Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Dick1038 on 30/12/2007 18:52:20
-
The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But the BB created all of the energy we have today! So the law was violated. Seems to me that the "laws" of thermodynamics should be called "postulates" instead.
-
The energy for the Big Bang was already there, it just changed its form so no law is violated.
-
This "law" assumes that only positive energy exists, what if there is negative energy and negative mass (the 'solid' form of energy) and the sum of both is zero ?.
All that need have happened at BB is for a separation to have occurred.
-
Dick the reason for this is that the theory is essentially incomplete because it deals with things outside of our range of observation.
There are several hypotheses to deal with this. Firstly let me deal with the Quantum theorists approach. The Hiesenberg Uncertainty principle states precisely how much you can violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy for how long. Examples of this are seen in many quantum related processes. As the time period gets shorter this violation gets larger without limit and when you get back to the sort of infinitesimally small singularity that it is suggested that our universe originated from this energy could equal or even exceed the total energy in the universe as it exists at the moment. So the big bang was essentially a quantum mechanical accident that just happened. Proving this to be true or false is very difficult.
A currently more favoured version is that our universe is just one of a whole multiverse of such events. The question is why do these events happen and how go they define their physical laws because it looks likely that the physical laws in different universes could be very different and lead to very different properties with the properties of our universe being rather unlikely.
A relatively small and I think growing group (including me) sees the unlikely properties of our universe and considers that it is probable that this has resulted from some sort of evolutionary process in which universes are recycled and seed each other and our universe and its physical laws therefore represents the most successful universe to perform this recycling process. More information on this can be found in the Evolutionary Cosmology thread in the new theories section. Looking for this within our universe does have some hope of proof or disproof.
-
Thanks Soul Surfer. I still believe that if there were no time nor space before the BB, as some theorist contend, then there was no Quantum Field either.
I just finished a book titled, "The New Quantum Universe," by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters. It explained how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle works to allow particles to do strange things if they are quick enough about it, e.g., electrons tunneling through energy barriers. I was amazed how brilliant the early theorist were to deduce all of the strangeness of the quantum world.
Perhaps all of the dark matter out there is leftovers from a previous universe that had different physical laws.
If the universe recycled, then isn't the second law of thermodynamics (about entropy) being violated?
-
A lot of the dark matter is almost certainly some particle that is real and only interacts via gravity and is moving too fast to be affected much by things like normal stars. There are several contenders for this from mininmum sized black holes to sterile neutinos and axions.
About the second law of thermodynamics in a recycling universe. It is unlikely that the basic principles of the law are violated because these rules would apply to any system of interacting particles but during the collapse that preceeds he expansion dimensions of space and time and real and imaginary (a bit like the real and imaginary numbers used to calculate electromagnetic processes) are exchanged. Stephen hawking has tried to illustrate processes like this in some of his writings.
-
If the big bang creates time (and space), then the concept of it happening at a point in time, doesn't really make sense. As soul surfer says, it deals with things outside of our range of observation.
Therefore maybe it doesn't really violate the first law of thermodynamics, maybe the first law of thermodynamics just doesn't deal with things outside of whatever time is.
-
1. There is no ex-nihilis creation
2. All the energy in this universe existed forever in the past and it will exist forever in the future in some form.
3. Big bang was a process in which the energy changed from a more ordered to more disordered but not a process that created energy ex-nihilis
4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.
-
A interesting concept SoulSurfer. Universes with a direction then, 'evolution' applied to an idea of making universes? Or just randomness and coincidence, making this universe different, no direction from 'simplicity into complexity'?
-
flr - good point, take the word 'create' out of my post, maybe more that our time and space don't go 'past' the big bang.
-
maybe the first law of thermodynamics just doesn't deal with things outside of whatever time is.
Wouldn't it be difficult for anything to deal with anything without time in which to do the dealing?
In fact, if there were no time before the Big Bang, how could it have been triggered?
-
4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.
From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal. What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.
I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.
If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.
If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.
If that is the case, what else is there that can happen? Why are we still experiencing change?
