0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do ewe mean to say we exist in a sequel ?
............ what you describe does not work with the laws of physics as we know them .......
As I said, this really is just a musing, not based on any science, but......Quote from: Soul Surfer on 24/01/2012 23:28:54............ what you describe does not work with the laws of physics as we know them .......I do think we have to maintain an open mind on the laws of physics. Laws which might work well and pertain to what we know, or theorise, about the universe, may be turned on their heads in different circumstances.As Clifford questions, 'is a negative K possible'? Probably not, but if the laws of physics do not apply..........?I am certainly not defending my idea, I prefer the idea of a cyclic universe, but this is just an exercise in tossing the laws of physics into the air and seeing how they land.
"Firstly as things collapse they get hotter also as it collapses the gravitational field gets even stronger. When particles at very high energy collide they create more particles tying up some if this excess heat energy in matter, and this can go on for ever! The reason for this is that every time the radius of the collapsing mass is reduced by 50%, more energy is released and more matter can be created than the previous collapse of 50%. This is quite a simple calculation based on standard gravitational potential theory and the inverse square law. That is what the maths says so in theory even a little black hole as it is collapsing inside can create enough matter to make a universe at least as big as ours."This would seem to be an even more radical version of Hoyle,s continuos creation theory.
Although there are mainstream scientists among the many renegades, crackpots and wackos (myself included) who are positing cosmological models and theories about multiple universes, all such musings belong in the category of philosophy and religion, not science. The mods should move this question to the New Theories section. Until then, I shall not attempt to answer, lest I get in trouble for introducing new theory in the mainstream section.
please then explain clearly what you mean by a negative temperature and why a change from a negative temperature to a positive on creates the effects you suggest. Your ideas will then have some solidity.
Syhprum it is nothing like the continuous creation theory. It is just applying what happens in the LHC or other powerful collision experiments. Energy is turned into matter. Equal quantities of matter and antimatter of course. However we now know there is a slight asymmetry and eventually the matter will build up during the collapse.MikeS the black hole we see and detect by its gravitational field in our universe has a finite amount of energy and that is what we see and detect. The rest of this is cut off by the event horizon. it is a simple conservation of energy calculation coupled with the conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy that does the rest.Sorry Don you cannot get anywhere by wild surmising, a new idea has to be built on a firm foundation of physics like the one I have just proposed. I am very happy to invite any other physicists or cosmologists to disprove my simple description of what happens in the early stages of the collapse of the material inside a black hole's event horizon.What happens later requires a bit more physics and some concepts of what dark matter is when the energies get high enough to start creating dark matter particles. All that is needed now is something to effectively create "space" from this energy and we would have the possibility of a "big bang". I have several suggestions but that will take things into the realm of new theories so I will stop here for the moment.
Gordon Bennett Don_1! Look what you've done now.In future, kindly refrain from asking such difficult questions.
CliffordK you have several fundamental errors in there and you need to learn a bit more proper physics but you are sort of on the right track.Don maybe I can explain things a little bit better than I have done so far and help you to understand what I am on about. Temperature is all about positive free energy in the motion of particles that make up matter. It is therefore not possible to have a negative temperature because the concept of negative energy in that context does not exist. Note even at absolute zero the atoms still contain a lot of energy of motion as well as energy tied up in mass but all of that is not free.However when you come to gravitation the situation is very different. Say you have a large volume of cold gas collapsing under its own gravity. This is how stars are formed. As the gas collapses under gravity it is compressed and get hotter. (remember your bicycle pump getting hot as you compress the gas to pump up your tyres). I repeat hotter, please note CliffordK compression and "restricting movement" makes things hotter not colder. This is a load of positive energy that has come from the release of gravitational energy. It follows that gravitational energy is your source of negative energy. This is where you need to look for your source of energy.However again I stress that there is no way of getting out of a black hole. So there cannot be any explosion in our universe. Any explosion, if it exists, is somewhere else and we cannot be aware of it. We can only create theoretical models of what might happen. The currently accepted statement that a mathematical singularity exists in the middle of a black hole is just another way of saying we don't really know at the moment. It is a bit like saying our universe will become dead cold and empty in the far distant future so it is pointless and uninteresting. However if a universe in running through its life from big bang to heat death has created a vast number of new universes on the way to which it is (in theory) possible to go (but never return). It might give you more cause for enthusiasm among those who feel that there being some point in everything is important.
Mike and others. The energy available from gravitational collapse comes from simple maths by the integration of the energy gained by a particle as it approaches a gravitating point source from a very large distance under the inverse square law. Most of this comes when it is getting close to the gravitating point.This is a good ref that shows the mathshttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.htmlYou must also remember that a spherical object collapsing under its own gravity can be treated as a gravitational point source at the sphere's centre (of gravity). This applies to particles both inside and outside of the surface of the sphere with the mass defined by the mass within the sphere defined by the radius from the location of the centre of gravity.It follows that any object that is collapsing under its own gravity towards a mathematical point (however small the initial object) can release an infinite quantity of energy. We only need enough to create a reasonably sized universe like ours!