Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Pulse Theory

  1. #1 Pulse Theory 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    Hi guys, I've been working on a theory for a bit and am wondering what you guys think. So here it is:

    Summary
    The universe expands through the expansive era. Then it contracts through the contracton era. The universe contracts until it finally collides in the center of the universe. This collision is called the singularity. When the singularity occurs the universe rebounds back into the expansive era. This is the big bang Outside of our universe is an infinitely large vacuum called the vuoto vasto that the universe is constantly trying to escape into.

    Make Up Of The Universe
    Matter- Protons, electrons, neutrons, photons, etc.
    Elasticon- It’s like an elastic. A new form of theoretical matter. Elasticons are classified as dark matter.

    Expansive Era
    When the universe collides at the singularity, it collides with such force it creates massive amounts of energy. This energy shoots out away from the singularity, the start of the expansive era. Our universe is the matter and elasticon, but there is also the vuoto vasto (comes from italion words for vast vacuum) which acts upon our universe, the universe expands through the vuoto vasto. The universe is constantly trying to escape into the vuoto vasto and as it expands more surface area is exposed to the vuoto vasto, causing the expansion to accelerate.

    Contractive Era
    The universe is like a web of elastics with marbles on it. Marbles are matter and elastics are elasticons. You can pull an elastic until it reaches it’s stretch capacity, where you will start to feel resistance when you reach it’s maximum stretch capacity you feel a lot of resistance and then suddenly the elastic will snap. But the resistance from the elasticon is stronger than the force generated by the expansion of the universe through the vuoto vasto. Because this force is stronger the universe recoils in on itself just like if you were to let go of the elastic when it reached it’s maximum stretch capacity. This contraction occurs until the universe collides with itself at the singularity where the cycle starts again.

    The problem is I am only finishing grade 9 now... so i don't possess the resources or mathematics to even start to try to prove this. So I would appreciate any input. Good or bad. It also supports einstien a bit because the membrane that the web of elasticons make would be what the gravitational waves distort. well any input would be nice. thanks


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Its a nice theory. A similar one was postulated back in 1934.

    You might want to check this link for details:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating_universe


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    I read that am a little confused... why did they abandon the oscilating universe theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Apparently the science for the bounce mechanism is a bit difficult to get working properly. There was also a result a while back that showed that it was impossible to get a global crunch that would be needed for a bounce and finally current data shows that the universe's expansion is accelerating which makes any contraction model (as there is no evidence for contraction then) a bit difficult to sell.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    the acceleration is the whole reason i thought of the elastic membrane part of the theory and would the fact that there's gravity AND a really strong force from the recoil of the elasticons together enough to make a big enough crunch
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    You would need a particularly strong force to stop the current inflation of the universe and bar introducing this "elastic membrane" for the contraction what other purpose would it serve? It seems a bit ad hoc.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    alright... ill give you my reasoning for why i feel that the universe must collapse in on itself and why im not happy with an ever expanding universe. IMO. If the universe is constantly expanding, that means if we go back in time it's constanty shrinking. If it's constantly shrinking it gets to a point where it cant shrink any more because the atoms are so densly packed together that they are touching. And when you get to this point in time you can't go back further because atoms would be in each other. and if you can't go back further you are at time 0 which isn't possible because if there is no time, there is no matter and no reason for matter to just suddenly start without a god.

    But you can also look at it like this... when you go back in time so the universe is shrinking and after they collide, keep going they could bounce off each other and start expanding... then instead of rewinding you put the universe back in play you get our expanding universe.

    When i found out that the universe was expanding I started thinking of ways for the universe to switch from expansion to contraction and i thought of elastics. Then I saw a special on the science channel about dark matter and it seemed to fit perfectly except there was no dark energy. So i started thinking and instead of dark energy being pushing from the inside i thought maybe it could be pulling from the outside and thats when i thought of the infinte vacuum that it could be dark energy. and that was how this started.

    remember... thats just my opinion and it could be easily criticized but thats the logic that i followed.

    Also they found that there wasn't enough gravity in a galaxy to hold it together and that after 1 or so revolutions it should fall apart so this would help hold it together
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Okay, first problem is that all matter did not exist at the big bang, curvature energy was converted into matter and you would be hard pressed to reverse that procedure. So there is no limit to how much you could shrink the universe if you ran time backwards and watched it. Secondly there is no "before the big bang", in fact there is no actual big bang event, so talking about cause and effect with the universe as a whole is very tricky. Trying to get around god is a dangerous mixing of physics and metaphysics - rather let the evidence and beautiful mathematics guide your theory building.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    But even energy has dimensions so you can only compress it so much. and what if there was a big bang and there was something before the big bang?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    You are now reifying energy, which is very dangerous - energy is a mathematical concept and it does not have dimensions.

    Talking about something before the big bang is meaningless, as the concept of before requires time that only exists once the universe exits.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    A conservative upper limit for the mass of the photon, given by the Particle Data Group, is 6×10−17 eV, based on changes in magnetohydrodynamics which would contradict solar wind observations.
    thats from wikipedia, im not entirely sure what that means... but doesn't it say that photons do have mass? just very little of it? and can you please explain the second part of what you said for me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Its says that if a photon has non zero mass (which is difficult anyway as the mass people talk about is rest mass and electrons are never at rest in any reference frame so what exactly this mass is im not certain) is less than 6×10−17 eV which is tiny, but not that photons have mass. Anyway having mass is not the same as having dimension - electrons have mass but are point point particles.

    The notion of before is time based - if i say i went to the doctor before i went to the shops it means that the one event occured before the other in time, the time difference between the two events depends on the observer but there order is what counts here. Now if you have no time you have no before, and as time also has a beginning you have no before the beginning of time. Hope that makes sense.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    k thats what i thought you meant but wasnt sure... im saying that there cant be a time zero, im saying theres an infinite number of these expansions and contractions so im not saying that time started at the big bang im saying that it occurs in time not that it started time.

    Photons don't stay still but when they move they have mass, so how do they have mass but no volume which would give dimensions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    There is no time T=0 though in big bang cosmology, and you still have to come up with a bounce mechanism here that somehow absorbs all this mass and converts it back into curvature energy. Secondly unless these bounces are perfectly elastic you dont get around the trouble of a begining.

    Mass is a tricky subject, as it is not tied to volume at a subatomic level - the electron being a good example. In fact modern physics does not have a proper grasp of mass at a quantum level - thats what the search for the higgs particle is all about. Im way out of my area here though so it may help to go look up on it in wikipedia.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    I'm not completely sure what you mean by curvature energy and bounce mechanism but ill give it a shot. When 2 masses collide together at high speeds energy is created, isn't it? So when something the size of the universe collides with itself a extremely large quantity of energy would be produced. and because e=mc^2 wouldnt that make sense? or am i wrong? or am i off topic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    But you dont have things bouncing into each other here - space itself is contracting. A huge energy density would not cause a bounce anyway, gravity at this stage is overpowering everything.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    misunderstanding :P in this theory they do bounce off each other. its not just space contracting. this elasticon is matter. and it recoils. Take 2 elastics and tie them together. pull them until they are going to break then let go of both sides. the 2 sides will crash together
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    Anyone else have a problem with it? or anything you like about it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •