Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Expansion of space and the nature of matter

  1. #1 Expansion of space and the nature of matter 
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Ok, so I have decided to make another attempt at getting expert comments on a few fancifully naive ideas I have been having for a while now. Let me make it clear that I do not hold any of what I am about to expound as true, nor do I have any real expectation that there is any merit at all to them. This is simply a bit of fun, but I still want to keep it as rooted in reality as possible, so I want to ask that all comments and suggestions be kept within the realm of what might actually be possible with what we now know.

    Issues I am looking to discuss (among others) are;

    1) The nature of space; where it came from, why it is expanding, etc.

    2) The nature of matter; where it came from, why it gravitates, why it experiences inertia, etc.

    3) The nature of energy and/or the fundamental forces; where it comes from, why they are different, etc.

    So first, I'd like to ask a question relating to the origin of space:

    As far as I know, there is no real reason why the big bang could not have happened within an existing universe. The expansion of space is happening, but we have not been able to detect double images of far away galaxies, as should have been possible if the complete universe was small enough, i.e. light would travel right across the universe and end up back where it started, producing a distorted double of the source in our skies. This means that either the universe is big enough that light would not have had time to circumnavigate it, or that there is no end to it. After all, on large scales, space seems to be flat.

    I would like to propose a third option. What would it mean if our universe, the product of the big bang, was a local bubble in an otherwise infinite expanse? Furthermore, what if our bubble was causally and dimensionally isolated from the outside, similarly to how a black hole is? What would happen to EM radiation that enters our universe bubble?

    The second part of this question, is what happens to light that is severely red shifted? There are current theories that describe a quantum vacuum energy or a quantum foam. Could light be red shifted enough for it to be absorbed by the quantum world on these scales(a)? What would happen in a universe where it was possible for space to absorb light that is sufficiently red shifted? Could the absorbed energy add to the volume of space(b)?

    As far as I know, the spontaneous production of virtual particles can be statistically described, with the spontaneous creation of higher levels of concentrated energy (more massive particles) being increasingly rarer. Could it be that the energy of the big bang was such a fluctuation event with an extreme improbability, possibly with enough concentrated energy that it would be immediately dimensionally isolated(c)?

    As far as I know, it is possible to describe a large, dense gas cloud that would be massive enough for it to have an event horizon. Inside the cloud you would be able to move around as you wished, without a resultant pull of gravity in any direction, with the effect that you would also be dimensionally bound and would end up back where you started from if you moved in a straight line for long enough. For the purposes of this investigation, I imagine our bubble universe as being a similar setup(d). I am not sure if this is possible with our current understanding though.

    So, taking (a), (b), (c) and (d) together, what would happen? I am thinking that a spontaneous creation of a universe-sized amount of energy that is dimensionally bound and where space expands due to the absorption of extremely redshifted light, that during the initial conditions inflation would happen due to some of the large amount of concentrated energy being absorbed by space. As the process advanced, the balance between the amount of red shifting and light available would shift and expansion would slow down under its own steam. But all the while as it was expanding, the outside surface area of our universe's event horizon has been growing and at some point, the amount of light entering from the outside universe is enough to keep expansion going. What's more, as the surface area of our universe's event horizon grows, so does the amount of light that enters our universe to add to expansion. The result is an expansion that accelerates. As I see it, one might think that from the outside perspective one would expect the outer edges of our universe to expand faster as there is more light available, with the centre being relatively inert (if the universe is big enough), as no light would be able to penetrate this deep. From our inside perspective though, no edge or centre exists and all added energy would simply be added isotropically.

    So, there is the first one. I know there are a lot of assumptions, but I would like to have an idea as to how improbable they are and where my understanding of current theory has been lacking where it applies. I expect a huge number of mistakes, both in my understanding of current theory and in my train of thought, so have at me. Again, I am not insisting on the truth of any of this. I am simply playing around intellectually, using my very limited understanding of current theory.

    Thanks for reading.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    *tumbleweed*


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    For me, the only idea of space that works is that it is literally nothing, given being by what occupies it. The it does not expand endlessly but as little more than the distance between objects it has endless potential to expand without changing in any way. Where did it come from? It has always been there in that nothing occupies no space but has infinite potential.

    I have never understood why gravity has to bend space to work. Magnetism does not, nor any known radiation. Possibly the idea came from the fact that light is obviously bent by gravity.

