Gravitational Singularity

[hazelm]

Trouble is dreaming gets you nowhere in science until you work out how your dream could be put to the test by observation. Esoteric speculations by themselves are not science.

All right.  Maybe they are still working on that part.  We shall see.

[hazelm]

I thought it was the other way round: we know what it does (exert gravitational attraction) but we don't know what it is, except that it does not seem to be ordinary baryonic matter, as that would interact with radiation and give some signature of its presence.  

Hmmm?  To be continued.

[Maine farmer]

Maybe time does not affect the Universe as a whole, but is only a dimension of the Universe. The Big Bang exists now, it is eternal and infinite as is the Universe. Our perception of time is a result of our traveling away from the Big Bang through the dimension of time. if the Universe was infinite, there could be no time as we think of it for the Universe as a whole. Every possibility is expressed in an infinite Universe, travel in one direction through time and the Universe, the part which we can see, appears to be expanding from an event we call the Big Bang. What we see happening depends on what part of the Infinite Universe we are in. We are currently in a part of the Universe where it is 13.7 billion years old, and as we travel along the fourth dimension within the three dimensions of space, we see the Universe getting older. But when we include time as a part of the Universe, every particle has a world line, it has a beginning and an end, its path through time-space depend on its interactions with other particles and energy fields until it is destroyed. Photons follow similar world times, except they are timeless, one end of their world line is where they are created through conversion of mass into energy, the other end is where their energy gets converted back into mass, that is the length of a photon in both time and space. The Universe is a timeless thing, but we move through it, and we cannot revisit the same part of time space that we've been to before. We could go back in time, say through a wormhole, but only to another part of the Universe that we hadn't been to before, and as the Universe is infinite, that is not really a problem.

Relativity teaches us about the malleability of space - time and that the two are intertwined.  Because time and space are not universal constants, the age and size of the universe would have to depend upon the conditions under which it is measured.  We can only try to determine the age of the universe from our perspective. Trying to determine the size and age of the universe from  another part of the universe experiencing a different rate of expansion would yield a different answer.  Wouldn't it?

[hazelm]

Relativity teaches us about the malleability of space - time and that the two are intertwined.  Because time and space are not universal constants, the age and size of the universe would have to depend upon the conditions under which it is measured.  We can only try to determine the age of the universe from our perspective. Trying to determine the size and age of the universe from  another part of the universe experiencing a different rate of expansion would yield a different answer.  Wouldn't it?

Would it?  I know that is a theory but it's one I cannot buy.   Seems to me to also mean that none of us are the age we say we are but are of many ages depending on where the speaker is.    I rather like uniform calendars.  And didn't Einstein himself say something about some measurements being different only from each observer's position? 

[Maine farmer]

Would it?  I know that is a theory but it's one I cannot buy.   Seems to me to also mean that none of us are the age we say we are but are of many ages depending on where the speaker is.    I rather like uniform calendars.  And didn't Einstein himself say something about some measurements being different only from each observer's position? 

I think so, yes, but I think he also pointed out that both observations were valid.

 

I am currently reading "The Elegant Universe, Hidden Dimension and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene, and the first couple of chapters provide a readable description of Relativity using George and Gracie passing each other in space.  I've only had time to read about a dozen pages per day, so I'm still learning.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Farming guy

[hazelm]

I think so, yes, but I think he also pointed out that both observations were valid.

 

I am currently reading "The Elegant Universe, Hidden Dimension and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene, and the first couple of chapters provide a readable description of Relativity using George and Gracie passing each other in space.  I've only had time to read about a dozen pages per day, so I'm still learning.

But only valid for a certain obsrver, meaning you have a terrible number of "valids".

 

I have one of Brian Green's books.  Never was able to make sense of it.  He is too far over my head.  Maybe some day I will get it.  Not now.

[Maine farmer]

But only valid for a certain obsrver, meaning you have a terrible number of "valids".

 

I have one of Brian Green's books.  Never was able to make sense of it.  He is too far over my head.  Maybe some day I will get it.  Not now.

It's tough stuff  to accept with our actual experiences being so limited.  I've read a number of explanations over the last 30 years, and think I'm just beginning to get a bit of an understanding.  There are also a few good discussions of the subject on this site that have helped me quite a lot.  Then again, tomorrow someone may post something here that may evaporate my sense of understanding.  Isn't life great that way?