-
4. Since it can't be created or destroyed, the energy in the universe does not have a cause. It was not caused by anything; it just exists here forever and ever in some form.
From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal. What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.
I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.
If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.
If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.
If that is the case, what else is there that can happen? Why are we still experiencing change?
Bill I really like your logic. You are an excellent philosopher.
-
From my previous post it will be obvious that I am not arguing against something being eternal. What I have to take issue with though is the idea of change in eternity.
I am going to use the term “cosmos” to avoid the finite/infinite Universe debate.
If the cosmos is infinite, everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times.
If the cosmos is infinite, it has already existed for infinite time; therefore, everything that can happen has happened, an infinite number of times.
If that is the case, what else is there that can happen? Why are we still experiencing change?
Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."
(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)
---------
But, does entropy (and irreversibility) allows something to happen an infinite number of times?
-
How could we understand the conservation of energy in a universe that contains an infinite amount of energy in it?
-
If space expands the wavelength of photons became red-shifted.
Does that means the photons loose energy due to universe expansion?
Then how is energy conserved?
-
I could cut and paste my response from the "Could dark energy simply be gravity?" thread which applies to this thread, but I won't. Expansion is not proven. Dark energy is not proven. The BB is not proven. These are hypothetical concepts with potential mathematical solutions. I'm sure the math is correct, as you can make it work if you tried hard enough, but I'm not convinced anyone in the scientific community truly has a handle on these things. It would only take one human misconception to bring down this house of cards.
-
andreasva - liked the other thread. Not sure what the rules are about quoting cross thread are, so if I break etiquette I do apologise.
All matter in the universe was created at the same time and from every conceivable coordinate.
Which means that if a big bang happened, it happened here. Is this the conceptual singularity?
But if you add in time to be similar to space, do you observe the same singularity. I.e. if a big bang happened it happened now?
This statement seems not to make much sense (how can it happen now), so is the perceived singularity in space (and potentially time) like standing on a sphere and working out the furthest single point (the opposite side). However if you went to a different point you would observe a different furthest single point.
To completely somewhere and sometime else, if people thought about a big bang in the same way as we do, could we be at someone else's big bang?
If so, thinking about it as a 'big bang' seems misleading, and maybe we don't need to worry about it breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
-
If space and time did not exist at the big bang then what is to say the laws of thermodynamics were not themselves created in the big bang and other universes have completely different laws of thermodynamics or none at all because they experience something else. If you take time and space and matter out of the equation then everything else must go. All the absolutes as well.
-
Bill I really like your logic. You are an excellent philosopher.
Thanks Jeffrey. Some of the responses I receive suggest I might be a better philosopher than scientist. That may be what you meant, but I take it as a compliment, anyway. :)
-
Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."
(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)
You must be either a scientist or a mathematician. It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations.
The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.
There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.
How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.
Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".
One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?
What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?
Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity". Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.
However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?
Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.
We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.
Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.
If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?
Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.
It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.
Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.
-
Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."
(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)
You must be either a scientist or a mathematician. It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations.
The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.
There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.
How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.
Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".
One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?
What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?
Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity". Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.
However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?
Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.
We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.
Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.
If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?
Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.
It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.
Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.
Bill take it from me you leave all the mathematicians and scientists standing in your wake. They don't realize it though.
-
(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)
How many infinite numbers of times are there?
Cantor maintained that there was an infinite number of infinities, but even he ran into problems with "absolute infinity".
It is easy to forget that Cantor's infinities were mathematical infinities which are fine for the purpose for which they are intended, but are not really infinite.
-
before the big bang the entire universe was contained in a single spot, All that mass in a single spot created a huge gravitational field more powerful then all the black holes in the universe combined. The matter in the "super black hole/singularity" was pressure induced into a bois einstine condensate, the force of gravity was too much and crushed the matter into energy causing the big bang. There is proof that matter existed before the big bang too.
You see when all of that matter turned into energy simultaneously the massive gravitational field disappeared in a split second (because energy has no mass), This caused rippling gravity waves that persist to this day these gravity waves are called dark energy. These dark energy gravity waves are huge, each wave length is millions of light years across. Dark energy proves that matter existed before the big bang because the rate of expansion of the universe correlates to calculations as to the size of the big bang's gravity waves.
