41

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

« on: 15/11/2019 11:42:36 »

Page 4 of 10

The nature of our physical laws and the constants that determine their interaction.
 
The values of the critical physical constants are often described as a result of "random" symmetry breaking as the universe cools from its initial extremely hot conditions.  However physical experience shows that in real life when symmetries are broken in this way what happens is usually far from random, often producing structure of great order, because of the interactions of the particles involved. A good example of this is crystallisation.  This also applies in the quantum world.  Even a glassy transition to a semi random and chaotic but stable structure has order in it.  What I am trying to say is the laws that we observe are not the result of random but resonant processes that effectively extend the time for which any structures associated with underlying interaction probabilities exist for long enough to be observed outside of the veil of the uncertainty principle.  The suggestion therefore is that the processes that will be favoured as things settle out are the ones that will extend interaction longevity the greatest.  That is resonant and or recycling processes.  This creates an evolutionary drive in physical processes that may be initially seen to be purely random. It also fits well with the mathematical process that calculates the probabilities of various observations happening.
 
Mathematics is and always will be a powerful tool for analysis and synthesis.  However it does have limitations in that physical process simplifications always have to be made to the model to allow the process to be modeled.   A good example of this can be seen in "string theory" in which an arbitrary concept of a resonant vibrating string is used to replace the concept of point particles.  This has produced a vast array of potential models which could possibly result in a universe like ours but it says nothing about the nature of the "string",  which is essentially the simplest concept after a point and it allows awkward infinities to be avoided.  All this work is good but it will need some sort of physical insight to point the way towards the more likely models.  I would like to suggest that the simplest physical insight is that of a local space-time vortex creating a linear structure along its axis.  This could initially be conceived considering gravitationally driven vortices in space time along classical lines similar to the de Broglie resonant electrons and that the development of a concept of relativistic space time computational fluid dynamics could prove interesting.

42

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

« on: 15/11/2019 11:40:45 »

Page 3 of 10

   The evolution of physical laws
 We now need to think a little more deeply about the potential "evolution" of the physical laws and "constants" that define how these physical laws interact.  At this stage In the thinking process I will discuss the ideas in the most general way.
 
The first part of this process is to stress the fact that it is important to bear in mind the physics underlying the way our universe operates.  Quantum mechanical uncertainty defines a “veil” of space and time within which we cannot observe individual events but only observe the collective results of what is going on behind the veil.  These results are described with great precision by the mathematics of quantum field theory.   The basic mathematics of this involves integrals of wave functions over all of space and time (within the universe) describing in a probabilistic way the positions and motions of particles that can be observed outside of the veil of uncertainty.  Within this veil almost anything that is allowed can (and possibly does) happen.
 
The very success of the pure mathematics of quantum field theory has to an extent hidden the physical insights underlying the origins of quantum mechanics from more recent generations of mathematical physicists.   Let us go back to the early origins of quantum theory and consider the original de Broglie model of the Hydrogen atom which led to the full development of quantum theory.
 
This showed that the electron orbitals of the isolated hydrogen atom were essentially "cavity resonances" of the electron De Broglie wavelength.  This is an experimentally observable wave property of electrons that is defined by the electron's momentum.   Considering an electron as a particle "orbiting" the nucleus under electrostatic attraction it is clear that under certain conditions the De Broglie wavelength will resonate with the orbital period.  Quantum uncertainty adds "noise" to this process resulting in the familiar statistical spread of the orbitals determined by the results of quantum electrodynamics.  The process of adding in this noise involves infinite integrals over all of space and time.  Following this sort of dynamic analysis to more complex atoms gets extremely difficult particularly as energies get higher and momenta get relativistic.
 
High energy nucleon interactions producing mesons were also originally viewed as resonances producing subatomic particles that were metastable.
 
All this was superseded by the mathematical simplification of the Dirac notation and quantum electro and chromo dynamics. This takes these infinite integrals over all of space and time (within the universe) as symbols that can be manipulated.  This has tended to hide the underlying physical principles of these integrals from succeeding generations of quantum physicists.
 
String theory also sees particles as resonances in waves that create persistent effects.  What I am trying to illustrate is that there are "physical" processes going on inside the uncertainty veil, which produce longer term observable effects.   Current teaching of quantum mechanics tends to ignore this physical background in favour of the much more precise and successful pure mathematical quantum field theory.

43

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

« on: 15/11/2019 11:34:15 »

Page 2 of 10

What are the basic requirements for a multiverse consisting of evolving universes?
 
    An origin for universes
Firstly we need to have a process for the origin of universes.  Currently most thinking avoids this question by saying "some sort" of quantum process could kick things off.   This may well be enough at the very beginning.  However for an evolutionary process we need more.  We need a process in which a universe can itself, or by some interaction between universes can create other universes.
 
