonic and fermionic particles of all types this could include the concept of a gravitino a particle that interacts only through gravity but has the property of fermionic exclusion.  This in effect will create a repulsive gravity effect and would reverse collapse provided it‘s interaction couplings were appropriate to prevent it from becoming totally relativistic at the energies involved in the final stages of collapse when it would be generated. 
 
          Secondly  Matter- Antimatter symmetry 
There is a broken symmetry between matter and antimatter that is as yet unexplained and this could be caused by the geometry of the collapse, which is not totally symmetrical.  This would also play a part in establishing the large-scale geometry of the resulting universe, which may be detectable at the limits in our universe.
 
          Thirdly Relativistic dilations
It may just be a relativistic effect of the way a universe looks from the point of view of something that is inside it.   That is, what are really small dimensions just "look" large because of the coherent behavior of the particles involved.  Remember relativity says time and space always look perfectly "normal" to you and with things that are moving in the same way and in a similar gravitational field to you.   Time and space only distort in your perspective when you look to places where fields and velocities are different that is at a distance.  Let us look at this third and as I see it most important effect
 

38

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 15/11/2019 11:49:08 »

Page 7 of 10

A more detailed analysis of a Rotating black hole inside its event horizon
 
     Part 1 An overall view of the collapse process
 
Firstly let us assume for simplicity that the angular momentum is (slightly) less than the absolute maximum that the mass of the hole may contain and that no further matter or radiation are coming into the hole.   The gravitational collapse continues inside the event horizon.  The initial collapse will continue, the particles will interact and the material will heat up further.  Let us assume that it is rotating as a fluid body and eventually the outer surface will be rotating with a velocity approaching that of light at the equator and this cannot contract further.  Particle interactions will then cause the angular momentum to be shared out and the inner particles will gain more angular momentum and it will settle down to a toroidal structure heading towards the theoretical "ring singularity" as described by the Kerr solution to the equations.  (see  virial theorem)
 
It is unlikely that there is no residual angular momentum in other dimensions so as this settling down continues a toroidal rotation in one direction around the orbital axis will happen and the end result is likely to be a toroidal surface. Particles will be spiralling round the position of the theoretical ring singularity.   However a significant local change has taken place. There has been a change in the local dimensionality from spherical (3 dimensions) to cylindrical (2 dimensions) which means that the local gravity follows an inverse first power law rather than an inverse square law.  (see the appendix dimensionality of universes and conservation laws) this slows down any collapse allows more freedom of movement and will result in the particles oscillating about the theoretical ring singularity axis.
 
Now consider in detail what happens on the smaller scale as the collapse continues.  As the temperature rises, collisions between particles will become more violent and particle antiparticle pairs will be created.  This will in effect drain energy and angular velocity from the system and reduce the temperature rise. The increased mass will also allow the torus to collapse to a smaller diameter thus releasing more gravitational energy.
 
Electron pair production cooling processes have already been considered as the process driving some rare exceptionally violent large supernovas.
 
A balance of annihilation and creation of particles will be achieved but it is known that there can be a slight imbalance that allow one form of matter to dominate in time this may well be related to the final stable geometry established.  This means that the collapse process will create a lot more matter(or antimatter?).   The collapse process will also gradually cause a cooling down of the temperature as the particles and radiation settle down to their orbits the energy differentials reduce and the mean free time between collisions will increase.
 
So far there is one big omission in this analysis and that is the effect that all this is happening with the particles moving in orbits at relativistic velocities and the effect of frame dragging or gravitomagnetism has not been considered these effects cannot easily be included in this thought experiment at this time and will probably require more expert analysis than I can provide but here is a suggestion. one of the main analyses of the Kerr black hole shows a gravitational repulsion effect in some areas of the space around the ring singularity and this leads us on to the next question.
 

39

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 15/11/2019 11:46:55 »

Page 6 of 10

The Continued Collapse inside Black Hole
 
The first and most obvious question to answer is, could a universe as large and complex as ours come from the collapse of a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon?
 
It is accepted that the basic physics does not change as the event horizon is crossed and locally there are no significant changes other than the increasing gravity gradient. Let us then consider the collapse of material inside a stellar mass black hole starting immediately after an event horizon has first formed.  Let us initially consider the simple Schwarzschild or non-rotating and balanced charge case .
 
The collapsing material is hot and turbulent and will continue heat up as a result of the release of gravitational potential energy being turned into kinetic energy.   As it collapses further the gravitational field continues to increase as the inverse square of the radius.
 
Let us consider the collapse of a spherical mass from radius r to r/2.  Simple mechanics shows that an individual particle at the surface of this mass will gain energy in proportion to the reciprocal of the radius change  ie 1/r  as the radius change is r/2   the value of the radius disappears!  that is a constant amount of energy is converted from potential to kinetic energy for every halving of the radius of the collapsing mass.  This will tend to infinity as r approaches zero.  So the total energy confined within the event horizon heads towards infinity.
 
