The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 60   Go Down

If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

  • 1188 Replies
  • 479501 Views
  • 8 Tags

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #180 on: 01/11/2017 14:03:27 »
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 13:51:44
I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write. Strangely enough I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked.  Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.
Logged
 



Offline atbsphotography

  • Genius of stupidity.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 82
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I either have a brilliant mind or a very bad one.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #181 on: 01/11/2017 14:10:13 »
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs? More specifically if each happened at a different time throughout the early universe then logic would dictate we would be able to observe these other big bangs? Or as is my preferred analogy their was one big bang but made of 2 different entities that collided. We would only be able to observe just the one big bang.

Another question would be if the prerequisites for the big bangs happened to be overlapping energy and matter coming together in the centre of gravity then would this still be happening now? If so then how long till the next one? And could we detect these bangs as a gravitational wave?

I realise the above poses more than one question but they flow together so I didn't feel the need to change it.

Logged
Find me on Instagram - atbs_photography. I sometimes post really cool pictures of the moon.
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #182 on: 01/11/2017 14:13:36 »
Quote from: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:10:13
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs?
We visualise the big bang as some huge big ''explosion'', but what if the big bang was lots of really small bangs at a quantum level so tiny , we could not observe it?
It could still be happening now a recurring process that is continuous.

added- Micro bangs

Multiple  Micro bangs might look like a big bang.
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #183 on: 01/11/2017 14:20:50 »

* Micro.jpg (25.08 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4259 times)
Logged
 

Offline atbsphotography

  • Genius of stupidity.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 82
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I either have a brilliant mind or a very bad one.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #184 on: 01/11/2017 14:22:07 »
Quote from: Thebox on 01/11/2017 14:03:27
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 13:51:44
I did mention, “Don’t be sorry”, and there is no reason to believe that my video was intended to be a report of science that I am “doing”. You have missed the posts where I refer to my model as reasonable and responsible speculations, and I don’t pretend to be doing science.
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write. Strangely enough, I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked.  Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.

The same spongey effect could also be an attribute to black holes and the wider universe as a whole, therefore a black hole would absorb energy and matter and possibly spit it back out as a flash on the event horizon, I need to think more about that idea but it could work in theory.

Quote from: Thebox on 01/11/2017 14:13:36
Quote from: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:10:13
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs?
We visualise the big bang as some huge big ''explosion'', but what if the big bang was lots of really small bangs at a quantum level so tiny, we could not observe it?
It could still be happening now a recurring process that is continuous.

So to look at it in a different situation, these quantum level explosions you mention they could have preceded the big bang and since they were before the initial big bang, then wouldn't that hypothetically have caused a change reaction which leads to the big bang? Therefore if these quantum level explosions are happening now, then, in theory, it could start another big bang and wipe out the universe as we know it or it would do nothing more than make the universe expand at an even more exponential rate?
Logged
Find me on Instagram - atbs_photography. I sometimes post really cool pictures of the moon.
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #185 on: 01/11/2017 14:49:10 »
Quote from: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:22:07
hese quantum level explosions you mention they could have preceded the big bang
Yes they could of proceeded the big bang or from a different viewpoint (looking in)  from an infinite Universe perspective, the micro bang is the big bang.  It only seems a big bang because of the scaling we use. We presume the visual universe is huge, but from an infinite Universe perspective viewpoint, our visual universe is smaller than a pin head.
So what we call a big bang is a relative  micro bang from a different observers perspective.

Let me try to  explain something, I want you to imagine a void if you can that is just dimensions of space that are not occupied by anything physical.   
(missing part)
Then imagine an energy trying to manifest that was a mono polarity.   This manifestation would keep ''exploding'' every time it tried to form. The physics involved are because it is likewise to itself , so it will just keep ''exploding'' and expanding to nothing .
Now the only way the energy can manifest is if by random chance, an opposite mono polarity energy tried to manifest in the exact same 0 point geometrical position at the exact same time.