[hazelm]

It's tough stuff  to accept with our actual experiences being so limited.  I've read a number of explanations over the last 30 years, and think I'm just beginning to get a bit of an understanding.  There are also a few good discussions of the subject on this site that have helped me quite a lot.  Then again, tomorrow someone may post something here that may evaporate my sense of understanding.  Isn't life great that way?

Or tomorrow someone may discover something that everybody said was not there and set us all on pins and needles again.  Life is great that way, too.  Never boring.  Tonight I learned that our galaxy is located in the supercluster "Immeasurable Heaven"  (Laniakea).

 

And you are right that there are some good and helpful discussions on this site.  I even learned a volume full of information about kites - the cloth and string kind, not the predatory kind.  Who would have thought  there was so much to flying a simple kite just for fun?  Thanks Turtle.

[TomKalbfus]

Would it?  I know that is a theory but it's one I cannot buy.   Seems to me to also mean that none of us are the age we say we are but are of many ages depending on where the speaker is.    I rather like uniform calendars.  And didn't Einstein himself say something about some measurements being different only from each observer's position? 

If you changed your time-space coordinates and measured the age of the Universe from that point, it would appear to be a different age. The idea with an infinite Universe is that if you go back in time, the Universe would still be infinite, it is just that the average spaces between stars and galaxies would be less, even if you went back in time all the way to the Big Bang, the Universe would still be infinite, it would not converge into a single point, but it would have a very high density! I think the Observable Universe has a wave function. When the Universe achieves a certain density, I think maybe gravity becomes repulsive for a time and that triggers another Big Bang. Maybe perhaps the overall density of the Universe affects the gravitational constant. Maybe the gravitational constant is not really constant, what do you think of that idea? What if, as the density of the Universe increases, the gravitational constant decreases up unto the point where that constant reverses it sign and gravity becomes a repulsive rather than an attractive force proportional to each objects mass. What would happen then? I think you would get a lot of exploding black holes, planets at stars would disintegrate as gravity no longer held them together. The Universe would go dark without the stars, but it would continue to collapse due to its inward momentum, as it would take a while for the repulsive gravity to do its work. Eventually the Universe would heat up as all the atoms ran into each other. As the Universe contracted further, you'd start getting nuclear fusion as the interstellar medium heated up and compressed, and eventually all the matter would melt into photons and energy fields as it becomes too hot for barionic matter to exist, and then once gravity has done its job, the contraction would turn into an expansion. Now what else would antigravity do? As you know according to Einstein, a gravitational field has the effect of slowing down time, so what would antigravity do? It would speed up time, and as it sped up time it would speed up everything else including light! The Universe would expand faster than light until the gravitational constant changed its sign and started slowing down the expansion of the Universe once again.

[hazelm]

If you changed your time-space coordinates and measured the age of the Universe from that point, it would appear to be a different age. The idea with an infinite Universe is that if you go back in time, the Universe would still be infinite, it is just that the average spaces between stars and galaxies would be less, even if you went back in time all the way to the Big Bang, the Universe would still be infinite, it would not converge into a single point, but it would have a very high density! I think the Observable Universe has a wave function. When the Universe achieves a certain density, I think maybe gravity becomes repulsive for a time and that triggers another Big Bang. Maybe perhaps the overall density of the Universe affects the gravitational constant. Maybe the gravitational constant is not really constant, what do you think of that idea? What if, as the density of the Universe increases, the gravitational constant decreases up unto the point where that constant reverses it sign and gravity becomes a repulsive rather than an attractive force proportional to each objects mass. What would happen then? I think you would get a lot of exploding black holes, planets at stars would disintegrate as gravity no longer held them together. The Universe would go dark without the stars, but it would continue to collapse due to its inward momentum, as it would take a while for the repulsive gravity to do its work. Eventually the Universe would heat up as all the atoms ran into each other. As the Universe contracted further, you'd start getting nuclear fusion as the interstellar medium heated up and compressed, and eventually all the matter would melt into photons and energy fields as it becomes too hot for barionic matter to exist, and then once gravity has done its job, the contraction would turn into an expansion. Now what else would antigravity do? As you know according to Einstein, a gravitational field has the effect of slowing down time, so what would antigravity do? It would speed up time, and as it sped up time it would speed up everything else including light! The Universe would expand faster than light until the gravitational constant changed its sign and started slowing down the expansion of the Universe once again.

