Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[modest]

The question I have is this.

 

How do the parts within the Universe recycle?

 

You'll have to be more specific Pluto.

 

Of course things in the universe recycle. You and I and planet earth contain star dust. One thing (a star) has turned into something else (a planet and some people). So, by the definition of recycling - I'd say that qualifies.

 

On an atomic level, there is recycling. Helium and heavier elements are made in stars out of hydrogen by fusion. If that same star supernovas then some of that helium and heavier stuff can be turned back into hydrogen by photodisintegration. However, (and as we've discussed before) photodisintegration is by far more rare than the normal processes of fusion and radioactive decay.

 

Thus it is the tendency of the universe to evolve over time - not to recycle. The aggregate result of stars and supernova is fusion. Heavy elements are created. Those elements decay until they become stable. There is some equilibrium that exists between these two processes right around iron. The majority of our universe is hydrogen and helium. So, it is in the process of becoming more metal-rich as it has for the past 13 and some odd billion years. If you're looking for a process that turns all that metallicity back into hydrogen at the same rate fusion makes it - I don't know of it. I've never heard of such a thing.

 

But, this may not be what you're talking about at all. So, can you be more specific?

 

~modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

To keep it simple for now.

 

Fusion and fission reactions occur within star envelopes.

 

Fusion up to Fe and Ni and heavier elements than Ni that are formed break down to Fe via fission. Thus and Fe build up.

 

During a supernova the heavier elements above Fe formed remain stable.

 

Just before the supernova Fe breaks down to He than to H ,via fission reactions, which changes to Neutrons that is collected by the core, forming a Neutron Star in some cases.

 

It is much more complicated than this and there are other cycles that need to be looked at, such as the Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen cycle.

[modest]

To keep it simple for now.

 

Fusion and fission reactions occur within star envelopes.

 

By many many orders of magnitude, fusion is primarily what's going on.

 

Fusion up to Fe and Ni and heavier elements than Ni that are formed break down to Fe via fission. Thus and Fe build up.

 

Yes, Fe is the line that separates fission from fusion. Fusion of lighter elements than Fe is exothermic and want to happen.

 

During a supernova the heavier elements above Fe formed remain stable.

 

Just before the supernova Fe breaks down to He than to H ,via fission reactions, which changes to Neutrons that is collected by the core, forming a Neutron Star in some cases.

 

It is much more complicated than this and there are other cycles that need to be looked at, such as the Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen cycle.

 

Yes, more complicated. And not the whole story.

 

Let's envision a situation where mostly hydrogen and helium form a massive star. The star goes through the fusion processes until it has an iron core that no longer will support the star via fusion. There is a supernova. Stellar processes combined with supernova processes should lead to a net effect of enrichment when everything is said and done. Looking at supernova remnants such as the crab nebula:

http://www.astrosmo.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..10/PDF/RMxAC..10_MAG.pdf

is an indication of this.

 

So, if we look at the fusion happening in normal stars and add the effects of supernova we can compare that to the elemental abundance of the universe at large. The overall picture as I understand it is that metallicity is going up over time. It is not at equilibrium. Would you agree with that?

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Modest said

 

Let's envision a situation where mostly hydrogen and helium form a massive star. The star goes through the fusion processes until it has an iron core that no longer will support the star via fusion. There is a supernova. Stellar processes combined with supernova processes should lead to a net effect of enrichment when everything is said and done. Looking at supernova remnants such as the crab nebula:

http://www.astrosmo.unam.mx/rmaa/RMx...AC..10_MAG.pdf

is an indication of this.

 

Mainstream would agree with you on the Iron core.

I would rather think of the Fe forming around an inner core. The question is where does the energy come from to create the endothermic reaction. I would suggest one option but not the only one, a compact core of some form that is able to be compacted (10^10 to 10^17 kg/m3) greater than Fe (10^5) or any other element. The compaction in my opinion has to be in the form of degenerate matter composite that has the potential energy to produce high energy photons to break up the Fe (Photodisnintergration). The bi products would be Neutrons that is collected by the inner core and H and He that would add to the fusion that powers the supernova. This maybe be wrong.