    What would its properties be?
It would have to be where part of the universe is cut off from the rest of the originating universe(s) by some process and then continues on with its own existence independently leaving only a shadow of its creation.  Ideally it should also be seeded in some way with elements of the originating universe.
 
    Are we aware of such a process?
Currently we are well aware of a process like this. That is, the creation of a black hole during the latter stages in the life of a high mass star.  This is the most common sort of black hole in our universe.  So that is a good place to start.  The big question is how can such a small object lead to a big universe?.  The simple answer is that the process of collapse to a singularity under an inverse square law not only results in an infinite energy density it also releases an infinite quantity of energy! 
This is simply provable by considering the energy released by a thin massive spherical shell of matter collapsing under the gravity of the mass inside the shell that is also collapsing towards a theoretical singularity.
This energy  is (largely)  invisible to observers outside the black hole and is ample to create a universe that is large and complex.
 
    The results of the process will probably depend on starting conditions
That is the sort of universe that is created by this process will be dependant to some extent  on the actual conditions for the universe creation   It therefore follows that having a reasonably precisely defined process for the creation of a new universe would be a good idea.  The compressed collapse of the core of a high mass star will probably define quite precisely the moment the event horizon first forms.  This gives us the conditions that we need for the process.

44

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

« on: 15/11/2019 11:18:52 »

Page 1 of 10
Introduction
There are several books and papers pointing out how the main physical constants that define the properties and evolution of our universe are very finely balanced if complex atoms stars and even life itself can exist.  In his book Life and the Universe Lee Smolin suggests that it appears that these constants are very close to those needed to create the maximum number of stellar mass black holes. He goes on to suggest that this may be a hint that some sort of evolutionary process could be involved.  These initial concepts are presented in this excellent you tube Video By space time

This short note examines this possibility and aims to establish and takes in much further with more details of the possible processes involved to create a credible and disprovable hypothesis that could be expanded by others with greater skills than myself.
 
Background
Firstly a bit of background about well established current thinking in cosmology.  From observation and the extrapolation of the physical laws as currently understood our universe had a very hot smooth extreme density beginning followed by expansion cooling and the formation of atoms, stars, galaxies and a generalised stringy structure of clusters of galaxies. It will end with a slow cooling and fading into nothingness.  The origins of the universe and the values of the critical physical constants that define its evolution are in the absence of any evidence initially considered to be set randomly consequently it appears that a universe with properties like ours would be highly improbable. To get round this problem there is a tendency to think that there must be a vast number of isolated bubble universes existing in a Multiverse.  Alternatively it leaves open the possibility that there is some sort of sentient creator of universes.  Both of these approaches are very philosophically unattractive and stilted
 
Initial thinking
If a universe through its life could create other universes a totally different scenario could be imagined  furthermore if there existed among all the possibilities one (or more) ways in which a universe could create during its life other isolated universes substantially similar to itself these sorts of universes could rapidly dominate any other universes that could happen by random events and make it probable that we might find ourself in a universe of this kind.

Proposition
I propose to suggest a way in which this might be possible totally in line with current observational and theoretical physics and astronomy and also suggest that it is tractable to current and near future theoretical and practical skills and potentially disprovable and will post more on this topic shortly  however if you wish to preempt this.  current work in progress this area may be seen on https://iankimber.org .

45

New Theories / Re: Evolutionary cosmology

« on: 16/10/2014 10:58:09 »

I have not visited this page for quite a long time but I have just Googled evolutionary cosmology and find it a  the top of the list.  Things have progressed quite a lot with my thinking since i posted this work and I have made several starts on a paper that I would like to see peer reviewed however I have still not got a firm idea where I should try to send it.  I note that my RAS journal  Astronomy and Geophysics occasionally publishes papers on new and speculative ideas close to the main stream of thinking so maybe that would be the proper place for it.

Anyway I must cut to the chase. 

Firstly a quick reminder about black hole collapse towards a theoretical "singularity"

The total quantity of energy released tends towards infinity.  That is even a relatively small black hole could release enough energy inside its event horizon to create a universe as large and complex as ours.  It just has to collapse far enough before quantum gravitation effects significantly change the inverse square law as happens with electromagnetic processes.  This means that even a stellar mass black hole could contain a whole universe.  It can never explode beyond its event horizon in this universe bit that does not mean that it could not create its own space time environment.

46

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: does plasma happen in soild state

« on: 04/05/2014 18:10:00 »

I agree that the answer is strictly no if you want all the characteristics of a gaseous plasma but conductors and semiconductors with mobile electrons and holes can exhibit some of the characteristics of a plasma. 

47

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can we define a black hole accretion zone?

« on: 04/05/2014 18:03:57 »

The original question does not have a precise answer because in the absence of any othe material the gravitational field of an object extends right out to infinity. 