    It has been recently suggested that photons might have mass, but it would be less than 10^-35 kg. If so, this would explain how photons can be moved to another path by gravity, the same way anything else is.

    Protons are 98% energy. If this was transferred to space, all of space would be lit up like a supernova so I suspect the "nothing" inside a proton beside quarks is many energetic particles we have not yet detected.

    For me the big bang falls at the first hurdle. How did the singularity or whatever it was come to be (in such a dense form) and how did it get where it was? There is also the point that a singularity would be ultimately stable.

    One idea is that the universe came from literally nothing. Nothing = 0. +1 and -1 = 0. + trillion and -Trillion = 0. Add together all the pluses in the universe like matter and energy and all the minuses like gravity and you get nought. They balance out.

    If you have nothing, maybe there are instabilities as in things appearing and vanishing like the Casimir effect. But something eventually stays and does not go, so there is an attempt to balance it out, and an attempt to balance that out, etc and suddenly nothing is erupting basic particles and energy like a wildfire spreading from the original point.

    It's just an idea but to me, better than the BB which has many serious problems from the very start.

    As to expansion, I'm not convinced it is happening. It needs a four physical dimension hypersphere to work (other shapes have large anomalies which we have not seen) and we have no evidence of dimensions above three. If the universe were just 3 dimensions, we would trace it all back to a single point.

    We know that gravity redshifts light. We know that like photons, gravity is endemic to the universe, so effectively the universe exists in a sea of gravity. Photons experience a drag as they travel and as they cannot lose speed, they lose energy by redshifting. It is still a measurement of distance travelled but nothing to do with expansion. It also means we can do away with dark matter holding galaxies together because they are rotating slowly, as part of their redshift is made up from distance travelled.

    Indeed if a closed system which even light could not escape from then photons would travel around and around it. I would think when "looking back in time" we would at some point see double images if that were true.

    EMR entering our universe from outside would seem to have no source.

    If space could absorb energy, it could expand but it would be a slow uniform process allowing for a pretty much constant number of "burning stars". It would not allow for a universe like ours which is expanding ever faster and over a much bigger area.

    It has been suggested that the universe is inside a huge black hole and if there is sufficient room, there can be ordinary matter, and even other black holes form. There could even be a second big bang if the collapsed material has reached a point where it can expand again before the earlier universe has finished collapsing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 expansion of space and the nature of matter 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Calabria (Italia)
    Posts
    8
    Hello Kalster,
    The discussion you’re proposing is very alluring. I hope you allow my answers to rest on the proviso that Time and Space are physically created by an electromagnetic process of expansion in time and extension in space (will clarify better in next post).
    I shall attempt here to compress my answer as much as I possibly can to satisfy your request and to be parsimonious of words as the unwritten rules of the Forum demand. You know better than I that there is more to it than the eye meets. The argument raised by you is rather complex and one has to deal with it in little bits. On this assumption and on the assumption that the Moderator (your colleague) is not going to put a stop to it, I would like to make an attempt to answer some or all of your questions. Let’s keep also in mind that I am approaching my eighties and that I am not trying to impress anybody or push my ideas in any one direction, I am here to exercise my intellect as you are.
    Let us now get into the spirit of things. The universe is expanding. If the speed of the expansion is finite and constant it would cause each small pointlike point-source in free space to magnetize. The magnetized point-source would instantly generate (according to Faraday) an electric field which in turn will generate e magnetic field which in turn etc... etc... Seeing that the expanding universe magnetizes the point-sources and the point-sources are causing the expansion, we have the first question for the unlikely sniper: was the expanding universe or were the fleeting monopoles born first ? The question is unimportant.
    If we accept that Time and Space are created by a natural electromagnetic process, then; we must visualize the field, that is: free (optical) space as an expanding substance composed of infinitely small pointlike electromagnetic point-sources of self-generating energy each having its own unsaturated sink with continuous absorption because of the constant and continuous expansion and/or extension (the wavelength proper of the process for the creation of time and/or space). These point-sources must be considered inertial frames moving with velocity 1/(ε0 μ0)½ (speed of light) and consequently their slope is 1/c, or 3.335x10−11 centimetres per second. In order to introduce now the unit measure of time and/or space, I have taken the liberty to formulate something new. I can now write and will write



