BB Again

[Little Bang]

I've asked this question before, of what was the BB composed?

[lemit]

I've asked this question before, of what was the BB composed?

 

Could you help me find where you asked the question before?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[Little Bang]

No. Somewhere in my posts.

[lemit]

That's too bad. Thanks for trying. I'll keep looking. When I find that other discussion, I'll try to link it to this discussion, for continuity and to avoid that thing I'm guilty of too much of the time--duplication.

 

--lemit

[Little Bang]

limet, this at least hints that I'm going to ask the question.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/20490-the-beginning-is-it-possibly.html

 

I see only two possibly states for what we see of the Universe, a steady state or the BB. If it is a steady state how is it possibly that all the matter has not clumped together into black holes given an infinite amount of time? If it was a BB that would cause us to ask what caused the BB. If there is no condition about the process of the BB that causes the explosion then that would suggest there must be another dimension outside the universe that caused it. If that is the case then that other dimension is a place we can never go to find the cause. Therefore we must try to find a cause in the process of the BB

 

Let's assume for the purpose of this argument that there is a way for the Universe to eventually collapse into a black hole and that all matter will be converted into it's component radiation. Suppose we had a given volume of space that did not have a single particle but did contain radiation of different wavelengths. How would we describe the energy of that volume of space. It would be E = the average frequency times h. As a wave propagates toward the center of a black hole it's wavelength gets shorter. It has been said that once a wave crosses the event horizon that time stops. That is not true. Time just runs very slow so that the shortening of a wavelength is very very slow but in this case we have an infinity of time to wait. At some point in the center of our primordial black hole the wavelength of radiation there will reach zero and the energy of that radiation will be E = infinite frequency times h which will go Bang.

[modest]

I see only two possibly states for what we see of the Universe, a steady state or the BB. If it is a steady state how is it possibly that all the matter has not clumped together into black holes given an infinite amount of time?

 

That's a good question. Hoyle proposed a solution in 1948 with a model of the universe which he hoped would fit with observation. It is steady state, has no beginning of time, and avoids the problem you outline by introducing what he calls a C-field. The field constantly creates matter (Hydrogen if I recall correctly) as the universe expands. This way, matter is always leaving any given area passing out the cosmic horizon, and matter is always entering the universe anew. Entropy is then constant.

 

While this does solve the problem you outline it is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics and it has not agreed with observation as Hoyle would have hoped. His original paper is:

 

A New Model for the Expanding Universe

 

And you can find current attempts at making the model work by googling "quasi steady state cosmology"

 

~modest

[Little Bang]

A steady state would also have to violate the law of gravity. A BB on the other hand does not seem to violate any but it does require that the Universe be closed. If it is open that would suggest the energy of the Universe came from some dimension other than the three we see. If that is true, with infinite time, the other dimension should have run out of energy by now unless the Universe is a one time event which is rather difficult to swallow.

[modest]

A steady state would also have to violate the law of gravity.

How so? Hoyle's model was based on a de Sitter universe which is an exact solution to general relativity (a theory of gravity). The addition of the C-field was an additional postulate, but matter in the model once created does follow the laws of gravity as far as I know.

 

A BB on the other hand does not seem to violate any but it does require that the Universe be closed.

 

That is not conventional cosmology. Here is a plot of the different evolutions of a Friedmann universe:

-

source

Notice open universes are the lower left part of the plot while the area designated "no big bang" is the upper left. If you plot the scale factor backwards for an open universe you can certainly get a big bang.

If it is open that would suggest the energy of the Universe came from some dimension other than the three we see.

No, I don't see how that would imply that at all.

If that is true, with infinite time, the other dimension should have run out of energy by now unless the Universe is a one time event which is rather difficult to swallow.

Dimensions don't run out of energy, but there is something akin to what you're saying with cyclical cosmology:

However, work by Richard C. Tolman showed that these early attempts failed because of the entropy problem that, in statistical mechanics, entropy only increases because of the Second law of thermodynamics.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it.

Cyclic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That would mean that each cycle the universe becomes more open so this is the opposite of what you are saying.

 

Cyclical cosmology itself would be impossible for an open universe unless the cosmological constant were negative (notice the plot above—cyclical cosmology would need to be in the "recollapses eventually" area). A negative cosmological constant would not agree well with observation.

 

~modest