You therefore have to define something else to allow you to set sime sort of size to the accretion zone.

In the case of a black hole the smallest distance friom the centre is the event horizon which is about one mile for each soar mass that the black hole contains so a typical 10 stellar mass black hole is about ten miles across which is pretty small.  The billion solar mass black holes at the centres of large elliptical galaxies are only about as big as the solar system. 

The event horizon is not really a useful limit though because that defines the smallest size that we could possibly identify. 

A more useful limit might be the point at which cold accreting gas would heat up due to the gained gravitational energy being turned into kinetic energy to glow like a star.  For a stellar mas black hole this would be approximately the size of a normal star with the same mass and colour as the temperature chosen.

This is OK for small black holes but there are no such thing as billiion solar mass stars around so there is no easy bench markfor sars of this size and the relationship is not a simple linear one like size of the event horizon. and this limit is notreally discussed in most texts however ther is one futher fact that could be used.  That is the fact that if billion solar mass lump of gas was coollapsing it is possible for it to collapse directly into a black hole without ever becoming a star and synthesising new nucleii so the maximum size of te acretion zone of a black hole is probably about the size of the solar system  which at the distance of galaxies is a pretty small thing. 

48

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is time scale-invariant?

« on: 01/04/2014 10:10:33 »

An interesting and difficult question alexbalex.  As with a lot of these things one could say yes as for as normal life is concerned but then say no when we stray into the quantum domain and finally maybe or maybe not! when we think a bit more about it.

Firstly let me say a bit about scale invariance.  Put simply this means that on whatever scale you look at something the larger characteristics of the thing are on the whole the same.   However different disciplines tend to stress what they mean by characteristics.  The classic physical or mathematical case is a fractal structure where a graph or a coastline has broadly a similar degree of wiggles on a wide range of scales.  In a mathematical equation (for example the Mandelbrot set) this can go on to infinity but in physical structure this can break down as the properties of a material change significantly with the scale on which you observe it.  In the case of physical laws this means that the laws apply on whatever scale you use to observe them.

Scale invariance also has a meaning in quantum theory in that the strength of the interactions between particles is the same on whatever scale these things are observed.

However when we come to think about quantum theory properly, things as always can get a bit fuzzy because quantum uncertainty come into play.  This sets clear limits on what we can observe precisely on individual experiments. We can only know what happens on the average from a large set of experiments  so at high energies, and by implication small scales details, of lower energy interactions are in effect hidden. This of course means that scale invariance may be true, but then again may not as long as the statistics is right for us "outside the box"  defined by the uncertainty limits.

Now the really important result of this is that gravitational interactions between particles are hidden way down inside this box and we could only observe gravitational interactions at vast energies way beyond any sort of energy even vaguely conceivable in a scientific experiment.  However in the very extreme conditions when a the core of a black hole is contracting inside its event horizon towards this theoretical mathematical "singularity" everything is squashed together so tightly that normal charges between positive and negatively charged particles are effectively neutralised by the extreme proximity of particles with opposing charges and the strong forces do not come into play leaving only gravity and possibly the ideas generated by the vast array of string theories to operate.  This is where the fundamental properties that define a universe are probably defined.   This may be fixed by scale invariance, things settling out "randomly" or by some sort of evolutionary or "crystallisation"  process.  This is where the quantum gravity and cosmological theoreticians meet.

Unfortunately the cosmologists do have their observational limits currently mostly associated with the cosmological microwave background which is light emitted when our whole universe was like a single exploding star and the recently published observation of polarisation due to gravitational waves on this background and possibly a future experiment that may be able to observe a cosmological neutrino background radiation.

This may be an insoluble problem but I reckon that there is a way to look at this problem but to talk more about that that would go beyond the limits of this page which is limited to currently widely accepted theories.

49

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If the galaxy is expanding, how do you measure objects using the speed of light?

« on: 20/03/2014 23:54:12 »

You can only measure the distance to an object when the light from it has reached you the object is of course further away because of the time this takes.  this is what relativity is all about.

50

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do black holes light up when feeding from a star?

« on: 20/03/2014 23:51:31 »

Black holes are in fact very difficult to fall into because they are so small.  about one mile across for  every solar mass that they contain so a typical stellar mass black hole is around 10 miles across.  The conservation of angular momentum means that falling towards a black hole unless an object is headed precisely towards it it will swing round it in a hyperbolic orbit and go  away. 

Even if a the centre of a gas cloud or star is headed precisely towards the hole most of the rest of the gas cloud or star would not be and so would miss it and go into would be compressed and heated and then distorted by the angular momentum and would get be very hot.  The orbital velocity of material going round a black hole approaches the velocity of light before the event horizon is reached so this will radiate away about half of the gravitational energy gained during falling in. 