    and draw your attention, Kalster, on that equality sign put in-between a length of space and a length of time, which length, in both cases is an expression of energy and it is created by one and the same electromagnetic process. The equality sign in-between space and time is for the ongoing formalism, naturally enough, a pure heresy and I shall humbly apologize if, in the process of describing nature, occasionally I have to forgo some of the few issues left unattended; time as a “mental abstraction” is one of them.
    In defiance to the overwhelming evidence, and to remind the boys as well, the laws of physics were and are today symmetric in time; that is, they indicate no preferred direction of physical processes with respect to time. To say it in scientific parlance: they are invariant under the operation of time-reversal.
    P.S. If some moot points are and remain obscure, I can gladly clarify them on request. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Expansion of space and the nature of matter 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Calabria (Italia)
    Posts
    8
    You Kalster, and Cyberia as well, in following the ongoing trend seem to be fascinated by the old universe (perhaps I should say young). You lean heavily on the big bang and all that. My rational thinking unfortunately keeps me anchored to our front lawn rather than 13 and a half billion years down the road. You must forgive me if I tend to put the papers in order in my surroundings before moving out to other interesting new pastures.
    I thought I drop a note because I am now going to the snow for the Xmas spell. We must postpone the discussion to 2011. If you have time visit me please at my www.idato.it or www.idato.net - I wish you both a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Mico, thanks for your contribution, though I am not looking for other people's fringe ideas. I am looking for a scrutiny from the current state of knowledge or what might be possible from it. May I suggest you open your own thread if you are looking for some discussion relating to your personal idea. I am sure you will appreciate the opportunity to discuss your idea in your own thread.
    Thanks, and a merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too. :wink:

    Cyberia, please stop posting in this thread. You are the last person whose opinion I am looking for. Open your own thread in this subforum if you want to discuss your own ideas. Not in the proper sections mind you; if you'll notice you are under probation for infecting nearly every thread with your nonsense. Stick to this subforum or pseudoscience for that, m'kay?

    I am still eager to hear from a few knowledgeable people, if you'll indulge me.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Expansion of space and the nature of matter 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I would like to propose a third option. What would it mean if our universe, the product of the big bang, was a local bubble in an otherwise infinite expanse? Furthermore, what if our bubble was causally and dimensionally isolated from the outside, similarly to how a black hole is? What would happen to EM radiation that enters our universe bubble?
    It doesn't matter if our universe is causally disconnected from something else. That would mean that we can neither affect nor be affected by that something else. That something else may as well not exist -- and you can get into a meaningless philosophical argument about the meaning of "to exist" here.

    Such a premise is untestable, even in principle. This is precisely the problem with what has been called "thelandscape".

    BTW "dimensionally isolated" is meaningless.

    Now consider that even within the universe as we currently understand it, there are portions (that which is outside of the "Hubble sphere") from which due to accelerating expansion we are and will remain causally disconnected and one concludes that there is no reason to worry about anything larger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    It doesn't matter if our universe is causally disconnected from something else. That would mean that we can neither affect nor be affected by that something else. That something else may as well not exist -- and you can get into a meaningless philosophical argument about the meaning of "to exist" here.
    Would you say what I was talking about in (d) is possible? Could such a setup be possible with what we know? In other words, are there any conditions possible where an event horizon could exist with matter that is not compact enough to collapse to a singularity? If it were possible, how would we experience the inside? Light would be able to enter this region without any problems, but nothing would be able to escape it. That is what I meant with "dimensionally isolated" and "causally isolated", in that nothing that happens in that region could interact with the outside, except gravitationally.

    Now consider that even within the universe as we currently understand it, there are portions (that which is outside of the "Hubble sphere") from which due to accelerating expansion we are and will remain causally disconnected and one concludes that there is no reason to worry about anything larger.
    I do understand this bit, but what would happen to light that entered our universe bubble and got red shifted beyond detection?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    It doesn't matter if our universe is causally disconnected from something else. That would mean that we can neither affect nor be affected by that something else. That something else may as well not exist -- and you can get into a meaningless philosophical argument about the meaning of "to exist" here.
    Would you say what I was talking about in (d) is possible? Could such a setup be possible with what we know? In other words, are there any conditions possible where an event horizon could exist with matter that is not compact enough to collapse to a singularity? If it were possible, how would we experience the inside? Light would be able to enter this region without any problems, but nothing would be able to escape it. That is what I meant with "dimensionally isolated" and "causally isolated", in that nothing that happens in that region could interact with the outside, except gravitationally.
    Event horizons don't collapse.