 

 

Hmmm? I'm thinking.

[Vmedvil]

Well, personally I subscribe to my own idea about this subject right here. The Universe started from a quantum fluctuation so this means that at this point energy is appearing from nothingness which is extremely unlikely being the quantum fluctuation basically meaning something extremely rare, which has about the odds of you instantly appearing on mars which has a chance to happen but a very unlikely one. So, I think that is silly if something had that low of a chance of happening then why did it actually happen? For it to have a 50% chance of happening and spawn into existence to would take billions of times the total time-span of the universe. So, either Time existed as TomKalbus says or something else is happening that is more likely this being the least likely situation, which the least likely situation is usually as we are taught is not the answer. So, we have come to a conclusion that time indeed must have existed before the big bang being the only way this could have had any chance of happening, so what does that mean, If time already existed time-space may not be something from our universe unlike the Forces of nature which are only contained within our universe being curled dimensions at every point in various states or hidden dimensions.

 

  

This would imply either that the unlikely event that energy came from nothingness over a long period of random chance or came from a external source being much more likely given the amount of time that would have had to existed for it to have a reasonable chance. So, this would mean that our universe is like those hidden dimensions with a Hyper-universe if at this point, Time-space holds to form as you may have noticed we are a Hyper-universe to those hidden force dimensions being curled within ours, those being "Subspace", which if that can happen does that mean our Universe could be a "Subspace Universe" to a larger Hyperspace Universe. That would definitely be a much more probable cause for the Big Bang that we got that energy from a Higher Universe. 

 

 

If the Time-space holds true to form there would be a volume of our universe in various different states at every point of space within the Hyper Universe just as the force dimensions are at every point within ours. The Big Bang was caused by energy entry into this Subspace Universe making a force within the Hyper Universe at a certain amount equal to the amount of energy absorbed. The Big Bang just being the energy given via a hyperspace boson to this Universe just as we see in our universe. Something highly Hyper Universe energetic just passed over top of this Universe in the Hyper universe then Big Bang, whatever it was caused a Black-hole in our Universe that exploded after releasing Universe Hawking radiation or "Dark Energy". This means that Dark Energy is going into the Hyper Universe not just expanding our universe but counteracting the pressure of its Hyper Universe Energy trying to crush this universe.

 

 

This could also explain what we are expanding into when the Universe expands.

 

 

This could also be a major problem for the future it seems that whatever sent us all this energy did not give us enough, at some point these curled dimensions will uncurl and cause the big rip as we continue to expand or we will experience heat death as the universe's energy density gets smaller. 

 

 

The energy will survive but matter will not in either case not having the density or dimensions needed to generate matter as the energy was too high to generate matter early in the Universe and such things as the Force disconnection happened to the dimensions curled in space to allow matter generation.

 

 

It seems by this that these curled dimensions seem to compress more in higher energy densities around them just as moving objects in Special Relativity. 

 

 

As Strange as this may seem is our universe generating a particle in a hyper universe if that is the case, our universe may not be very special just as curled dimensions are not very special. This also makes a paradox that there must be infinite layers of Universes but none the less we see it in our universe, why would it not be true in a higher universe, this would also mean that this hyper universe has more forces or different forces due to the more curled dimensions contained each layer adding that much more complexity of interaction.

 

 

This does imply that black hole's are a boson or particle just a very large boson or particle having infinite density, but not infinite rest mass and size. This gives rise to the idea that Black hole's could all indeed be baby universes within this one curling our dimensions of space into a infinitely small size with its infinite density having 8 hidden dimensions and not 4 hidden dimensions, which may be why they don't make sense in our normal physics having 4 more forces of interaction beyond the event horizon missing 3 dimensions of space and one of time being somewhat like a hyperspace universe a strange place.

 

 

Does this pass through the hyper universe  or just artificially simulate it, this is unknown as you would instantly lose all your dimensions of space and time by entry. The laws of physics do not allow you entry in matter, only energy. The big question is does 8 dimensional matter exist beyond with those extra forces or Hidden Dimensions instead of 4 Dimensional Matter. Even Stranger, does the black hole have 8 dimensions of forces, 4 of which we cannot detect as not interacting with our universe us missing them in the curled form our structure being neutral to this interaction? Energy does not seem to care about dimensionality just storing itself in forces.