Logged
 

Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #186 on: 01/11/2017 15:20:44 »
Quote from: Thebox on 01/11/2017 14:03:27
I consider you are a clever person and do word things well when you write.
Aww, shucks, that is nice of you to say. And you are too.
Quote
Strangely enough I dreamed about your idea last night and have something to say about your idea.
An infinite Universe that contains spongey materials would be more fitting and understandable.   Sponges of cause being matter that can retain energy that is absorbed but also emits the energy if the sponge gets too soaked. Quantum Fields also have the properties of spongey.
That is a good perspective in regard to “spongy”.
Quote
So after reconsideration in my dream of your idea, I have changed my mind and I will say a good idea that needs a little bit of work to put into correct context.
I plan to keep working on it; evolving it, as I call it.

I’ll remind you of reply #116, where I describe what “spongy” means in regard to the title of my model:
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it (light waves, gravity waves, cosmic rays, neutrinos, whatever is out there traversing space at all times). For example, in deep space, the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space is very low, relative to the amount of wave energy contained in the same volume of space in the proximity of a massive object, like the sun.

In the model, the sun, and all objects with mass, emit and absorb gravitational wave energy, and that inflow and outflow represents a continual process that maintains the presence of the massive objects and their constituent wave-particles. Therefore, the inflow and out flow action near the sun features a high amount of gravitational wave energy coming and going, but then, in accord with the inverse square law, the same volume of space in a far removed location in deep space would contain much lower wave energy density. Hence, the universe is “spongy”.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2017 20:21:26 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #187 on: 01/11/2017 15:26:59 »
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2017 15:20:44
The reason that the universe is spongy in my model is because any given volume of space can contain a vast range of energy in the form of gravitational waves traversing it (light waves, gravity waves, cosmic rays, neutrinos, what every is out there traversing space at all times).
Ok, I see your point, but by using the word Universe, it can have ambiguity.  Maybe you should say the infinite spongy universe of space. I just feel things have to be independent of the space and explained so.  So if you put spongy fields then you would be correct in my opinion, I explain it Q.F.S   (quantum field solidity)  I could adjust that to q.f.s (quantum field spongy) lol.

p.s I consider waves are q.f.f (quantum field fluctuations) and at the epicentre of waves is a flat spot.
Logged
 

Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #188 on: 01/11/2017 15:56:41 »
Quote from: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:10:13
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs? More specifically if each happened at a different time throughout the early universe then logic would dictate we would be able to observe these other big bangs?
Yes, there should be evidence that we can detect of the “parent” arenas that I speculate intersected and overlapped, to form the Big Crunch,  out of which our Big Bang arena emerged as a hot dense ball of wave energy.

And there is evidence! Are you familiar with the cosmic micro wave background. There have been various mappings and studies of it, and there are temperature fluctuations in the microwave energy, and there is a concept called angular anisotropy, or observable temperature differences depending on the segment of the sky (space) that you look at.

I addressed that in Reply #82 and #83, Take a look:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519491#msg519491
… or better yet, watch the ISU video:
And comment freely.
Quote
Or as is my preferred analogy their was one big bang but made of 2 different entities that collided. We would only be able to observe just the one big bang.
Do you have any speculation about the origin of the two different entities that collided, much like the Barnes theory suggests, because the question of “infinite regression”, meaning what came before, continually comes up. It keeps coming up unless you get to something that is eternal, an infinite past, like my axiom that the universe has always existed, and big bangs are occurring with the same preconditions, two or more existing parent arenas making each new “infant” arena, and thata process, called arena action, has been going on throughout the infinite past.
Quote
Another question would be if the prerequisites for the big bangs happened to be overlapping energy and matter coming together in the centre of gravity then would this still be happening now?
Yes, in my ISU model, it is a continual process. There is an infinite landscape, composed of a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas at all times.