    To be causally disconnected you don't need a black hole. All you need is to be receeding faster than light and to stay receeding faster than light. That already applies to parts of what we know of our universe, so not only is it possible, it seems to be part of reality.

    Now consider that even within the universe as we currently understand it, there are portions (that which is outside of the "Hubble sphere") from which due to accelerating expansion we are and will remain causally disconnected and one concludes that there is no reason to worry about anything larger.
    I do understand this bit, but what would happen to light that entered our universe bubble and got red shifted beyond detection?[/quote]

    huh ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Cyberia, please stop posting in this thread. You are the last person whose opinion I am looking for. Open your own thread in this subforum if you want to discuss your own ideas. Not in the proper sections mind you; if you'll notice you are under probation for infecting nearly every thread with your nonsense. Stick to this subforum or pseudoscience for that, m'kay?
    Who has proved me wrong, that you consider my postings nonsense? Or pseudoscience? I pick big holes in "accepted science" showing that it should not be accepted science. Cosmology is mostly ideas based on a few facts. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know any cosmology.

    I am still eager to hear from a few knowledgeable people, if you'll indulge me.
    All you are going to get from most people is what you can turn up with a search engine yourself. If all you want is "accepted science" then it is all there on the net for anyone to see. That is what search engines are for. They have made most science forums redundant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Cyberia, please stop posting in this thread. You are the last person whose opinion I am looking for. Open your own thread in this subforum if you want to discuss your own ideas. Not in the proper sections mind you; if you'll notice you are under probation for infecting nearly every thread with your nonsense. Stick to this subforum or pseudoscience for that, m'kay?
    Who has proved me wrong, that you consider my postings nonsense? Or pseudoscience? I pick big holes in "accepted science" showing that it should not be accepted science. Cosmology is mostly ideas based on a few facts. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know any cosmology.
    Pretty much everyone with a little understanding of elementary physics.

    Your failure to recognize that fact is a refllection on you and you alone.

    Cosmology is based on one of the pillars of physics -- general relativity. By denying that FACT you have proved that it is you who "doesn't know any cosmology. See for instance Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles or Gravitation and cosmology : principles and applications of the general theory of relativity by Stephen Weinberg

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I am still eager to hear from a few knowledgeable people, if you'll indulge me.
    All you are going to get from most people is what you can turn up with a search engine yourself. If all you want is "accepted science" then it is all there on the net for anyone to see. That is what search engines are for. They have made most science forums redundant.
    The reason that accepted science is accepted is that it has met a rigorous standard of support by verified experiments and observations and by logically consistent fundamental physical theories -- general relativity and quantum field theories for instance.

    The fact that you disagree reflects on your ignorance and lack of intelligence and nothing more.

    Go read a real science book -- if you can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Cyberia: I am not interested. Please go away.

    huh ?
    I understand that the furthest galaxies we can see are receding at nearly C and that galaxies even further out probably exist, which would have receding velocities exceeding C and that we would be causally isolated from those galaxies. Those galaxies still nevertheless form part of our universe.

    Is it possible that an infinite expanse exists and that our universe is the product of a big bang event that perhaps happens from time to time in the infinite expanse? In other words, that in the infinite expanse that there is no net expansion on sufficiently large scales, but that big bang events create local areas where space expands? I realise it would be very difficult to detect such a setup, but if my further ideas about sufficiently red shifted light being absorbed by the quantum foam structure of space, that our accelerating expansion might be evidence of this setup.

    The major problem I see with this (apart from the fact that nothing thus far points to such a setup in main stream science AFAIK), is that if incoming light from the infinite expanse was causing space to expand, that the effect would not be isotropic, as the expansion would be more pronounced the closer one comes to the edges of our local big bang universe.

    That is why I am trying to figure out if it would be possible that our local universe bubble (the product of our big bang event), might be isolated in the same way a black hole is isolated from our universe. From our perspective, nothing from inside the black hole could ever leave other than through Hawking radiation, but we can add to the total energy/mass of a black hole when matter and light crosses the event horizon. Basically then, is there any interpretation of GR that would mean that inside the event horizon would be in essence a universe in itself from the perspective of beings on the inside (even though from an outside perspective effects like spagettification and such would be prevalent), where conditions would be similar to our universe in that all directions of movement would be available (that we would not always be moving towards the singularity) and that moving in one direction would have us end up back at the origin after some time.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Cyberia: I am not interested. Please go away.

    huh ?
    I understand that the furthest galaxies we can see are receding at nearly C and that galaxies even further out probably exist, which would have receding velocities exceeding C and that we would be causally isolated from those galaxies. Those galaxies still nevertheless form part of our universe.