Matter was made out of energy soon after the big bang and will soon ball up into another singularity for another big bang to occur. Matter is renewed by this process but energy lasts forever and has always been a property of the fabric of space which also lasts forever. It lasts forever because it's unaffected by time (because they are one in the same thing.)
-
Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."
(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)
You must be either a scientist or a mathematician. It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations.
The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.
There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.
How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.
Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".
One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?
What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?
Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity". Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.
However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?
Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.
We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.
Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.
If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?
Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.
It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.
Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.
Another infinity thread? Is the number of threads we have on infinity infinite or is it just very large? :)
I think I should make it clear, in case anyone's browsing this thread looking for scientific answers, that no one knows if infinity is physically realizable or not. I tend to lean towards Bill's perspective that infinity is probably not physical, but it's an open question. There are those who would disagree with me and we all have zero evidence to back up our claims. :p
The problem is that science progresses by testing hypotheses, and so far as I know there is no testable hypothesis that could distinguish between an infinite universe or merely a very large universe on the basis of current observations. In fact, any sufficiently large, expanding universe will always have parts that we simply can't see because light can only have traveled so far in a finite time since the big bang. The fact that the universe appears to be accelerating in its expansion indicates that there are parts we may NEVER be able to see.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F92%2FDemocritus_by_Agostino_Carracci.jpg&hash=da1e36b45fc44eb6d076f3ac47989321)
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.
-
...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.
-
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 :)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F03%2FBlack_hole_lensing_web.gif&hash=06220fefeec800eae7c0defb7c269863)
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmartinweigel.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F04%2Fgravity_well_cartography_2_by_lordsong-d5lrxws.jpg%3Fw%3D529&hash=967b50ccc37cc271ad4ca702b33f6574)
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fsb11-041505-spandex.jpg&hash=95e6a33fe123c99918cb353ff9367dd2)
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F9-4fordham.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2Fwave_crest.gif%2F243891203%2Fwave_crest.gif&hash=d886295fa09d2b83839b4530b3ae6717)
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F98%2FGauss_Sphere_Charge_Inside_2.svg%2F512px-Gauss_Sphere_Charge_Inside_2.svg.png&hash=306df863b7b5fae5ccd23eba933487e4)
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
Bill S
Yes, when I say infinite space, I'm referring to the fabric of space/time which I assume is the only "infinite" thing in existence or at least the fabric of space much bigger then the finite universe But beyond the limits of the finite universe there is nothing (to the best of my knowledge)
The fabric of space is endowed with properties which are quite mysterious, I can't honestly say that I know what it is or how old it is. The only thing I know is that the finite universe Is a sphere which exists in the infinite universe, I can only assume that Both aspects of the universe are infinite (in time) while only one aspect is (infinite in size) time and gravity are not direct properties of the fabric of space, it's the result of the interaction between the finite universe and the infinite universe.
Imagine the fabric of space without matter or light (energy) gravity wouldn't exist and time would be meaningless because nothing would change.
Now imagine matter and light without the fabric of space to move through, gravity wouldn't exist and time would be meaningless because nothing would change.
So you see time and gravity is the result of the relationship between these 2 aspects of the cosmos.
So To clarify the relationship between the finite universe and the infinite universe, the interaction between the 2 parts of the universe gives rise to time and gravity.
Both the finite and infinite universes are infinite (in time) and only the infinite universe is infinite (in size) so both aspects of the universe are permanent fixtures.
light and matter are traveling through the fabric of space which gives you time and gravity. THAT'S WHAT TIME IS.
gravity is also the result of "stuff" moving through space too you see if you accelerate matter to nearly the speed of light then they get heaver and thus get more gravity. time slows down do to the speed of the atoms.
"Time is effected by how fast something is!" there fore time is a result of matter/light (finite universe) interacting with the fabric (infinite universe) so time is meaningless/nonexistent outside the area of the point the finite universe stops and light finds it's largest orbit. beyond that point nothing ever changes because the finite universe never interacts with the infinite universe at that point.
so what happens when you have the fabric of space and it docent interact with matter/light? Gravity wouldn't exist and time would be meaningless/wouldn't exist because nothing would change.