Quote
If so then how long till the next one?
There is one going to happen right now, somewhere out there in the infinite Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe. The concept of infinity, and an infinite arena landscape is hard to get your arms around, but I am still waiting for another way to avoid infinite regression.
Quote
And could we detect these bangs as a gravitational wave?
Yes, with some stipulations. The imprint of the previous big bangs is out there in the gravitational wave energy profile of space, as discussed in replies #82 and #83 linked above. Also, refer back to reply #136 for a description of the profile of space.
Quote
I realise the above poses more than one question but they flow together so I didn't feel the need to change it.


Ask as many questions as you need to, to come to your own conclusions as to if you see any merit in my model.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2019 14:30:36 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 
The following users thanked this post: atbsphotography



Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #189 on: 01/11/2017 16:26:07 »
Quote from: atbsphotography on 01/11/2017 14:22:07

The same spongey effect could also be an attribute to black holes and the wider universe as a whole, therefore a black hole would absorb energy and matter and possibly spit it back out as a flash on the event horizon, I need to think more about that idea but it could work in theory.
There are many possibilities, and that is one. I would say that within our own Big Bang arena, that is expanding and filling with galactic structure, black holes are quite common. There is one at the center of most galaxies, there are black holes left after supernovae, there are black holes left after two other black holes swirl into a violent merger, as recently detected by LIGO.

All of those examples are within our expanding arena, and the arena landscape of the greater universe is the multiple Big Bang landscape with a potentially infinite number of those active arenas, some forming, some expanding, some overlapping, and some producing new big crunches that will collapse/bang into new arenas.

There is an order of magnitude difference between our arena that contains many black holes, and the universal landscape that contains many Big Bang arenas. My model reflects my conclusion that a Big Crunch equates to the granddaddy of black holes; a crunch that contains enough matter and energy to produce our entire Big Bang arena, some of which is the observable universe, and some of our own arena is not within our ability to observe.

The physics of the Big Crunch is different from the common black holes in our arena. The Big Crunch has to grow and grow, pulling in huge fractions of the parent arenas before the crunch reaches “critical capacity”, and that includes pulling in a huge number of common black holes in the process. It takes the gravitational compression of a whole, complete Big Crunch to cause all of the particles captured in the crunch to be negated into their constituent wave energy, giving up their individual space, and collapsing into the same space. When that happens, as critical capacity is achieved in a Big Crunch, all of the particles are forced by gravitational compression, to “give up” their individual space, and the whole crunch collapses. That event is a Big Bang in my model.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2017 12:36:28 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 
The following users thanked this post: atbsphotography

Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #190 on: 03/11/2017 02:47:39 »
Some details presented in a discussion elsewhere, but that pertain to this thread, so I have paraphrased the details here:

… in my model, when an object moves, it follows a curved path through the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

Quote
You say that your model does not invoke space time...?  In this case, how does your model cope with time dilation?

It is true, but for every effect in GR, there is an effect that must be dealt with in the ISU. You ask about time dilation, because you invoke SR/GR, and you feel comfortable that matter can cause space to curve and curved space can cause matter to move.

I feel comfortable that virtually the same effect occurs in the ISU, but as a result of wave mechanics based on the fact that particles (wave-particles in my model) are standing waves with two components, 1) Inflowing gravitational wave energy, and 2) out flowing gravitational wave energy.

The standing wave patterns of each wave-particle are referred to as “complex standing wave patterns”, with wave intersections (quanta) occurring within the pattern (millions/billions of quanta) as the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components continually sustain the presence of the wave-particle. A wave-particle or object moves when there is an imbalance in the inflowing gravitational wave energy component of the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

The motion of wave-particles and objects follows the highest net directional gravitational wave energy inflow in the local wave-energy density profile of space (a hint about my speculation about quantum gravity).

[Now we can talk the ISU equivalent to time dilation]

Clocks are composed of wave particles. Two identical clocks, in the same local gravitational wave energy density environment (the local space), will tick at the same rate because their wave-particles are functioning in the same gravitational wave energy density environment.