    Is it possible that an infinite expanse exists and that our universe is the product of a big bang event that perhaps happens from time to time in the infinite expanse? In other words, that in the infinite expanse that there is no net expansion on sufficiently large scales, but that big bang events create local areas where space expands? I realise it would be very difficult to detect such a setup, but if my further ideas about sufficiently red shifted light being absorbed by the quantum foam structure of space, that our accelerating expansion might be evidence of this setup.
    The universe may be infinite (open) or it may be finite (closed). Nobody really knows. But we do know that it is really big -- best estimates are that it is at least 46 billion light years in diameter, so there are portions receding from us at substantially faster than light speed due to the expansion of space. Since the rate of expansion seems to be increasing the portion sufficiently distant is permanently causally disconnected from us. That region and anything farther are essentially irrelevant -- we can't affect it and it can't affect us (assuming we are right about the accelerating expansion).

    But the big bang did not happen space. It was not an event in space, but rather an event of space, at least as is understood from general relativity. There is no known mechanism for other big bangs -- we don't know anything of the actual moment of the big bang that started what we know as our universe anyway. So if you want to speculate you must do so on the basis of very tentative and unproved theories or just plain flights of fancy. While you can find all sorts of speculation in popularizations based on "M theory", the truth is that NOBODY even knows what M theory is -- and that includes Ed Witten who invented the idea.

    Quantum foam is, if anything even more tentative and conjectural than M theory. The idea was first put forth by Wheeler and is now the darling of the quantum loop gravity crowd, but nobody really knows what it means and nobody has a workable theory,let alone any testable predictions.

    There is zero evidence of light being absorbed or attenuated by the vacuum. So-called "tired light" theories have been examined and completely discredited. Nut cases continue to argue for tied light, and are continually debunked.




    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The major problem I see with this (apart from the fact that nothing thus far points to such a setup in main stream science AFAIK), is that if incoming light from the infinite expanse was causing space to expand, that the effect would not be isotropic, as the expansion would be more pronounced the closer one comes to the edges of our local big bang universe.
    Light cannot cause space to expand. That takes a positive cosmological constant, which might be attributable to the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum (but the calculations are in error by a ridiculous margin), but light would not have that effect. the vacuum actually results in a negative pressure, which seems counter-intuitive, but is what is needed in the stress-energy tensor to produce a repulsive force.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That is why I am trying to figure out if it would be possible that our local universe bubble (the product of our big bang event), might be isolated in the same way a black hole is isolated from our universe. From our perspective, nothing from inside the black hole could ever leave other than through Hawking radiation, but we can add to the total energy/mass of a black hole when matter and light crosses the event horizon. Basically then, is there any interpretation of GR that would mean that inside the event horizon would be in essence a universe in itself from the perspective of beings on the inside (even though from an outside perspective effects like spagettification and such would be prevalent), where conditions would be similar to our universe in that all directions of movement would be available (that we would not always be moving towards the singularity) and that moving in one direction would have us end up back at the origin after some time.
    The big bang has nothing to do with black holes, and it is a bad analogy. But as noted earlier the accelerating expansion of space does result in a causal isolation, so there is a sort of horizon that results -- but the "horizon" depends on one's location and is quite different from the event horizon of a black hole.

    The strange effects attributed to black holes are due to an extreme gravitational gradient or equivalently extreme local curvature and the one thing we do know about the universe is that the large scale curvature is very small, possibly zero.

    So, no, you cannot get anything like what you are contemplating from GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The universe may be infinite (open) or it may be finite (closed). Nobody really knows. But we do know that it is really big -- best estimates are that it is at least 46 billion light years in diameter, so there are portions receding from us at substantially faster than light speed due to the expansion of space. Since the rate of expansion seems to be increasing the portion sufficiently distant is permanently causally disconnected from us. That region and anything farther are essentially irrelevant -- we can't affect it and it can't affect us (assuming we are right about the accelerating expansion).
    Agreed.

