Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics

  • 72 Replies
  • 21404 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Dick1038

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« 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. 

*

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #1 on: 30/12/2007 18:59:37 »
The energy for the Big Bang was already there, it just changed its form so no law is violated.

*

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3927
    • View Profile
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #2 on: 30/12/2007 19:02:04 »
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.  
syhprum

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #3 on: 31/12/2007 10:27:51 »
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.
« Last Edit: 31/12/2007 10:30:42 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Dick1038

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
    • View Profile
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #4 on: 31/12/2007 18:25:24 »
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?

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #5 on: 01/01/2008 10:59:11 »
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.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline moo

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #6 on: 04/02/2014 00:53:36 »
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.

*

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 302
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #7 on: 04/02/2014 12:14:10 »
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.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #8 on: 04/02/2014 12:47:24 »
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'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline moo

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #9 on: 04/02/2014 23:24:32 »
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.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #10 on: 06/02/2014 21:09:11 »
Quote from: moo
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?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #11 on: 06/02/2014 21:46:26 »
Quote from: flr
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?
 

There never was nothing.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #12 on: 07/02/2014 05:53:16 »
Quote from: flr
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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 302
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #13 on: 07/02/2014 18:06:13 »
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?

*

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 302
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #14 on: 07/02/2014 18:08:12 »

How could we understand the conservation of energy in a universe that contains an infinite amount of energy in it?

*

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 302
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #15 on: 07/02/2014 19:08:57 »
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?

*

Offline andreasva

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #16 on: 07/02/2014 19:27:41 »
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.

*

Offline moo

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #17 on: 13/02/2014 00:10:13 »
andreasva - liked the other thread.  Not sure what the rules are about quoting cross thread are, so if I break etiquette I do apologise.

Quote
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.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #18 on: 13/02/2014 12:16:43 »
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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #19 on: 16/02/2014 17:33:16 »
Quote from: JeffreyH
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.  :)
There never was nothing.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #20 on: 16/02/2014 17:52:58 »
Quote from: flr
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.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #21 on: 17/02/2014 00:12:16 »
Quote from: flr
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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #22 on: 18/02/2014 20:15:27 »
Quote from: flr
(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.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #23 on: 19/02/2014 12:48:13 »
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.)

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #24 on: 19/02/2014 16:14:18 »
Quote from: flr
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.

*

Offline Pr. snoerkel

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

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #26 on: 19/02/2014 18:06:08 »
The BB as traditionally explained by science certainly violates the first law of thermodynamics. And what about the third law? It says that the Unirverse eventually will end up in a state where no mechanical energy can be produced. So, if masses exist at that point they must be either be collected in one point, a huge black hole, or be outside each others observation horizon. Otherwise it would be possible to create mechanical energy by mutual interaction between masses.
But a black hole would be radiating as shown by Hawking and that could in principle be utilized for mechanical energy. Same goes for any mass even the slightest above absolute zero temperature.
So, the only way to preserve the third law would be to imagine an end scenario somewhat in line with that proposed by ScientificSorcerer

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

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Pr. snoerkel

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

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

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

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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #30 on: 19/02/2014 23:10:37 »
Quote from: JP
Another infinity thread?

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

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

Three questions arise here:

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

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

3. Who decides how much extrapolation is acceptable, and in what circumstances?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #32 on: 20/02/2014 21:36:56 »
Quote
This practice has allowed scientists to see what the universe looked like along time ago.This combined with noting the temperature of space that long ago allowed use to paint a picture of the rebirth of the universe.

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

There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

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

As Democritus ones said


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

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

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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #34 on: 21/02/2014 16:47:00 »
Quote from: SS
...you can't just take someone's word for it just because they are a leader, or in this case a leader of the scientific community.

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

There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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



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

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lyqoWgB5kg

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5orcCuprG4

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

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



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



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



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

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

What do you think about my theory/educated opinion?

*

Offline Conspirologist

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

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

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

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

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #37 on: 22/02/2014 06:15:43 »
If atoms are pushed so tightly together then you would ultimately have feedback in the coulomb field in the same way feedback occurs in gravity fields. This would also be true of gluon confinement. The problem is that all the particles are either likely to tend to be in the form of neutrons or free quarks and gluons. In the case of neutrons having neutral charge I would doubt they would have much effect on light directly. Feedback in quark confinement would have a dramatic effect but you would need to formulate a link between gluons and gravity. A daunting task.

http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/from-cold-atoms-to-quark-gluon-plasmas.html
« Last Edit: 22/02/2014 06:21:02 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #38 on: 22/02/2014 17:51:59 »
I tend to like non-mainstream ideas, and believe that an idea that has had a lot of thought put into it is a thing of value, even if the experts can shoot so many holes in it that it begins to look like a colander.  (You will have no difficulty believing that I’ve been there).  Finding such an idea that is defended by someone who doesn’t descend into ad hominem attacks and insults is a rare treat.

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

“It starts with a black hole

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

Gravity waves exist, that's a fact….”

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

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

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

Is the universe completely contained in the central matter, or is the gravity well/gravitational field part of the universe?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

as for your second question about gravity waves. Indeed gravity waves/gravitational waves may or my not exist But there is a lot of evidence supporting there existence. I think these short videos will clarify any confusion as to what gravitational waves are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOoZ5nufd9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1tkM_f5B9s
you can see how this correlates to "Dark energy" they seem like very similar things to me. As I mentioned earlier you would need huge gravity waves to correlate dark energy and gravitational waves. I think the big bang created these huge gravity waves.

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #40 on: 23/02/2014 18:03:57 »
SS.     I realise that a black hole is not a hole of the sort you might dig in the ground.  The question about a black hole being a hole in something arose because I was asking the question as a part of an ongoing thought train linked to the idea that if the entire universe were contained in the “singularity”, and if that were surrounded by a gravitational field, where would the field be?  On the other hand, if the gravitational field is part of the universe, how could the entire universe be within the singularity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The floodgates of questions are gradually opening, but modestia in omnibus.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #42 on: 24/02/2014 03:33:11 »
Quote from: SS
because the curvature of space directly correlates to the condenseness of matter that too appears to be infinity curved. I hope this makes sense.

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

It seems that in your scenario all the matter/energy from the "retiring" universe survives the bounce, so each universe is recycled.  Is that right?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

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

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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #44 on: 24/02/2014 18:23:33 »
You have lost me with the bit about light orbiting the “finite universe”.  Does your scenario not have light permeating the Universe?

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

Returning to the idea that everything survives the bounce, I assume this includes time.  Am I right in thinking that time is continuous through a succession of universes, rather than being created at the start of each universe?
There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #46 on: 24/02/2014 20:26:32 »
Thanks SS, that makes the picture clearer.  Not being one who has any facility worth mentioning in maths, it will take me a while to mull over the bits about the size of the Universe, but I feel sure there will be questions.

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

BTW, I hope you don't mind my referring to you as "SS"; it's pure laziness, so I can stop if it offends you.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Conspirologist

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

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

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

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #49 on: 25/02/2014 22:22:09 »
SS.

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

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

Because you have light and matter travelling at different speeds, I assume they are travelling through something rather than being carried along by expanding spacetime.  Is that a right impression?
There never was nothing.