In fact "feeding" a black hole with gas is the most efficient source of energy possible,  because it releases about 50% of the mass energy of the material.

51

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Dynamic Casimir Effect

« on: 05/03/2014 23:21:40 »

It's all about resonances.  If you hit a particle with just the right energy to do the job it is more likely to work whereas a much higher energy particle might just zip right through.

A very good example of this is the fission reactor where U235 needs low energy neutrons to cause the fission but when it splits the excess neutrons come out with a high energy and the reactor needs a moderator that does not absorb neutrons but cools them down so they work better and the reaction can be stabilised.

52

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Dynamic Casimir Effect

« on: 04/03/2014 18:05:59 »

sorry yor-on I was forgetting to say that if we have enough energy the interactions could include particle pairs and include the fact that if the energy was high enough massive particles could be created.

In general electrons and positrons are the lowest mass particles considered for this process but I cannot see any good reason why neutrinos or other very low mass particles should not be possible the big problem is observing the result of this sort of interaction because it would probably be very rare and the particles are extremely difficult to detect.

53

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: would the first UFOs that visit us contain life or robots?

« on: 03/03/2014 23:08:47 »

Assuming an originating life form similar to that on earth.  I think that it is highly likely tat any attempt at interstellar travel will be conducted using electronics and robotics because of its potentially much greater durability, simple environmental requirements and the ability to minimise its energy usage for very long periods.

54

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Dynamic Casimir Effect

« on: 03/03/2014 23:01:51 »

Absolutely nothing.   In the absence of any other material very close to the two photons photons do not interact with each other.

However if there is another electromagnetic field involved photons can interact and break up into lower energy photons.

55

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does compactifying dimensions work?

« on: 03/02/2014 19:55:49 »

I agree that it is a difficult concept and I am not absolutely 100percent sure that I fully understand it.  I see it a bit like the way we use complex numbers to describe oscillations and waves.  After all the "dimensions" that we cannot see are complex numbers in quantum mechanics.

The compactified dimensions that we are talking about here are genuinely very small as to precisely how small they are is still open to question.  The range of some of the short range forces associated with strong and weak interactions may have something to do with their size but they may not.

The properties of particles are defined by not the position but the phase in these recycling dimensions just like where something is in an orbit.

The important result of this is that the universe is very small in these dimensions and only large in our familiar dimensions of space and time.  If you accept this the oddities of a lot of quantum mechanics disappear

56

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Wheeler-Dewitt equation in plain english

« on: 30/01/2014 00:10:40 »

 Paros  I did not mention specifically. All wave functions are integrals over all of space AND time. Quantum theory implies that every particle in our universe exists in all of space and time.  It may however be extremely improbable to find it in very unexpected places but the probability is never absolutely zero in a mathematical sense.

57

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does luminosity decrease with distance from a light source?

« on: 30/01/2014 00:02:54 »

The classic inverse square law is in effect defined by the conservation of energy. For a radiating point source (zero dimensions) the energy density falls off in proportion to the increase in the area of the surface that surrounds the point.  This increases as the square of the radius that is one less than the three of the dimensions of the volume.

There is an interesting extension to this relating to the dimensionality of the source and the space that applies generally.

For normal three dimensional space the radiation fall off from a one dimensional (long line ) source falls of as the inverse of the distance and the fall off from a large plane source is zero. this can be demonstrated by visiting the empire state building.  The basic rumble of traffic noise(excluding of course very local noise sources  at street level) is the same at the top of the tower as in the street at ground level because you can hear noise originating from a much larger area of the city.

This concept also applies to world with higher numbers of spatial dimensions than three.

58

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why has the asteroid belt not formed a planet?

« on: 27/01/2014 15:07:07 »

I agree with clifford K's explanation roconi's is a load of garbage for far too many reasons to bother explaining

59

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Wheeler-Dewitt equation in plain english

« on: 27/01/2014 12:44:30 »

Deep at the heart of cosmology there is this unproved and unprovable belief that the whole bulk,  that is, everything that there is not just our universe but the sum total of all universes, is a zero sum game.  That is all the disturbances wave functions etc that there are, balance themselves out to result in the concept that if there was not something (which there is) there would be nothing.

This is in effect the full extension of the well known and accepted law of the conservation of energy writ as large as possible.

It is possibly the nearest thing to the modern cosmologists view of the concept of "god" which in religions is seen as something that acts on everything to produce things.

60

New Theories / Re: Is gravity a residual effect of nuclear forces?

« on: 21/12/2013 11:51:50 »

There is a suggestion that gravity is a bit like the "van der walls"  forces that hold essentially electrically neutral atoms together in compounds but the main forces are operating in the curled up dimensions of string theory and not our normal dimensions of space and time.