If one clock is designated the “rest” clock, then any relative motion will cause the moving clock to tick slower because relative to the rest clock, the local gravitational wave energy density environment of the moving clock will take on a directional anomaly. There will be a higher gravitational wave energy density surrounding the moving clock in the direction of relative motion, and therefore the wave-particles in the moving clock will function slower, causing the moving clock to tick slower (a moving clock has more wave intersections in the complex standing wave pattern, and so it has more quanta, and more mass, relative to the rest clock) [this has to be quite alternative to you, lol].

In my model, time simply passes, but the rate that individual moving clocks measure the passing of time relative to a rest clock is variable, governed by the relative difference in the local gravitational wave energy density caused by relative motion.


To be continued ...
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #191 on: 03/11/2017 14:08:15 »
The Story of the ISU
Riding a Photon
Post #1

AS is made clear in this thread,  The ISU stands for the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, a layman science enthusiasts musings on the cosmology of the universe. This idea, riding a photon, will give a look at the model from the perspective of a photon at the speed of light.

It is generally agreed that photons carry energy, so that is the first thing to say and describe from the ISU model. The entire range of energies carried by photons is quantified in the electromagnetic spectrum. One example in the model of meaningful photon energies includes the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMBR (I’m going to resist the temptation to provide a barrage of links, because I think the audience knows generally accepted science, or can use their favorite search engine).

I am humanizing the photons that I discuss in this series of posts as a way to ruminate about the life of a photon, but I don’t really mean that a photon is anything more that a packet of energy, or as is sometimes said, a pulsing packet of energy that has a frequency and wave length. Those are characteristics that can be affected by the photon’s individual journey across time and space. Our CMB photon has had a long journey, and is among a huge group of friends who have all traversed the universe,
not just from the moment that photons first were released in our Big Bang arena, but from other similar big bangs out there.

Their frequency has changed over time, and is now near the low end of the spectrum; it is thought that they have become significantly “redshifted” from the frequency they were born with in what was perhaps one of nature’s highest energy environments.They were “born” at the “surface of last scattering”, which is an epic period in our cosmology, theorized to have occurred a few hundred thousand years after the big event. The event itself is when an expanding hot dense ball of energy emerged onto the scene in the first instants after the Big Bang, in the Big Bang Theory (BBT).

Note that in the ISU, the energy carried by the photon was part of the energy of the Big Bang, and so the energy of the photon we are riding is energy that precedes the birth of the CMBR and precedes the surface of last scattering, and dates back to the bang itself.

But wait, the Bang itself is all about energy, so this is a good time to pass on some detail about how the ISU model deals with the beginning. BBT doesn’t talk about preconditions to the BB event, or even about there being a Big Bang, but the popular science media dates back to Einstein's day (and long before that), so the Big Bang name, and supposed details of event, were repeated and evolved in the popular media, outside of the maths and science that Einstein did. As for the "beginning" in the ISU model … there wasn’t one; the ISU has always existed.

To be continued …
« Last Edit: 05/11/2017 13:35:14 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #192 on: 03/11/2017 18:38:37 »
The Story of the ISU
Our CMBR Photon Ride Continues
Post #2


Our ride on this particular CMBR photon began at the “surface of last scattering”, over 13 billion years ago, and it was quite likely emitted with a very high frequency, perhaps in the X-ray or gamma ray range. I am intending that start point for this ride to correspond with generally accepted theory. From there, the intent is to describe the special circumstances of a photon in the ISU model. Those special circumstances can be considered a point of departure from the standard cosmological view.


By way of disclaimer, consider most of this series about the photon to be speculative ideas, as is the case with most of the details of the model. These speculations are found “necessary” to maintain  the intended internal consistency of the model, which is the overriding objective. The ISU invokes “known science”, but there is the much that is “as yet” unknown.


What I’m suggesting is that our now low energy CMBR photon was once a raging packet of hot energy, and throughout the ongoing expansion of our Big Bang arena, has had its wavelength stretched and its apparent frequency reduced; it is now in the microwave energy range along with the rest of its friends in the CMBR.


The CMBR photons were discovered for that very reason, their microwaves interfere with the radio wave telescopes. A couple of scientists, trying to figure out what was causing the static in the signals received by their radio telescope, finally narrowed down the cause to discover the existence of the low energy background. It is present at all angles across the sky. The concept of background radiation of the universe was born because of this group of photons that we are riding were a problem.