-
SS.
I think I am going to have to chop this into bite sized chunks.
Yes, when I say infinite space, I'm referring to the fabric of space/time……..But beyond the limits of the finite universe there is nothing….
I must be misunderstanding this bit. You seem to be saying that the infinite universe is composed of “the fabric of space/time”, but beyond the finite universe there is nothing. How can this be if the infinite universe is composed of space/time?
-
Oh sorry my bad. You caught my bad wording :-) when i said nothing is beyond that point, I ment nothing BUT empty space and no time. Because at that distance the infinite universe dosent interact with the finite universe time dosent exist because nothing ever happens in that area of space, matter and light dont ever come into contact with the fabric that far out, so time is meaningless / dosent exist because nothing ever changes, nothing will ever happen to it at that point. Just empty space for infinity. It sounds similar to that statement i think you came up with near the begining of this thread about the bridge and roads going off for infinity on both sides of the bridge. Just imagine the bridge being the finite universe and infinity going off in both directions.
So in a sence space is just space not ''space time'' time is the result of the interaction between the finite universe and space.
-
Thanks SS, that clarifies that bit.
Am I right in thinking that the extent of the interaction between finite and infinite universes would be the spherical surface between the advancing light and the infinite space?
To return to your earlier post:
The only thing I know is that the finite universe Is a sphere which exists in the infinite universe, I can only assume that Both aspects of the universe are infinite (in time) while only one aspect is (infinite in size) time and gravity are not direct properties of the fabric of space, it's the result of the interaction between the finite universe and the infinite universe.
You may have noticed in other threads that I tend to use the term “cosmos” as roughly equivalent to your “infinite universe”. If I do that here please don’t think this is an attempt to “improve” your terminology. :)
It is very difficult to talk about infinity/eternity without using terminology that is rooted in linear time and 3D space. Thus we talk of infinite time, or infinite space. However, infinity/eternity must be timeless and spaceless. A second is finite, and nothing finite can become infinite. A cubic metre is finite, so the same applies. Anything that is infinite must always have been infinite, and must always be infinite.
I need to check your view of this before trying to go any further, just to avoid getting crossed wires.
-
Consider a situation where a big bang occurs and the resulting universe is expanding exactly like the balloon analogy. When neighbouring bubbles collide gravity will cause a new big bang singularity if enough mass is compressed and the whole thing starts again. In this view light does not need to orbit the bubble but could in fact be pushing its surface outward. The image below shows four adjacent expanding bubble universes. Think of it like wave interference. BTW you only need 1/4 of the mass of each bubble to meet and compress to reproduce a singularity equal to 1 original universe. Of course this is idealized and mass/bubble sizes would vary as would their relative positions.
-
Bill S and JeffreyH
you said "nothing finite can become infinite" this is true, But there is only one thing that is infinite in the "cosmos" and that's the fabric of space. It's infinity in it's most pure form and we live in it, it surrounds us and we get a pretty good view of it from earth. now when finite things interact with the infinity you get something that is in-between time and gravity are like electro and magnetism two sides to the same coin of infinity.
there are only 3 things that exist in the cosmos. energy, matter and space these are the characteristics of each.
energy fields (electro and magnetism)
Nuclear fields(strong and weak forces)
cosmic fields(gravity and time)
these three things interact with each-other, one could not exist without the other. it's like the try-force off of that game legend of Zelda.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth08.deviantart.net%2Ffs70%2F150%2Fi%2F2011%2F279%2Fd%2F9%2Ftry_force_by_derula-d4c15zr.png&hash=e0812cce28ee361533fcc4a4900c50f1)
the trinity that comprises the 3 dimensions I want to show you a picture I drew a long time ago, Its saved on my computer but I don't know how to upload pictures from my hard drive, only from urls It has to do with sacred geometry just overlap 3 circles (each circle represents one aspect of the universe) and if you draw lines through it you get the try-force. How do you upload Images fro your hard drive?