This collapse is over a finite distance and takes a finite time. but the conditions under which it takes place allow the particles to have a vast number of interactions while it takes place.  It follows that in the collapse of even a small stellar mass black hole there is therefore plenty of energy available to create a whole new universe as large as or even larger than our own observable universe.  There is also sufficient time for particles to interact and multiply by pair production as the temperature rises.  Note the creation of new mass by pair production will also increase the gravitational field and cool the the collapsing mass.  With this amount of energy available inside the event horizon any subsequent material falling into the black hole after the initial collapse event has taken place is largely irrelevant and will be discounted at this stage of this presentation.
 
Mathematics clearly states that once the event horizon has formed, the matter inside a non-rotating black hole collapses to a mathematical singularity of zero dimensions containing an infinite quantity of energy within a finite time.  This is clearly very bad physics and does not make sense in the real world but it is what all the textbooks say and most people accept.  Essentially I see this as a way of saying, something must happen but we have no idea what!  I have been unable to find any analysis of what might be an attempt to work towards real physical solution to this by analysing this collapse in detail as far as our current understanding of high energy physics allows but  I will offer you a simple and fully plausible one based totally upon accepted physics now.
 
Let us assume we have a body collapsing under gravity in empty space and forming a black hole.  Let us assume that no other particles or radiation are entering the hole.
 
Consider the instant that the event horizon forms.  This is the moment that photons cannot escape "to infinity" however particles will be interacting at the collapse surface and radiating photons and particles in all directions.  Photons and particles created by interactions close to the surface of the collapsing mass can always escape some short distance from the contracting central mass before being dragged back into the main body of matter.  The photons will travel the furthest.  Let us call this limit the "photon sphere". The collapsing mass will be inside this "photon sphere" although the particles will be travelling at speeds quite close to the velocity of light so this will not be very much inside this limit.  The "photon sphere" represents a sort of second "event horizon" defining the limit of the radiation from the collapsing mass.  As the gravitational field increases this photon sphere will contract with the rest of the mass.  Between this and the real event horizon in our universe superficially there is absolutely nothing other than the quantum mechanical vacuum as long as no matter or radiation is falling into the hole.
 
Now this Photon sphere may represent the “firewall” inside a black hole that recent quantum studies have talked about but the important thing it is not as you initially cross the first event horizon to infinity but much deeper inside the structure.
 
Now is there absolutely nothing between the event horizon to infinity and the firewall?    It is currently accepted that the event horizon of a black hole to our universe radiates energy in the form of Hawking radiation and that this can cause black holes in totally empty space to decay very slowly to nothing.  The total energy radiated is proportional to the gravitational gradient at the event horizon. (see ref below) This energy loss is incredibly small for all gravitational gradients that we can expect to encounter in our universe.  However as the gradient increases it increases without limit.  That is, a gravitational gradient radiates energy away from a gravitating source into its photon sphere.
 
This result implies that the photon sphere of material collapsing inside the event horizon of a Schwarzschild Black Hole will radiate energy in proportion to the gravitational gradient at its surface.   This radiation will of course eventually fall back into the hole but it will take some time doing it, let us call this time the "return time". 
 
The rate of energy loss over the return time is in effect a drain on the total energy in the hole.   As the main mass continues to contract towards the "singularity" and the gravitational gradients increase further this energy loss rate will increase as the inverse square of the radius  (source http://http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ )  The energy gain by the collapse as worked out above increases only as the inverse first power of the radius.  This means that the energy loss would eventually overtake the energy gain from gravity and the structure will become a stable (tiny) radiating fuzzball of an incredible but non infinite quantity of energy. 
 
Note this estimate is only very rough and does not take into account the effect of changes in the return time.   Again using  http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/  and inputting that the radiated energy should be around  10e20 solar luminosities to approximately equal that of the whole observable universe comes out with the result that the radius would be around the Planck length.  However small this is still vastly bigger than the infinitesimal size of a mathematical point.  It may also be the starting point for our first and most important constant, the constant of quantum mechanics itself, the Planck constant.
 
The non-rotating black hole is of course also a mathematical simplification.  All black holes will contain some angular momentum and follow the Kerr structure.  This approach will be the start of the next stage of the argument.
 

40

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible?

« on: 15/11/2019 11:44:09 »

Page 5 of 10

Real and Imaginary Concepts
 
The main mathematics of quantum field theory operates using imaginary or complex numbers and in order to return the probability of a particular quantum event it is required convert them back to real numbers.  Wave theory and standard engineering understand these arise from oscillatory or repetitive processes.  This could be a hint to the nature of the underlying nature of the physical processes behind the mathematics.  Please note I am not in any way implying that there is any sort of absolute solution which gets rid of the probabilistic nature of the quantum processes but that like the original De Broglie there are underlying resonant drivers involved.
 
Moving On
 
The next stage is to look a little deeper at the two processes that I have described above and check if it is possible, using physical rather than pure mathematical processes, in the most basic sense, to end up with a universe as large and complex as ours by applying them. Hopefully this will then be able to be linked into the vast array of mathematical thinking that already exists and lead to a real breakthrough in fundamental physics and cosmology leading to a true "theory of everything".