An interesting characteristic of the CMB is its temperature, near the low end of the Kelvin scale, about 2.7K, with very slight differences (anisotropy), of the CMB in all directions when measured from a theoretical rest location relative to the CMBR. When you move through space relative to the supposed rest location, you experience an increase in the local background temperature, and the increase is relative to your velocity (some refer to it as CMBR rest frame).


Now is a good time to point out that this background temperature has been carefully studied by various land and space based sky surveys, and there is a pattern in the findings worth looking into; the hemispherical anisotropy is the high sounding name for the feature that is most interesting to the ISU model. It can be seen as a hint of some remnant temperature extreme, imprinted on the background, by a previous history of big bangs. The hemispherical pattern specifically suggest it was imprinted by the two parent Big Bang arenas that the ISU model speculates occurred long before our current photon ride began. That would imply that our photon could be older than our own big bang’s 13.7 billion years, by a multiple of that length of time, given the perpetual heritage of Big Bang events across the landscape of the greater universe, suggested by the model.


To be continued …
« Last Edit: 05/11/2017 12:57:45 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 



Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #193 on: 05/11/2017 01:47:12 »
The Story of the ISU
Stretching My Photon ride
Post #3

This photon ride has now taken us out of our arena, into and through the remnants of our “parent” Big Bang arenas, and potentially beyond that. The ISU is (I am) comfortable with there being a universal background wave energy, continually refreshed here and there by new Big Bangs across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. The observable CMB in our arena is a mix of photon energy from our arena’s epic surface of last scattering in the BBT timeline, and of the universal energy background that is always there from a potentially infinite history of Big Bang arena action across the landscape of the greater universe.

The mixing is a consequence of our Big Crunch collapsing and bouncing into expansion, fueled by the “force” of energy density equalization; the hot dense ball of energy that emerges out of the collapse of the Big Crunch inflates into the lower wave energy density of our mature and expanded “parent” arenas. It is in accord with the sameness doctrine of the ISU, which postulates that each Big Bang has similar preconditions, and that each expanding Big Bang arena has the same physics.

This photon’s journey would have begun with the surface of last scattering, a phenomenon associated with our singular Big Bang theory; there is “nothing more worth thinking about”. It is common to hear phrases like that, and like, “there was no ‘before the Big Bang’ ”, or “time didn’t exist” until the Big Bang. But in the ISU, space, time, and wave energy have always existed, and Big Bang arena action has always been the thing. It defeats entropy by refreshing the energy of old cold matter from dying galaxies and burned out stars in the parent arenas, into a low entropy hot dense ball of wave energy emerging from the collapse of a Big Crunch that formed at the center of gravity of the overlap space of our converging parent arenas.

In a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, the initial collapse/bang event releases high energy photons at the same time as the particles contained in the Crunch collapse, giving up their individual space, and compressing into nature’s maximum wave energy density environment. This is not an infinitely dense point in space, but it is nature’s closest approximation of it; so dense that it is impossible to be compressed any further. This extreme density acts like a brick wall in regard to the in-falling wave energy as the crunch collapses, and there is a bounce. The in-falling matter and energy encounters the environment representing nature’s maximum density, and bounces off, giving the first boost to the expansion of the hot dense energy ball. Wave energy density equalization immediately takes over from collapse, and the extreme high density wave energy of the hot energy ball emerges with nature’s most rapid wave energy advance, into the low energy density space of the greatly expanded mature parent arenas.

That is the environment where our photon ride began. We traversed the low energy density of the surrounding space of our expanded and depleted parent arenas, and traveled out beyond, into the corridor of continuity (the label given to the deep space at the outer fringes of fully expanded parent arenas) where old cold galactic matter is adrift in the gravitational wave energy density of the deepest space.

Our photon ride will eventually end when it inevitably gets caught up in a new arena convergence, perhaps hundreds of billions of years later, and contributes its extremely redshifted energy remnant to that new crunch.
.