 

 

So, if we look at the fusion happening in normal stars and add the effects of supernova we can compare that to the elemental abundance of the universe at large. The overall picture as I understand it is that metallicity is going up over time. It is not at equilibrium. Would you agree with that?

 

I would research the ins and out of this. How much Fe is recycled and how much is ejected out. If the parts within the universe are in a constant cycle, we may end up with a balance. Matter going into Black holes are changed to degenerate matter and ejected out in some form of composite taking with it or should I say collected normal matter on the way out.

 

At this momemt I'm reading through some hundred or so papers on recycling, and it is more complicated than I thought. Who ever produced the universe, should have applied the KISS principle.

 

These links that I'm reading through, does not mean that I agree with.

 

[0806.1245] Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology

Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology

 

 

[0806.1080] Phantom Energy Accretion onto Black Holes in Cyclic Universe

Phantom Energy Accretion onto Black Holes in Cyclic Universe

 

 

[0806.1065] B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy

B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy

 

[0806.0746] The model of dynamo with small number of modes and magnetic activity of T Tauri stars

The model of dynamo with small number of modes and magnetic activity of T Tauri stars

 

[0805.0413] Oscillating universe with quintom matter

Oscillating universe with quintom matter

 

[0803.4484] Recollapsing quantum cosmologies and the question of entropy

Recollapsing quantum cosmologies and the question of entropy

 

[0803.4446] Anti-deSitter universe dynamics in LQC

Anti-deSitter universe dynamics in LQC

 

[0802.1875] Cyclic Magnetic Universe

Cyclic Magnetic Universe

[Reaper]

UPDATE: This is the status report on Mike C's progress on SFN; of the 5 threads he had created, 2 are locked, and he managed to spit out this gem of a quote:

 

Since I believe in a Flat Soace SSU, I do not give any credibility to these findings and previous accepted values for our universe.

I just follow the current opinions to keep in touch with the latest news.

 

NS

 

 

 

Priceless.

[C1ay]

UPDATE: This is the status report on Mike C's progress on SFN...

 

Thanks for the update. Eventually the temp bans he's earned for not supporting his various claims here will wear off and maybe he'll share some of those priceless gems with us :)

[coldcreation]

UPDATE: This is the status report on Mike C's progress on SFN; of the 5 threads he had created, 2 are locked, and he managed to spit out this gem of a quote:

 

Priceless.

 

I really doubt anyone here is interested in your ironic or satirical criticism. It is nothing short of bitter and abusive; especially in light of what you write:

 

"I don't know' date=' was there ever a time in your life when you realized that you know so pathetically little about this world we live in, and that before that time, you were so hopelessly naive and stupid? I think I am now beginning to realize that for myself...

 

I think I mentioned this before, but this site has certainly showed me just how little I truly knew about everything in general...

 

In my short life I found that it is so much easier to hate and place blame on other people. This is something that I've been working on getting rid of, but it does disturb me just on the extent of my true nature."[/quote']

 

That should ring a bell.

 

 

:)

 

 

“Let every man judge by himself, by what he himself read, not by what others tell him.”

(Albert Einstein, About Freedom, 1931)

 

 

CC

[Reaper]

I really doubt anyone here is interested in your ironic or satirical criticism.

 

That statement is contradicted by observation, if you read the previous post :)

 

It is nothing short of bitter and abusive, especially in light of what you write:

 

So? That thread I made back awhile ago was made in a completely different context; at the time I was complaining about the fact that the world sucks.

 

It has no relevance to the criticism of his ideas, and his behavior, in general. Mike C has had several chances to prove his worth and earn respect, and for the most part he blew it. Unlike him, I do happen to know how little I know about things.

 

 

 

 

Relax, he will be returned to you guys eventually, after we have our own mean spirited fun.

 

 

“Let every man judge by himself, by what he himself read, not by what others tell him.”

(Albert Einstein, About Freedom, 1931)

 

 

 

I know Einstein, I know what he said, I know what he meant, and I know of his incredible wisdom. And, I am well versed enough in it so that I don't have to take tips from you. I do not need you to misrepresent his quotes or his personal philosophy for me.

