[Soul Surfer (OP)]

There have been several interesting articles in the scientific press which show progress towards my way of thinking.

The october issue of Scientific american suggests that quantum gravity theorists have suggested thatthere are strong suggestions that the big bang expansion originated from a process of collapse in which the universe effectively turned itself inside out similar to many earlier theories of osscilatory universes.  Unfortunately observational evidence is against this sort of thing happenig to our universe as a whole.  However the article fails to not that we do have collapsing an isolating structure within our universe  in the form of black holes.

The November issue of Scientific American talks about out of equilibrium thermodynamics showing the development of structured order out of a supposedly chaotic system.  This is one of the important evolutionalry cosmolgy processes in which long lived ordered states emerge from energy flows as the universe expands.  this is a far cry from the current visualisation of random symmetry breaking rathe likr the universe crystallising out of the initial high temperature high density states.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

I am still looking for help with modelling the classical aspects of a gravitational collapse of material inside a rotating blackhole or references to someone who has tried to do it.

My theory is that the collapse will initially heat up but then slowly "cool down" as the photons and particles settle down into spiral orbits on a toroidal surface when viewed from "outside" however when the process is viewed from the position of a particle in one of the spiral free fall orbits gravitational and relatavistic space distortion and time dilation will result in the particles experiencing a largely flat and smoothly expanding universe very much like the big bang.

If this idea works it has some amazing possibilities because it means that our universe is simultaneously large and small at the same time, has both real and imaginary dimensions the real ones are the ones we are familiar with and the imaginary dimensions are those of the orbiting string like particles.  This could also explain some of the weirdness of quantum mechanical entanglement.  All without the need to finally decide on exactly how to quantise gravity.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Here is a rewriting of some of the basic concepts I have just posted in a discussion on the main cosmology page.


I have in general no dispute with the interpretations and models of any of the generally accepted scientific theories.  My main concern is that most of them are pushing the limits of what can ever be measurable by experiment (for example the LHC)or modelled by theory (for example the vast number of alternative string theories)  I therefore feel from my experience that the time has come to look at the problems of basic physics and cosmology in a new way.  There are several other good workers in this field notably Roger Pernrose from the mathematics end and Lee Smolin from the cosmological end who I consider are well worth reading,  but in general my ideas are my own and not dependant on other people.  I just look to other workers to help illuminate my thinking.

Let me state first that I am a retired professional scientist and innovator with a good record of success in this field for commercial purposes, who took early retirement with the intention of pursuing my studies further.

Having to innovate to solve problems in many different areas has taught me that when an area is becoming "clogged upwith expertise"  the best way is to stand back from the growing point thing broadly and across disciplines and try to set off in a new direction.

Now let me get back to giving a brief exposition of the roots of my thinking. 

You can read more of my writings in the "Evolutionary Cosmology"  topic in the New theories  area of this forum and I will post this there as well later.

Ever since I was a child back in the 50s reading scientific texts (I grew up during the big bang/ continuous creation argument)  I have always believed that  the universe would turn out to be bits of screwed up energy and/or space time such that both of the basic concepts of the big bang (observation) and continuous creation (logical thinking) were true.

My opinion is that Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest theoreticians at the time, was very unjustifiably maligned for proposing a disprovable cosmological theory based on the theoretical principle that at the greatest possible scale of space and time the universe cannot change, only the local conditions (our observable universe) can change.  Sadly like a determined biblical creationist he chose to have his static universe visible and defended it to the end.  (a common human failing in many areas!)