To be continued ...
« Last Edit: 05/11/2017 13:51:58 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #194 on: 07/11/2017 20:05:26 »
Response received to reply #190 above
Quote
I don't have a problem with your equivalent to GR time dilation, but am left wondering what the mechanism is for wave energy density, (much the same as I am left wondering about the mechanism with GR concerning gravity), …


…. and yes I would still like to hear your alternative quantum (quantum solution to gravity), if you are willing? .... 

Thank you for considering the ISU's version of an equivalent to GR time dilation, and for not having a problem with it, though I could easily be embarrassed if confronted with a reasonable line of questioning, I’m sure.

The “mechanism” for wave energy density is determined by the nature of wave-particles (see 11/2/17 response as a reminder). In the ISU model, there is infinite and eternal space, filled with wave energy. The history of the relative motion of matter, and the nature of the wave particles, with their inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy, causes continual changes in the local wave energy density profile of space. What I didn’t do in the 11/2/17 reply was make it clear where wave-particles come from in each new arena, and that might make it easier to understand my speculations about wave-particles, the gravitational profile of space, and quantum gravity. Let me make a pass at describing all of that from the ISU perspective:

My speculation about the gravitational wave energy density of space is part of building my model from the bottom up, step by step. I start with the axioms, and known physics. From that combination, some additional aspects of the model become “necessary”. When something becomes necessary, often there is an existing scientific explanation, and if not, I will speculate.

For example, we observe an expanding Big Bang arena based on the observed redshift data. It is necessary that something set the observable universe into motion, and it isn’t hard to find an explanation, i.e., the Big Bang event itself.

If I invoke the Big Bang event at the beginning of our observable universe, I find it necessary that there must be preconditions to the Big Bang. There are many options, but I chose to go with the multiple Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe model for three reasons: 1) two or more existing expanding “parent” arenas in the same contiguous space, regardless of their separation, will eventually intersect and overlap, and the overlap is necessary for the formation of a new Big Crunch, 2) entropy is defeated as old cold galactic material and energy from cold expanded arenas are refreshed into hot dense expanding balls of low entropy wave energy, and 3) infinite regression is defeated by the perpetual arena action going on eternally across the landscape of the greater universe.

We already have an example of one expanding arena, so I speculate that each one will have the “two or more parent arenas” precondition, and will follow the same path to maturity; expanding, cooling, and filling with galactic structure, until their expansion is interrupted by converging with one or more other expanding arenas, whereupon a crunch forms and collapse/bangs into a new expanding arena.

Given the observable nature of gravity, each parent arena will end up contributing portions of their galactic material and energy to a Big Crunch that I speculate would naturally form at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

Given that, it is necessary that there is some mechanism to explain how a Big Crunch could result in a Big Bang that could produce an expanding Big Bang arena like the one we observe ourselves to be in. There are many story plots for that, I suppose, but I found it reasonable to conclude that the particles that make up the Big Crunch must require sufficient individual space in order to function properly, as they do in the clocks mentioned earlier, and yet must be able to permit the crunch to collapse and burst into expansion, under the compression of gravity.

I speculate that the growing crunch and resulting gravitational compression would increase forever in an infinite Big Bang arena landscape, unless there was some limit to the amount of gravitational compression that the particles could withstand. I speculate that when the compression limit is reached, called “critical capacity” of a Big Crunch, the particles would cease to function properly, and would be forced to give up their individual space, collapsing together with a bang. My phrasing is that the particles are negated into their constituent wave energy under the compression of gravity, and the compression overcomes the ability of the wave-particles to properly function and to maintain their individual space.

So consider the nature of the space into which the hot dense energy ball that emerges from the bang is expanding into, and it becomes necessary that there is force that drives expansion, i.e., some physical explanation for what we call “dark energy”. In the ISU, that force is called wave energy density equalization.