-
I feel it is a problem with the theme I am using. I have two installs on the same server. One with a standard theme and the e-mail redirect works fine. The one using the theme Zaffatasa has the problem with the e-mail redirecting back from the contact form.
-
I found this quote among my notes from a few years ago. It’s from one of Paul Davies’s books, but without checking I can’t say which one.
“The conclusion seems inescapable that any cyclic universe that allows physical structures and systems to propagate from one cycle to the next will not evade the degenerative influences of the second law of thermodynamics. There will still be heat death.”
However, Davies also says: “One way to sidestep this dismal conclusion is to suppose that the physical conditions at the bounce are so extreme that no information about earlier cycles can get through to the next. All preceding physical objects are destroyed, all influences annihilated. In effect, the universe is reborn entirely from scratch.
SS, is this how you see it?
-
In a Way yes, When the singularity is formed and it contains all of Q and A (the finite universe) then it will implode All matter in the universe will be converted into energy, less then a minute after the singularity collapses and explodes, matter will form out of the energy. No matter can escape this fate the big bang cycles renews the universe like a phoenix being reborn from it's ashes.
I don't know what your quote meant regarding the the second law of thermodynamics and "degenerative heat"
I believe what he meant was that heat will eventually be nonexistent because it will be converted into light and escape into "A" (the outer reaches of the universe) in that case the universe will continue to cool down until space reaches near absolute zero, As energy escapes into ''A'' but that wont impede the construction of the singularity in the end. Its the force of gravity that causes the renewal of the universe not heat.
I Feel the need to draw this picture regarding the the 3 forces of the universe take a look
/\
/ \
/ \
/ space \
gravity /_________\ time
/ \ /\
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ matter \ / energy \
/________\ /_________\
electricity
The 3 forces of the universe space, matter and energy each force interacts with each other force to give toy everything in the universe
when space interacts with matter you get = gravity
when space interacts with energy you get = time
when matter interacts with energy you get = electricity (charge)
then each in-between force interacts with each other
electricity+gravity=electric fields
electricity+time= magnetic fields
gravity+time= gravitational fields
and so on.
I think that each of the 3 forces interact together to give us everything in the universe
-
This thread seems to be veering way off the mainstream physics track and into new theories. If you guys want to keep going on non-mainstream ideas regarding the fundamental forces and nature of the universe, I can move it to New Theories. If if you'd rather keep it here, I'd just ask that you keep it to mainstream ideas.
Thanks!
-
This thread seems to be veering way off the mainstream physics track and into new theories. If you guys want to keep going on non-mainstream ideas regarding the fundamental forces and nature of the universe, I can move it to New Theories. If if you'd rather keep it here, I'd just ask that you keep it to mainstream ideas.
Thanks!
I'm happy to just talk about mainstream ideas but the topic being the big bang is problematic in itself. It can't be anything but speculative past a certain point.
-
In a heat death scenario all the mass is still present and so all the energy. At that point time is the dominant factor space and matter are in an unknown state. We can't say more than that. Interestingly in a black hole time also becomes dominant and space-like. There is an equivalence between both situations. In one situation, expansion of the universe, matter is continually moving outwards and expanding. In the black hole the mass is moving continually inwards and contracting. This appears to balance out but the consequences are uncertain as there is no available data to link the two situations.
-
JP,
Obviously, neither I nor SS was the OP, but we do seem to be hogging the space a bit. For my part I would be quite happy to go to New Theories, or to stay here. Possibly NT would be the safest bet so as not to impose restrictions on the imagination.
I've just been reading Jim Baggott's "Fairwell to Reality" and find myself wondering if we should have a "fairytale physics" forum. :)
-
Yeah My original theory didn't Include the whole "trinity" think, that's just me getting off topic. But In the end There will be a "big crunch" But unlike the "big crunch theory" My Theory has nothing to do with a "fireball" which is how the big crunch theorists contend. Instead my theory states that the big crunch will be a super black hole.
Conspirologist Said something a wile back about "dark matter", I completely forgot to tell ya'll about my theory on dark matter. I Have a really good complete theory on the nature of dark matter. but first take a look at this short video about dark matter.