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Vmedvil

[TomKalbfus]

By my definition, the Universe is everything, that means the hyper-universe or the multiverse is also the Universe. The only question is whether the barriers between one observed universe and the next is that of space and time, or does one need to go into a higher dimension to travel to them. As to what caused the observable universe. I think matter and energy requires a means to renew itself. The Big Bang is like the crest of a wave in an ocean, and a big crunch is like a through. Now the Universe seems to be accelerating, the question is why. Well why did the big bang occur in the first place? Black holes don't simply explode, at least not the massive ones! I would have to say that there are a lot of variables that we know nothing about. We are still discovering new things about the Universe, and since we don't know everything, we observe things which can't be explained from the facts we already know. An accelerating universe is one of them. Just as its possible for the Universe to accelerate, it is also possible for it to decelerate and collapse in on itself, maybe it is not gravity doing this but something else. I believe there is some mechanism to return the observable universe to its prior state during the Big Bang, but we don't know what it is. We can't measure a force that only acts at a distance greater than a billion light years for instance. My default assumption is an infinite universe, though we can't see all of it. It is just as hard to prove the Universe is finite as to prove that it is infinite, I don't believe there is an experiment that can prove one way or another, what we can see is barriers, we don't know what is beyond those barriers. The big bang is one such barrier, that we can't see past. The Universe at a certain time in the past got so dense that we can't see past it.

[Vmedvil]

By my definition, the Universe is everything, that means the hyper-universe or the multiverse is also the Universe. The only question is whether the barriers between one observed universe and the next is that of space and time, or does one need to go into a higher dimension to travel to them. As to what caused the observable universe. I think matter and energy requires a means to renew itself. The Big Bang is like the crest of a wave in an ocean, and a big crunch is like a through. Now the Universe seems to be accelerating, the question is why. Well why did the big bang occur in the first place? Black holes don't simply explode, at least not the massive ones! I would have to say that there are a lot of variables that we know nothing about. We are still discovering new things about the Universe, and since we don't know everything, we observe things which can't be explained from the facts we already know. An accelerating universe is one of them. Just as its possible for the Universe to accelerate, it is also possible for it to decelerate and collapse in on itself, maybe it is not gravity doing this but something else. I believe there is some mechanism to return the observable universe to its prior state during the Big Bang, but we don't know what it is. We can't measure a force that only acts at a distance greater than a billion light years for instance. My default assumption is an infinite universe, though we can't see all of it. It is just as hard to prove the Universe is finite as to prove that it is infinite, I don't believe there is an experiment that can prove one way or another, what we can see is barriers, we don't know what is beyond those barriers. The big bang is one such barrier, that we can't see past. The Universe at a certain time in the past got so dense that we can't see past it.

 

I want to correct you on one thing, Black-holes lose energy over time via hawking radiation, then do actually explode once the gravitational field gets weak enough, it is called evaporation of the black hole once that happens it explodes.  This is caused by the infinite density getting a scalar density and great expansion.

 

 

Remember in the most basic form that black-holes are held together by gravity weaken that gravity and the other forces caused expansion sets in, lower its energy-mass lower its gravity. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Vmedvil

[TomKalbfus]

Well then maybe the gravitational constant is not constant, maybe some other forces determine the value of the gravitational constant. So what would happen to a black hole if the gravitational constant decreased? The gravitational constant determined the force of gravity for a given mass, reduce the gravitational constant and the force of gravity also gets reduced as does the the escape velocity. Since the size of a black hole is determined as the radius at which the escape velocity is the speed of light, that means that reducing the gravitational constant will reduce the size of a black hole. A black hole consists in inrushing matter and energy, the event horizon of a black hole slows down time thus stopping the in rushing matter and energy. if we reduced the gravitational constant, the time slowing effects will decrease, the inrushing matter due to inertial will rush towards a smaller radius and a new event horizon of a smaller black hole. this black hole will exert less gravity but have the same mass as it had before.

 

What would happen to planets and stars if the gravitational constant diminished? I think planets will expand, as they will be less compressed by the force of gravity, stars will expand and grow dimmer, some stars will become brown dwarfs as the compression in their cores drops below the threshold required to maintain fusion. Planets will pull further out as the gravity forces affecting them diminish, some will escape altogether. What if high densities in the universe shrink the gravitational constant? What if the gravitational constant got larger with lower densities in the Universe? How do we know the gravitational constant in the early universe was the same as it is now?