[coldcreation]

This discussion is way off-topic.

 

The question posed at the outset: Bang or no bang (?) is a philosophical question for a variety of reasons; one of which is that physics does not take us to t = 0. Chances are no one will ever know anything about the origin of the universe, and GR certainly isn't going to give-up-the-ghost anytime soon.

 

Einstein’s last words on the subject were ’One may…not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not conclude that the “beginning of expansion” must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense’ (Pais, A. 1982, ‘Subtle is the Lord…’ The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein).

 

For this reason, speculation and extrapolation beyond the domain of science, beyond the big bang theory, seem inevitable.

 

 

 

CC

[REASON]

For this reason, speculation and extrapolation beyond the domain of science, beyond the big bang theory, seem inevitable.

 

CC

 

Maybe. But considering how far we've come, don't you have to think that there has to be a solution?

 

I mean, there has to be.....it's here, it's everywhere, we're studying it. It has to have come from somewhere.

 

Right?

[coldcreation]

Maybe. But considering how far we've come, don't you have to think that there has to be a solution?

 

I mean, there has to be.....it's here, it's everywhere, we're studying it. It has to have come from somewhere.

 

Right?

 

Hello Reason,

 

Claims have been made that the beginning of space and time can be thought of as a quantum fluctuation. Specific solutions of general relativity too have been used to show that the singularity could exist, but give no answer as to whether it does exist.

 

The ones who object to all investigation of this kind suggest that since this epoch is located beyond observational capabilities, it is outside of the domain of science and the physical laws thereof. Hawking states that “events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang” (Hawking, 1988 p. 46).

 

Whether one considers the origin as a point or a wave emerging from a void (where space and time were not), the fact that the laws of physics break down at the instant of creation, t = 0, is by far the most catastrophic flaw of all primeval atom-type theories. The inability to explain the origin of the cosmos physically has often led critics to categorize its birth as smacked with divine intervention, in both the biblical and/or metaphysical sense.

 

Undeniably, as one tends toward t = 0 every natural law, including GR, QM and thermodynamics, collapses to complete chaos and befuddlement.

 

Realizing the unsatisfactory nature of a big bang singularity, several physicists (Gabriele Veneziano (CERN), et al) have come up with ingenious ways of bypassing the problem; proposing, for example that the big bang did not occur at the beginning of the universe (t = 0). It would have emerged as a spacetime bubble from a cold, chaotic, empty space. This pre-universe is infinite in spatial extent and time can be considered as ‘negative’ and so on. Ultimately, the idea falls into the same trap as the classical big bang picture: Physics breaks down during the transition from t = -1 to t = +1 (at the boundary of the spacetime bubble).

 

Other have proposed the soliton or 5D brane hypothesis. But they are not a solution to the problem either, since something that is not physics at all (new physics) is simply replaced with new physics (something that is not physics at all). The physical foundation of these models would have been on a much more solid platform had the introduction of new physics not been necessary.

 

My opinion, based on the fact that there is no possible way to test or prove the predictions made by the theory regarding the vicinity of t = 0—with or without the injunction of new physics—is that we are not on the right path. Ironically, we must conclude: The closer we move toward understanding the initial conditions in physical terms, the further we diverge from physics.

 

Inevitably, a question mark remains attached to the origin of the universe and the fundamental role it plays in our comprehension of both the nature of the physical world and the foundations of science itself.

 

Simply put, the history and origin of the universe in which we live may be entirely different than what is currently believed.

 

Natural solutions (where the laws of physics never break down at some time t) and based on empirical evidence should be pursued; even if the differing interpretations of observations turn out to be erroneous in the long run.

 

Through the conviction that the ideal could be embodied in the real, through observation and experiment, trial and error, interpretation and analysis, it is hoped that a new era may be just over the horizon with the discovery of a ‘theory of everything’ that will lead us to an all-embracing understanding of the universe and its constituents.