The story of dark matter begins with the big bang.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftopnews.net.nz%2Fdata%2FBig-Bang-Lab.jpg&hash=c335dd771779f6a5c91b218a46969f5c)
moments after the big bang, matter was reformed out of energy. When this happened equal numbers of protons and electrons were made. soon after that the first element was formed (hydrogen). then stars begun to take shape because of the force of gravity and produce more and more elements via the process of fusion.
When a fusion reaction occurs, "a lot of energy is released" were does that energy come from? the answer to that question is "some matter is converted into energy" and as a result some "mass" is lost. but only a small amount of matter is converted into energy. It's sort of like when you make some anti matter and put it into contact with regular matter, the result is that the two matter particles destroy each other and matter is converted into energy. The question is, in a fusion reaction what part of the atom is converted into energy?
Does the energy come out of the proton or the electron or both? I've heard in some physics papers that the energy comes out of the protons so I'll make an example out of that.
If the big bang created equal amounts of protons and electrons in the beginning and the stars are destroying protons then there will be a miss-match of + and - meaning that there is more negative charge in the universe then positive charge. were do the extra electrons go? how does that effect the universe? Basically some electrons will float around in massive clouds of negative charge that are spaced far apart because the negative charge repels other negative charge. But some electrons will negatively charge some elements and those negatively charged elements will be attracted to other elements in equilibrium, to attempt to transfer it's charge. That attraction force is mistaken for gravity.
It is perfectly logical that there can be a miss-match of + and - because you can do it in the lab! imagine if you made just 1 positron and put it into contact with 1 electron, the 2 would destroy each other and the be converted into energy. now there is 2 less electrons in the universe (because the positron was at one time an electron), and now you have a miss-match of + and - particles in the universe, I hope I explained that in a way that makes sense.
I would also like to point out a flaw in dark matter theory. and that is why they hang out in big clouds. If the dark matter has gravity then why don't they just clump together to form zones of high pressure like regular matter does when they form stars? why is dark matter in these big spread out clouds?
take a look at this link http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eso1217b.jpg
Notice how it isn't concentrated in clumps like regular matter? It doesn't Have the same properties of gravity because if it did then it would clump together into invisible dark matter galaxies and dark matter balls, Instead it remains sped out like a gas or something. You see It's something else, It has to repel itself to remain like a cloud, yet attract galaxies together to make them spin faster. Dark matter is electrons!
Free floating electrons don't interact with light at all, just look at an electric field, It's invisible yet electric fields repel and attract. It's like a monopole magnet, repelling it's self and being attracted to it's opposite charge.
In this case the electrons charge elements and are attracted to neutral elements. that electric pull is what we call dark matter.
of coarse electrons do have mass and gravity, which is why you can see dark matter through gravitational lensing. but it's gravity is not the bulk of the attraction force, it's the electric attraction that gives dark matter it's influence over the shaping of galaxies and whatever.
So on recap.
-dark matter is the result of a miss-match of protons and electrons in the universe. dark matter is electrons.
-Dark matter remains sped out in clouds because of the repulsion effect that dark matter has on it's self. do
to like charge repulsion.
-Dark matter attracts things together because of the way it charges elements and those charged elements
are attracted to neutral elements. this electric attraction force is mistaken for gravity.
-electrons do have some mass and gravity which is why you can see it through gravitational lensing. it's
gravity does help attract things together BUT the bulk of the attraction force is do to "electric" attraction.
Before dark matter theory was even discovered there was a concept called "The either" which was supposed to "free energy" The famous Albert Einstein believed in this concept and so did Nikola Tesla. Dark matter is the "either" free electrical energy floating around in space.
I know this doesn't make a whole lot of sense at first glance, But I DARE YOU to try to find a flaw in this theory.
-
All the electrons would repel each other and fly off in opposite directions thus no electron cloud. Also any extra electrons may be gobbled up to form neutrons in isotopes.