    But the big bang did not happen space. It was not an event in space, but rather an event of space, at least as is understood from general relativity.
    Again, agreed, but this assumed that the big bang was the creation event of all matter and space. Has there never been an investigation of what it would mean if the big bang happened within existing space and created a self contained microcosm where expansion of the big bang created space happens? Would such a concentration of energy not isolate that universe in the same way a black hole is isolated in our universe?

    There is zero evidence of light being absorbed or attenuated by the vacuum. So-called "tired light" theories have been examined and completely discredited. Nut cases continue to argue for tied light, and are continually debunked.
    I am aware that tired light theories are bunk. I am just asking what happens to light that is redshifted beyond detection. The light that is emitted by galaxies right at the fringe of the observable universe before the receding speed exceeds C, how much would that light be redshifted? What happens to the energy of that light?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But the big bang did not happen space. It was not an event in space, but rather an event of space, at least as is understood from general relativity.
    Again, agreed, but this assumed that the big bang was the creation event of all matter and space. Has there never been an investigation of what it would mean if the big bang happened within existing space and created a self contained microcosm where expansion of the big bang created space happens? Would such a concentration of energy not isolate that universe in the same way a black hole is isolated in our universe?

    The big bang is based on general relativity. What you suggest is not. So to pursue what you suggest requires replacing GR with something else. What do you have in mind for that something else ?

    The point is that cosmology is based on physics, despite Cyberia's statements that it is all just guesses and opinions. So any viable cosmological theory must be traceable to fundamental physical principles. At the moment the fundamental physical theories are general relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics (the quantum field theories of the electroweak and strong interactions). If you want to propose something inconsistent with those theories then you first need to come up with something to replace them -- and that something must be consistent with all of the known empirical data, data that supports those established theories. That is a very strong constraint on what can deviate from mainstream theories and still be viable.

    There is zero evidence of light being absorbed or attenuated by the vacuum. So-called "tired light" theories have been examined and completely discredited. Nut cases continue to argue for tied light, and are continually debunked.
    I am aware that tired light theories are bunk. I am just asking what happens to light that is redshifted beyond detection. The light that is emitted by galaxies right at the fringe of the observable universe before the receding speed exceeds C, how much would that light be redshifted? What happens to the energy of that light?[/quote]

    The situation is a bit more complex than what you describe because of the apparent accelerating rate of expansion, but to oversimplify somewhat light that cannot reach us can be thought of as infinitely red-shifted, although this is not a particularly useful way to think of it.

    General relativity does not have a global law of conservation of energy, only a local one, so one must be careful with such questions. However I think (not positive) that even locally energy loss of photons due to expansion would be compensated by the energy required for the expansion itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The big bang is based on general relativity. What you suggest is not.
    How does it not fit within GR though?

    We have no idea where the energy for the big bang came from or why it started to inflate in the first place. As I understand it, all we know is that, based on observations and what we know of GR, that at one point all space, matter and energy had to be concentrated in a very small area, if not a singularity. Based on GR, we know what happens when matter/energy is sufficiently concentrated (i.e. a black hole is created.) So, is there any known reason why a big bang event can not happen in existing space? If a big bang event could happen in existing space, would the instantaneously created concentration of matter and energy not immediately isolate it from our universe by curving spacetime around itself?



    Quantum foam is based on the idea of virtual particle- anti-particle pairs being created that shortly annihilate, conforming with conservation laws, if I understand it correctly. A further feature that I am not sure about, is that more than just low energy fundamental particles can be created and annihilated, with the more energetic pair becoming statistically increasingly less likely of being created. So, how short must the time between creation and annihilation of particle pairs be for it not to violate conservation laws? Can the time span be arbitrarily long, as long as annihilation happens at some point?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The big bang is based on general relativity. What you suggest is not.
    How does it not fit within GR though?

    We have no idea where the energy for the big bang came from or why it started to inflate in the first place. As I understand it, all we know is that, based on observations and what we know of GR, that at one point all space, matter and energy had to be concentrated in a very small area, if not a singularity. Based on GR, we know what happens when matter/energy is sufficiently concentrated (i.e. a black hole is created.) So, is there any known reason why a big bang event can not happen in existing space? If a big bang event could happen in existing space, would the instantaneously created concentration of matter and energy not immediately isolate it from our universe by curving spacetime around itself?
    You have it right up until the idea of a "big bang in existing space". The big bang did not happen in space. It was an event OF space.