 

 

Again, my personal opinion is that a speculative tremor pervades the big bang event—evidence of the odd predictions and approximate reasoning and assumptions have not yet been, and are not about to be, logically examined or confirmed by observation—as if not originating in the physical world but somewhere outside it. In short, all that is familiar and recognizable in the real world has crumbled away, exasperatingly inaccessible. Not only has size become ridiculously meaningless, but facts and figures as well (there are no facts or figures).

 

Unless one can glimpse the hidden face of things, every encounter begets illusion and disillusion. The big bang theory, you will notice, begins nowhere and ends nowhere—material form and substance are vacated. Like an untied shoestring it wanders. It can’t afford to wander. But in the offing, as a peculiar voice and clambering echo of footsteps in an obscure grotto, comes the call of a futuristic land, the land of pure invention, where the nymph makes light of human endeavor, human creation, art. :)

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Coldcreation said

 

Again, my personal opinion is that a speculative tremor pervades the big bang event—evidence of the odd predictions and approximate reasoning and assumptions have not yet been, and are not about to be, logically examined or confirmed by observation—as if not originating in the physical world but somewhere outside it. In short, all that is familiar and recognizable in the real world has crumbled away, exasperatingly inaccessible. Not only has size become ridiculously meaningless, but facts and figures as well (there are no facts or figures).

 

Unless one can glimpse the hidden face of things, every encounter begets illusion and disillusion. The big bang theory, you will notice, begins nowhere and ends nowhere—material form and substance are vacated. Like an untied shoestring it wanders. It can’t afford to wander. But in the offing, as a peculiar voice and clambering echo of footsteps in an obscure grotto, comes the call of a futuristic land, the land of pure invention, where the nymph makes light of human endeavor, human creation, art.

 

You write so well,,,,,,,,,,,,,easy to read and very logical.

 

 

I know of all the information supporting the Big Bang Theory and I know the complexity of the observable universe being over 100 billion galaxies and within the those galaxies live supermassive so called black holes over 10 billion sun mass, that eject matter millions of light years out into space. Knowing all this and the objection to redshift data and the temp backgound dispute. For the life of me I cannot understand how the Big Bang people say that the universe formed in just 13.7Gyrs, and if you object they get emotional as though they are married to the theory.

 

I for one just want to understand the ongoing processes that keeps the universe going and going and going.

[Majeston]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Coldcreation said

 

 

 

You write so well,,,,,,,,,,,,,easy to read and very logical.

 

 

I know of all the information supporting the Big Bang Theory and I know the complexity of the observable universe being over 100 billion galaxies and within the those galaxies live supermassive so called black holes over 10 billion sun mass, that eject matter millions of light years out into space. Knowing all this and the objection to redshift data and the temp backgound dispute. For the life of me I cannot understand how the Big Bang people say that the universe formed in just 13.7Gyrs, and if you object they get emotional as though they are married to the theory.

 

I for one just want to understand the ongoing processes that keeps the universe going and going and going.

 

 

Pluto,

 

you might try here to start with......

 

Majeston already posted:

http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/A...sziouK_196.pdf

Has anyone actually read this yet?

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

 

Majeston said

 

you might try here to start with......

 

Majeston already posted:

http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/A...sziouK_196.pdf

Has anyone actually read this yet?

 

Mate I tried to open it. Maybe in the land of ozzzz, we may have different keys.

[Moontanman]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

 

Majeston said

 

 

 

Mate I tried to open it. Maybe in the land of ozzzz, we may have different keys.

 

I tried to open it too Pluto, I don't know why it wouldn't open but if it's from the Book Of Urinatia it probably didn't open due to embarassment. Maybe the great and powerful majeston can help you get it open. If you read it I would be interested on your take of this writing.

[modest]

Indeed it was a link to a religious paper and the post with the proper link has been deleted. Hopefully it's well understood why allowing links to religious material to be posted outside theology is a bad idea.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Pluto,

 

you might try here to start with......

 

Majeston already posted:

http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/A...sziouK_196.pdf

Has anyone actually read this yet?

 

I read some of it, and it's a religious document, not science. Your link claims that the BB is losing support but gives no science for why this is so.

 

Please keep this crap out of the physical science forums.

Thanks. :)