-
The electrons would repel each-other yes, But they would also be attracted to each-other via the force of gravity.
look at these charts.
this chart represents how much electric fields weaken with distance.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a-levelphysicstutor.com%2Fimages%2Ffields%2FE-graph01.jpg&hash=b3c193ebb5f782e56bbd0d96ce285ce6)
this chart represents how much gravitational fields weaken with distance
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a-levelphysicstutor.com%2Fimages%2Ffields%2Fg-graph01.jpg&hash=6eac905816b02c73a6526189197627d3)
Electric fields are stronger then gravitational gravitational fields but both fields do exist in electrons so electrons will repel each-other and attract each-other But electric fields keep electrons from getting too close and gravitational fields keep the electrons from getting too far. A massive far spaced cloud could form it.
Dark matter clouds are bigger then entire galaxies and are very spaced apart.
Lets say that dark matter isn't electrons for a moment, lets just say it is something which is invisible and dost interact with anything. But it has gravity. (which is the main stream Idea) How do you explain why dark matter doesn't form dense invisible galaxies or take shape? the force of gravity in regular matter causes matter to clump up into dense balls and galaxies but that seems not to be the case with dark matter. why?
It seems to me that dark matter doesn't just interact with gravity because if it did then it would take a similar form of galaxies, invisible galaxies. instead it takes the form of clouds, there must be some other force involved right? that's were I got the Idea about electric fields attracting things together but keeping the clouds from getting too dense allowing for a cloud like shape to be possible.
Dark matter also likes to hang around near regular galaxies for some reason, maybe the electrons are attracted to the neutral atoms in a galaxy and that attractive force keeps the electrons from just flying off.
-
It could be possible but how do you test it?
-
That's a good question JeffreyH. The answer to that question remains an enigma to me. But you don't necessarily have to physically look at something to know it's there. Mathematically speaking, I bet you could calculate If there is indeed a miss-match between protons and electrons by seeing if protons are "actually" being destroyed in the stars "and not electrons". If that's true then It might as well be proven.
you could "sort of" test it by blowing up an H-bomb too.
Because if stars have been destroying protons sense the big bang through the process of fusion then the miss-match of +and- has actually been getting bigger sense that point, (the amount of dark matter in the universe is getting bigger and has been sense the beginning).
I don't think anyone has invented a telescope that can see electric fields out in space, so I don't think you can look at this stuff with a telescope and realize that dark matter is just ordinary electrons. Maybe you could measure radio waves coming off of discharges or something, but I wouldn't know how that would work
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yambo-code.org%2Fpage-images%2Fspin%2Belectron.png&hash=e579e235a21b3f2e3afbe20c5d3428fe)
-
So what you are saying is that as the number of isotopes goes up then there is an imbalance. Surely through a proton being + and an electron being - these balance out so there is no overall change in the balance of charges.
-
The gravity wave idea while cool may not be true. Shortly after the Big Bang gravity separated out true. It was 380,000 years before the universe cooled enough for matter to form, at this time there was more dark matter than dark energy this changed over time and now we have more dark energy than dark matter. Also how do you account for the very end expansion rate it was different in the beginning than it is now?
-
JefferyH
I said nothing about Isotopes, I simply said that the stars destroy protons in the process of fusion. The protons are turned into energy (that's were the huge amount of energy is released from) the stars eject those electrons via solar winds, If the big bang created equal amounts of protons and electrons in the beginning then just one fusion reaction would create an imbalance.
overtime more fusion reactions occurred creating more of an imbalance. until the imbalance reaches what we have today. Individual atoms will become - charged thus the attraction force of those atoms is greatly increased because of electric attraction to neutral atoms. But the charged atoms repel each-other keeping those atoms from getting too close. But a majority of the - charge will remain as free electrons because there isn't enough atoms to go around. so those free electrons hang around galaxies waiting to charge an atom.
alan hess
I see were your logic comes from but I think you miss understand were the gravity waves come from. the gravity waves came from "the super universe sized black hole before the big bang" what scientists call the singularity, The big bang didn't "create" everything because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics. all the matter and light in the universe was contained inside this big o black hole, it's gravity was more powerful then every black hole and star in the universe combined. when it was all converted into energy in an instant (when the big bang occurred) that huge gravity field just disappeared warping space like ripples in a pond. That's were the gravity waves came from.