What is equalizing is the gravitational wave energy density differential between the hot dense expanding ball of wave energy emerging from the Big Bang, and the low surrounding gravitational wave energy density of the relatively empty space of the mature parent arenas that had contributed much of their galactic structure to the crunch before the bang. That contributed material has now become the expanding hot dense ball of energy that is intruding into the lower gravitational wave energy density environment being vacated by the parent arenas.

That hot dense ball of wave energy is the source of the wave-particles that will begin to form in the expanding arena. I sometimes refer to the accumulation of the crunch and its “collapse/bang into expansion” as the inflowing and out flowing components of an arena sized particle, for talking purposes (Higgs boson?). The expansion phase is the spherically out flowing component of the arena particle.

That arena particle will expand and break down as it “decays” and cools. There are a series of exotic particles, equivalent to the activity in the Higgs field, I suppose, until the cooling and separation of the particles leads to a set of stable particles within the young arena. Atoms form, composed of those fundamental stable wave-particles, and there comes an epic referred to as the surface of last scattering, where energy is released in pulsing packets known as photon wave-particles, emitted from the new atoms in the arena to allow for the continued expansion and cooling. The photons have mass, just like all wave-particles in the ISU. 

From that story, I derive the description of the mechanics of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, explain why there is a necessity for the wave-particle, and tell how the mechanics of quantum gravity work in the model. The functions of the wave-particle are:

1) To continually supply the gravitational wave energy density of the local space with their spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component, thus establishing and maintaining the local gravitational profile.
2) To continually absorb directional gravitational wave energy from the local profile of space, thus maintaining the presence of wave-particles, and governing the motion of particles and objects as they traverse space.
3) To maintain the ability of wave-particles to function under normal gravitational wave energy density conditions; enabling nature to carry out what it does, like generate and evolve life forms that build clocks, etc. :) .
4) To act as the canary in the coal mine, collapsing on cue when the gravitational compression of a Big Crunch reaches critical capacity.
5) To allow wave-particles to be the vehicles of gravitational motion in the ISU model’s quantum solution to gravity.


To be continued …
The ISU Quantum Solution to Gravity Speculation follows.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2017 04:54:35 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #195 on: 08/11/2017 12:49:03 »
Continued from reply #194 which is a background to this post

The ISU Quantum Solution to Gravity Speculation

1) The motion of a complex standing wave-particle is a function of the wave intersections that make up the pattern. Each wave-particle has its own space, maintained by the process of quantum action, that allows them sufficient individual space to function properly.

2) The particle will always have a meaningful wave intersection in the pattern for each quanta in the mass of the particle (think of a freeze frame of the wave action within the particle space [complex standing wave pattern], and count the meaningful wave intersections in the wave-particle pattern).

3) Meaningful wave intersections are referred to as momentary high energy density spots that form when converging waves intersect, each parent (quantum) wave contributes energy from their wave fronts to the high density spot. A new quantum wave emerges from each high energy density spot. (I use the “spherical cow” analogy for talking purposes, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow] but envision some complicated details of the action as it takes place.) Note the “sameness” in the explanation of the inflowing wave energy that forms the high density spots and spherically out flowing wave that emerges from the high energy density spots within the wave-particle space, to the crunch formation and out flowing expansion wave of Big Bang arena action in the landscape of the greater universe.

4) The quanta have momentary presence, and are continually refreshed by the quantum action of spherically out flowing and directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy exchanged to and from the local profile of space. A proton may have hundreds of billions of quanta (see Reply #79 for basis of that estimation).

5) Motion of the wave particle, relative to their current location in space, is achieved by there being new meaningful wave intersections forming within the particle space, in the direction of the net highest directional wave energy density, and a corresponding loss of trailing meaningful wave intersections (quanta) from the pattern as the new intersections form in the direction of the wave-particle advance. Thus the location of the particle moves in space in the direction of the net highest gravitational wave energy density in the local profile of space, on the basis that the location of the standing wave pattern is continually changing as the quanta exchange takes place. That is quantum gravity.

6) There are variables that govern the number of quanta added, and the resulting change in relative mass of the wave-particle as it accelerates.