    You can ask the questions that you are asking, but not in the context of the GR model. Now maybe the GR model is not right, but if you want to replace it with something else, you also need to replace GR with something else.

    Maybe this is what is not being understood -- GR is a limited theory that describes gravity in terms of a spacetime manifold with a geometry determined by a Lorentzian metric with curvature determined in a complex way that depends on the distribution of matter/energy. But the key is that the spacetime manifold is the universe -- past, present and future. That manifold is EVERYTHING. The theory is completely deterministic, and contains the world lines of every single particle in the universe -- everything that is, was or ever will be.

    Now if one identifies a "time" parameter for this manifold and then uses the equations of GR to go backward, one finds that space near t=0 was very highly curved and a singularity is predicted. All that is meant by the "big bang" is this set of circumstances -- basically that there is some meaning to t=0 or at least t nearly 0. It is NOT some sort of explosion that suddenly occurred while things were otherwise placid, at least within general relativity.

    So if you want to propose something different, you also need to propose new laws of physics to replace GR. Those laws need to be consistent with all of the experimental data that supports the currently accepted laws of physics, including GR. That imposes severe restraints -- which is why the research in string theories and other attempts to develop new and more accurate theories is so difficult.




    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quantum foam is based on the idea of virtual particle- anti-particle pairs being created that shortly annihilate, conforming with conservation laws, if I understand it correctly. A further feature that I am not sure about, is that more than just low energy fundamental particles can be created and annihilated, with the more energetic pair becoming statistically increasingly less likely of being created. So, how short must the time between creation and annihilation of particle pairs be for it not to violate conservation laws? Can the time span be arbitrarily long, as long as annihilation happens at some point?
    Quantum foam has never been clearly defined. It just sounds nice in pop-sci articles.

    Maybe someday the idea will be made precise.

    If you are going to violate conservation of energy, or momentum, then you have to do it quickly enough to be covered by the uncertainty principle -- really quickly.

    You are apparently trying to combine gravitational (GR) effects with particle physics (quantum field theories). That is at the heart of many problems in cosmology. But it is also why such things are difficult and speculative -- there is no solid theory that can handle this situation. This is why there is all of the research into string theories (and also quantum loop gravity). NOBODY knows how to do this.


    Bottom line: If you want to play this game you first need to learn at least the basics if the rules -- genereal relativity in particular and quantum theory if you want to get into elementary particles. Then you will understand the constraints imposed on new ideas. Just throwing out simple ideas and asking Why not ? is not going to work -- that is just putting the burden for the scientific content on someone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Let me just say, I appreciate the patience you have shown to yet another oaf spouting his personal "theory". :wink:

    You have it right up until the idea of a "big bang in existing space". The big bang did not happen in space. It was an event OF space.
    I really do understand this bit. The big bang did not happen in space, it was the origin of space itself. It is meaningless to imagine looking at the moment of the bang from an outside perspective given current interpretations of it.

    I guess my set of ideas make little sense when trying to express them in isolation. I have a lot of respect for GR and the bit I understand makes a lot of intuitive sense (as little as that might add to its veracity) to me.

    See, in another thread Farsight mentioned that in some theories fundamental particles can be thought of as "bumps" in 3D space. This resonated with parts of a set of ideas I had been thinking about for some time, which basically amounts to that all matter, energy and forces exist as geometric distortions of 3D space (not in an aether per se). Gravity is caused by the amount each particle distorts space (the more massive the particle, the bigger the "bump" and the bigger the distortion of surrounding space), or put another way, gravity is the additive distortion of space by particles.

    Energy I thought of as the tendency of distorted space to flatten out again. I imagined that, pretty similar to the quantum foam idea, that space has an average statistical local flatness a little above being completely flat. Random distortions occur all the time, with larger distortions (more energetic ones) being increasingly less likely, but that on sufficiently large scales, that an average flatness is maintained. So from this premise, I imagined the big bang as a stupendously improbable spike in energy, but one that can happen nonetheless given an infinite time for it to happen in. So when this large spike of energy/severe distortion of space happened, it was the start of the big bang; t=0, allowing for the severe distortion to give rise to smaller distortions (matter) as the local space distortion started to re-normalise towards the average flatness during the initial inflation. These created particles though slowed down the re-normalisation by being self contained and each with a half life, only giving up the locked in space upon annihilation (with photons being the most basic of self contained distortions, similar in nature to solitons).