More recently I have felt that the broad concepts of evolution and emergence would also have a big part to play in cosmology.  other workers are looking at the possibility that the physical laws may change in extremis and there is a general acceptance that at the absolute extremes of energy all interactions become of a similar magnitude

The zero point energy is an important part and is now generally accepted as having some sort of reality implying that underlying the cold quiet of space there is a vast and almost infinite pool of energy. a My thinking has a partial explanation how this might be.  (ther poem, if it is correctly attributed is very interesting  I have never come across it before)

Quantum mechanical uncertainty is well accepted is also a vital part of evolutionary cosmology This states that  momentum and position  are linked so that the more accurate the position the less accurate the momentum,  similarly energy and time are also linked so the more accurately you know the timing of anything the less accurate is the energy.  This means that at very high energies and in very small spaces all the physical laws become blurred and less accurately observed statistically.  This is a bit like the way that the enegy of an individual molecule in a gas is variable because of its interactions with other molecules but has a statistical value.  It is a process that allows the physical laws to settle out as the temeperature falls from extreme heights

Basic cosmological theory suggests universes should form evolve and die in various ways. Many theoreticialns visualise the unchanging universe  (sometimes referred to as the bulk)It is also logical to say that all possibilities at any type are universes  so new universes should form from existing universes in a complex multiverse.   Our vast visible universe is just a tiny part of one of them.

Are there any occasions when our own universe might be creating new universes? one clear possibility is the formation of black holes which are virtually totally detached from our universe leaving only a paowerful and eventually slowly decaying gravitiational field.

Now most writers dismiss what goes on inside black holes as a collapse to a mystical point singularity requiring some form of unknown quantum gravity and promptly forget about them.  This is clearly not true.  Firstly, all black holes must initially be rotating probably at rates very close to the maximum possible the conservation of angular momentum and the relative smallness of black holes ensures that.

Now let us consider what might happen inside a classical black hole as it collapses by using simple classical physical analysis.

Firstly a black hole is loke a tardis bigger on the inside than outside because if you send light out in any direction it gets bent back and comes back to the collapsing structure.  Let us initially assume that this structure is spherical.  As it collapses it heats up  ie the particles get more and more energy and as they collide with each other more and more particles can be created from this energy and none of this energy can escape so the energy density can rise very quickly.  The rotatinal energy will also be shared out among the particles so that eventially the shape will migrate from being a sphere to being a rotating torus which will continue to collapse and heat up more.  Residual angular momentum in the two remaining directions will then show itself so the collapse will continue to become a gravitationally bound toroidal membrane of finite size but negligable thickness particles can still interact to create more particles but eventually the energy will be shared out evenly so that all the particles are moving in the same direction at almost the same speed (very very close to the velocity of light) ie although they are very "hot" because they are orbiting in the membrane with a very high energy they are cool with respect to each other because they are all moving coherently with respect to each other.

What then would "the universe" look like to a particle in its orbit as they cool down with respect to each other. Firstly because of the extreme speed and gravity, conventional time has virtually stopped.  Secondly also because of the high energy the particles are extremely contracted in their direction of motion.  Remember that as the paricles are essentially in orbit they do not "feel" the forces that hod them in orbit. It is my sugestion that this "cooling down" process could look very well look like the big bang to the individual particles creating what is in effect an expanding flat universe.

This idea may well prove to be wrong just like Fred Hoyle's idea of continuous creation but it has a lot if similarities to how the string theorests describe the universe.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

I have just come across some additional information on relatavistic rotational gravitational collapse which suggests that things may collapse along an axis rather than spherically.  This may require a bit of a rethink

[Alan McDougall]

Soul Surfer

My opinion is that Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest theoreticians at the time, was very unjustifiably maligned for proposing a disprovable cosmological theory based on the theoretical principle that at the greatest possible scale of space and time the universe cannot change, only the local conditions (our observable universe) can change.  Sadly like a determined biblical creationist he chose to have his static universe visible and defended it to the end.  (a common human failing in many areas!)

I agree that Fred Hoyle was a great physicist and theoretician, just as bright as Hawking. He explained how the sun produced energy etc.

Evolutionary cosmology is an interesting concept. Seeds of a new universe contained in a black hole of another, maybe manifesting itself as a white hole or creation singularity in a new universe.

All speculation

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

I don't think that it needs to be speculation.  The initial collapse of a rotating black hole inside its event horizon is analysable using purely classical relativistic theory and it will take some time to happen.  The mathematicians have all rushed off to the theoretical limit and said that they can't understand it without quantum gravity instead of trying to work more slowly on what they can understand even though it is very complex.