Edited October 7, 2017 by TomKalbfus

[Vmedvil]

Well then maybe the gravitational constant is not constant, maybe some other forces determine the value of the gravitational constant. So what would happen to a black hole if the gravitational constant decreased? The gravitational constant determined the force of gravity for a given mass, reduce the gravitational constant and the force of gravity also gets reduced as does the the escape velocity. Since the size of a black hole is determined as the radius at which the escape velocity is the speed of light, that means that reducing the gravitational constant will reduce the size of a black hole. A black hole consists in inrushing matter and energy, the event horizon of a black hole slows down time thus stopping the in rushing matter and energy. if we reduced the gravitational constant, the time slowing effects will decrease, the inrushing matter due to inertial will rush towards a smaller radius and a new event horizon of a smaller black hole. this black hole will exert less gravity but have the same mass as it had before.

 

What would happen to planets and stars if the gravitational constant diminished? I think planets will expand, as they will be less compressed by the force of gravity, stars will expand and grow dimmer, some stars will become brown dwarfs as the compression in their cores drops below the threshold required to maintain fusion. Planets will pull further out as the gravity forces affecting them diminish, some will escape altogether. What if high densities in the universe shrink the gravitational constant? What if the gravitational constant got larger with lower densities in the Universe? How do we know the gravitational constant in the early universe was the same as it is now?

 

The big G constant never changes the small g constant is always different for every massive object. If you changed the Big G constant it would indeed change all the forces of nature slightly as they are all related to my knowledge it is completely unknown how things react to different elementary constants, but likely it would change the Planck constant of the universe as it changed. Here is a list of all Dimensional relationships. The Universe's Action potential would be different. 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Vmedvil

[hazelm]

Well then maybe the gravitational constant is not constant, maybe some other forces determine the value of the gravitational constant. So what would happen to a black hole if the gravitational constant decreased? The gravitational constant determined the force of gravity for a given mass, reduce the gravitational constant and the force of gravity also gets reduced as does the the escape velocity. Since the size of a black hole is determined as the radius at which the escape velocity is the speed of light, that means that reducing the gravitational constant will reduce the size of a black hole. A black hole consists in inrushing matter and energy, the event horizon of a black hole slows down time thus stopping the in rushing matter and energy. if we reduced the gravitational constant, the time slowing effects will decrease, the inrushing matter due to inertial will rush towards a smaller radius and a new event horizon of a smaller black hole. this black hole will exert less gravity but have the same mass as it had before.

 

What would happen to planets and stars if the gravitational constant diminished? I think planets will expand, as they will be less compressed by the force of gravity, stars will expand and grow dimmer, some stars will become brown dwarfs as the compression in their cores drops below the threshold required to maintain fusion. Planets will pull further out as the gravity forces affecting them diminish, some will escape altogether. What if high densities in the universe shrink the gravitational constant? What if the gravitational constant got larger with lower densities in the Universe? How do we know the gravitational constant in the early universe was the same as it is now?

Gravitational constant --- Cosmological constant = same thing or two different things?   I have not yet grasped the concept of "cosmological constant" other than it relating to Dark Energy.  No need to go into it here; just say if it is the same or different.  Thank you.

[TomKalbfus]

The big G constant never changes the small g constant is always different for every massive object. If you changed the Big G constant it would indeed change all the forces of nature slightly as they are all related to my knowledge it is completely unknown how things react to different elementary constants, but likely it would change the Planck constant of the universe as it changed. Here is a list of all Dimensional relationships. The Universe's Action potential would be different. 

 

 

So maybe changing the Gravitational constant is not an explanation for the Big Bang. It could be that the Universe does have a center, but it is centered in time, not space. Lets suppose that time was not one dimension but three, at the center of the three time dimensions is the Big Bang, and as the Universe expands time moves forward. The three dimensions of space contain the galaxies and stars following their worldliness away from the center of the Universe. The local axis of time is perpendicular to the three axis's of space, and we perceive the fourth dimensions through movement in space. Light travels locally at a 45 degree angle between all three dimensions of space and that of time. A photon that originated from the big Bang would spiral away from the center of the Universe. As one moves away from the center, space becomes colder and darker as we are moving away from the center of the Universe, as we move close to the speed of light we move away from the center faster.