7) The phrase I use is that quantum gravity governs the motion of the wave-particles and objects as they follow the net highest directional wave energy density path of the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

I know that is a lot of speculating to process, and it is hard to understand for a reader new to the model. Comments welcomed.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2017 12:57:18 by Bogie_smiles »
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #196 on: 08/11/2017 15:46:26 »
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 07/11/2017 20:05:26
we observe an expanding Big Bang arena
Hi Bogie mate, I am getting my head around your idea much better, but would like to point out the relativity involved in this statement.

A big bang from which observers perspective? 

Relative to an observer in the interior of the event it is a big bang

Relative to an observer a great distance away, it is a micro bang.

If you want to use multiple big bangs, then surely you must use the micro bang perspective.

Logged
 



Offline Bogie_smiles (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1456
  • Activity:
    7.5%
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Science Enthusiast: Be cheerful; be careful.
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #197 on: 08/11/2017 17:37:45 »
Quote from: Thebox on 08/11/2017 15:46:26
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 07/11/2017 20:05:26
we observe an expanding Big Bang arena
Hi Bogie mate, I am getting my head around your idea much better, but would like to point out the relativity involved in this statement.

A big bang from which observers perspective? 

Relative to an observer in the interior of the event it is a big bang

Relative to an observer a great distance away, it is a micro bang.

If you want to use multiple big bangs, then surely you must use the micro bang perspective.


To be sure, what you say is true, and I won’t assail that statement with ifs, ands, or buts. When perspective is everything, and when measuring or quantifying such an event on the macro to micro scale, given only the field of view measurement of the event, the more distant an observer is from the event, the more micro the event would appear.

The quote you used to start your post was made in the context of me replying to a question about the mechanics of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, a central feature of the ISU cosmology. I had failed to stress the significance to the model of the feature that wave energy is coming at you from all directions at the speed of light, no matter what your location or perspective is.

The net effect of that 360º onslaught of incoming gravitational wave energy is the force of gravity that you feel. It can be zero for an observer “at rest” relative to it, but such places would be extremely rare in the ISU. What you feel is the net directional effect of the 360º incoming wave energy.

That said, the ramification of that net effect of gravity that you, or a wave-particle, or an object will “feel”, is the single most important physical aspect of the gravitational wave energy density profile of the space that you occupy.

Appropriately, the post that followed that explanation was about the ISU version of a solution to quantum gravity. You can read into that post that quantum gravity is about the micro actions that produce quanta that occupy the complex standing wave patterns of wave-particles, and the directional effect is based on the proportion of new quanta added, vs previous quanta left behind, by direction, around the 360º particle surface.

The “feel” on the micro scale, i.e., being surrounded by that 360º gravitational onslaught, is captured around the surface of the wave-particle or object, and expresses itself by affecting the exchange of quanta that takes place. Therefore the chance in location of the particle or object, as quanta by quanta are exchanged, determines the next directional increment of motion.
Logged
Layman Science Enthusiast
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #198 on: 09/11/2017 14:26:37 »
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 17:37:45
I had failed to stress the significance to the model of the feature that wave energy is coming at you from all directions at the speed of light, no matter what your location or perspective is.
yes

Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 17:37:45
The net effect of that 360º onslaught of incoming gravitational wave energy is the force of gravity that you feel. It can be zero for an observer “at rest” relative to it, but such places would be extremely rare in the ISU. What you feel is the net directional effect of the 360º incoming wave energy.


No, gravity is a pull force not a push force.
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?
« Reply #199 on: 09/11/2017 14:29:37 »
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 08/11/2017 17:37:45
the more distant an observer is from the event, the more micro the event would appear.
Relative to an infinite space, every object including planets and stars and even a solar system, have 0 dimensions unless quite close up.
It's a bit weird .
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 60   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: infinite spongy universe  / eternal intent  / pseudoscience  / speculation  / hypothesis  / isu model  / conformal cyclic cosmology  / sir roger penrose 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.178 seconds with 64 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.