as for you saying there was more dark matter then dark energy a long time ago you are mistaken in the way you worded it. There was more "matter" in the universe at that time the imbalance had-dent really effected much so there was not that much dark matter/imbalance but as the universe lost mass from fusion then dark energy/gravity waves were more effective because there was less mass plus thing were more spread out allowing for the entire gravity wave to effect matter.. you must also realize that these gravity waves are huge, billions of light years across and as you ride the wave it's intensity changes depending on what part of the wave your riding. we are probably near the bottom of a wave were space is most spread out.
-
JefferyH
I said nothing about Isotopes, I simply said that the stars destroy protons in the process of fusion. The protons are turned into energy (that's were the huge amount of energy is released from) the stars eject those electrons via solar winds, If the big bang created equal amounts of protons and electrons in the beginning then just one fusion reaction would create an imbalance.
overtime more fusion reactions occurred creating more of an imbalance. until the imbalance reaches what we have today. Individual atoms will become - charged thus the attraction force of those atoms is greatly increased because of electric attraction to neutral atoms. But the charged atoms repel each-other keeping those atoms from getting too close. But a majority of the - charge will remain as free electrons because there isn't enough atoms to go around. so those free electrons hang around galaxies waiting to charge an atom.
alan hess
I see were your logic comes from but I think you miss understand were the gravity waves come from. the gravity waves came from "the super universe sized black hole before the big bang" what scientists call the singularity, The big bang didn't "create" everything because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics. all the matter and light in the universe was contained inside this big o black hole, it's gravity was more powerful then every black hole and star in the universe combined. when it was all converted into energy in an instant (when the big bang occurred) that huge gravity field just disappeared warping space like ripples in a pond. That's were the gravity waves came from.
as for you saying there was more dark matter then dark energy a long time ago you are mistaken in the way you worded it. There was more "matter" in the universe at that time the imbalance had-dent really effected much so there was not that much dark matter/imbalance but as the universe lost mass from fusion then dark energy/gravity waves were more effective because there was less mass plus thing were more spread out allowing for the entire gravity wave to effect matter.. you must also realize that these gravity waves are huge, billions of light years across and as you ride the wave it's intensity changes depending on what part of the wave your riding. we are probably near the bottom of a wave were space is most spread out.
Surely the mass will be more spread out on the rising or falling crests of a wave? Also mass is lost to photons during fusion. This can be either from an electron exchange or a nucleus. So again I don't see where you would get an increasing imbalance. Some of these will be gamma rays. Some as radio waves. Some as visible light.
-
Jeffery H
"gamma ray bursts" is not really what Im talking about. This has nothing to do with ionizing radiation A,B,G. or isotopes
What I'm talking about is fusion. Naturally fusion occurs everywhere in stars. It takes hydrogen and converts it into helium and so on up to iron. BUT when it fuses the 2 atoms together "energy is released" FROM the atoms. More specifically that energy comes from the nucleus, much like gamma rays. But fusion reactions don't produce gamma rays, instead it releases all kinds of light like visible light, uv light, infrared and so on. (from the nucleus) that energy release triggers a loss of mass because the law of conservation. I think Einstein made an equation showing how that works, (E=mc2) Now that energy comes from the nucleus not the electron cloud.
In a hydrogen atom there is just one thing in the nucleus for that energy to be released from, it's proton. So mass is being lost from protons. I'm no expert on fusion, I'm just resiting what I read. I don't know how "some" mass can be lost from an atom like that but apparently that's how it works. If that's true and mass is being lost form protons alone then that would mean that there would be less protons then electrons, there-for there must be an imbalance.
and the gravity wave crest is when space would be most condensed and the wave bottom would be when things would be most spread out, it's like a red and blue shift, as you climb the wave things get closer together, as you slide down the wave things get farther apart, we are sliding down a wave right now so things are getting spread out it's a sine wave so the acceleration changes depending on were you are on the wave. that's dark energy.