Have you considered that as a rotating body collapses its angular momentum is conserved but its rotational energy increases (without limit if you allow things to head towards a singularity) because of the release of gravitational potential energy and this could result in the creation of a lot more particles also from the point of view of the particles that are in orbit and continually accelerating towards the velocity of light time slows down so everything is likely to start looking bigger rather than smaller if you measure things by your time and the velocity of light.

This could mean that you might be able to build a universe as big as ours inside a stellar mass black hole!  Some of the inflationary cosmologies consider the possibility that the whole universe grew from something relatively small by the release of vast quantities of potential energy as it turned into particles.

[common_sense_seeker]

I have developed an intuitive model of a quantum theory of creation. It is surprisingly easy to imagine a build-up of matter before the big bang. I have been working on this picture of 'evolutionary cosmology' for over 25 years! I just don't have the expertise to create a computer simulation model. One day my genius will be recognised I'm sure. []

btw - I couldn't access your webpage.

[Vern]

There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed []

[common_sense_seeker]

There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed []

Where is the evidence that we emerged from a black hole?? It's all based on maths which is based on Einstein's GR, which is increasingly in doubt.

[lyner]

There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.

But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed []

It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
Until you know the quantities involved, you can't say. You could, of course, say that the quantities must have been appropriate for it to have happened. We're here now, so it must have been that way

[Vern]

Where is the evidence that we emerged from a black hole?? It's all based on maths which is based on Einstein's GR, which is increasingly in doubt.

We do not seem to enjoy the conditions that we think would prevail if we were inside the event horizon of a black hole. So I'm guessing we are not inside, so we must have escaped.

[Vern]

It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.

You have found the key. [] The BB was a non-standard situation. It didn't follow our standard rules of nature.

[common_sense_seeker]

It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.

You have found the key. [] The BB was a non-standard situation. It didn't follow our standard rules of nature.

Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)

[Vern]

Then we would have to build a new big bang theory. The current one has space and time beginning with the event. The concept does not make sense within the presently understood rules of nature. The new big bang theory would probably not make sense within the same constraints also. []

[jerrygg38]

Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)
[/quote]

  The big bang is a condition in which our entire universe is reduced to a planar surface of electrical charges. No mass exists at that time. Once a minimum radius is reached, the surface explodes and in the process produces the galaxies. Over time the galaxies will disintegrate and the charges will reform . They will contract again in the future and the next big bang will reoccur.

[Vern]

If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?

[Vern]

Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)

  The big bang is a condition in which our entire universe is reduced to a planar surface of electrical charges. No mass exists at that time. Once a minimum radius is reached, the surface explodes and in the process produces the galaxies. Over time the galaxies will disintegrate and the charges will reform . They will contract again in the future and the next big bang will reoccur.

I think this is the way you wanted your post to come out[]

[jerrygg38]

Then we would have to build a new big bang theory. The current one has space and time beginning with the event. The concept does not make sense within the presently understood rules of nature. The new big bang theory would probably not make sense within the same constraints also. []

In my multi-lightspeed model, space and time existed prior to the big bang and after the big bang. The highest light speed universes are not effected by our big bang or the big bang of the lower light speed universes.
  the simultaneous explosion of all the lower light speed universes from light speed zero up to our light speed, enlarges our surface plane faster than the speed of light. Thus for awhile our entire light speed C universe is pushed by the interaction with the lower universes.
  As we move outward from the common center we reach a light speed in which at very high light speeds, the universes will not form protons and neutrons and electrons.
   All we have are photonic dot-waves which form intelligence systems independent of the big bangs.
   The big bangs destroy the intelligence of the lower universes. However intelligence from the higher universes coexist and flow into our forming universe. Therefore the life processes are all pre-ordained. Man will appear everywhere life is possible because the structure of man exists in the total intelligence of the multi-lightspeed universe.

[jerrygg38]

If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?

I am not sure who this response applies to.  If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.

[Vern]

If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?

I am not sure who this response applies to.  If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.

Maybe you should rename it to multibang or something. [] Hawking would probably not recognize it.