    This however is where I ran into a problem, because as you say, the big bang was the creation event of ALL energy and space. So in this model the big bang must have happened in existing space, but must somehow have been isolated. So if this initial distortion event created a universe sized amount of energy, it must have curved space around itself pretty much instantly as happens with when event horizons form around sufficiently compact matter. But this creates the problem of if that universe would look like ours does from the inside. I have no idea if any existing models allow for something like this.

    As you can see (and I fully realise this), that my idea is based on a whole bunch of assumptions based on each other. So I am trying to tackle each assumption on it's own to see if it might be remotely possible. I have no delusions that anything will ever come from this, but it is an engaging exercise nonetheless for someone with my limited relevant education. So I am basically looking for someone like you and/or Farsight to speculate from a solid foundation and see if your speculations can meet up with mine in the middle somewhere at all.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I really do understand this bit. The big bang did not happen in space, it was the origin of space itself.
    It was also the origin of time. It is important to remember that in relativity space and time get mixed together by curvature.



    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    See, in another thread Farsight mentioned that in some theories fundamental particles can be thought of as "bumps" in 3D space. This resonated with parts of a set of ideas I had been thinking about for some time, which basically amounts to that all matter, energy and forces exist as geometric distortions of 3D space (not in an aether per se). Gravity is caused by the amount each particle distorts space (the more massive the particle, the bigger the "bump" and the bigger the distortion of surrounding space), or put another way, gravity is the additive distortion of space by particles.
    In QFT they are "bumps" in fields, but not bumps in space. Also QFT is in flat spacetime -- no gravity. There are attempts at QFT in curved spacetime, but there are problems with the theory -- you lose the ability to identify individual particles I am told.

    You are getting into some really speculative stuff here. Nobody knows what is going on. Speculation at this level is pretty useless except in the hands of real experts in generating ideas to be rigorously investigated as part of ongoing research.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Energy I thought of as the tendency of distorted space to flatten out again. I imagined that, pretty similar to the quantum foam idea, that space has an average statistical local flatness a little above being completely flat. Random distortions occur all the time, with larger distortions (more energetic ones) being increasingly less likely, but that on sufficiently large scales, that an average flatness is maintained. So from this premise, I imagined the big bang as a stupendously improbable spike in energy, but one that can happen nonetheless given an infinite time for it to happen in. So when this large spike of energy/severe distortion of space happened, it was the start of the big bang; t=0, allowing for the severe distortion to give rise to smaller distortions (matter) as the local space distortion started to re-normalise towards the average flatness during the initial inflation. These created particles though slowed down the re-normalisation by being self contained and each with a half life, only giving up the locked in space upon annihilation (with photons being the most basic of self contained distortions, similar in nature to solitons).
    Energy will tend to cause space to curve, not flatten.

    The rest of this sounds like some sort of explanation of inflation theory -- badly garbled. If you are interested in inflation you might try Guth's book, The Inflationary Universe -- good popularization by one of the principals..

    [quote="KALSTER"]This however is where I ran into a problem, because as you say, the big bang was the creation event of ALL energy and space. So in this model the big bang must have happened in existing space, but must somehow have been isolated. So if this initial distortion event created a universe sized amount of energy, it must have curved space around itself pretty much instantly as happens with when event horizons form around sufficiently compact matter. But this creates the problem of if that universe would look like ours does from the inside. I have no idea if any existing models allow for something like this.{/quote]

    ????????????????????

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    As you can see (and I fully realise this), that my idea is based on a whole bunch of assumptions based on each other. So I am trying to tackle each assumption on it's own to see if it might be remotely possible. I have no delusions that anything will ever come from this, but it is an engaging exercise nonetheless for someone with my limited relevant education. So I am basically looking for someone like you and/or Farsight to speculate from a solid foundation and see if your speculations can meet up with mine in the middle somewhere at all.
    The problem is that known physical theories impose constraints that seem to be randomly violating. First you need to learn what constraints are imposed by GR and QFT so that you at least know what you are violating when you speculate.

    Part of research is deliberately relaxing rules, but doing so with full recognition and having some idea how to construct a consistent theory that would allow such relaxations. That is very hard to do -- if it were not everybody would be a theoretician and Nobel Prizes would come in cereal boxes.
    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
  •