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

[maddog]

Picking one point

{excerpt}...Hubble attributed this red shift to the Doppler effect due to recession of galaxies. But in UPT's non-expanding universe it is caused by the depletion of spectral photon energy during passage through the sharmon medium.

This would be a very simple exe[r]cise to prove one way or another

Pluto,

 

Excuse me, what is a "sharmon medium" ??? ;) :) :hihi:

 

And even knowing that "how" would that be a very simple "execise" to prove one way or another ??? :) ;) :eek_big:

 

maddog

[maddog]

One of the main triggers of a supernova is the photodisintegration of Fe and similar elements to He than H than Protons than ... This process is well documented.

Pluto,

 

Kinda hard to follow your English.

 

First off, a Supernova ignites when Silicon (Si) is converted to Iron (Fe) -- often called the Silicon Flash. This is such a powerful process that most of the Silicon is converted in a few seconds (or less). Yes, the full process is well documented in any book on Nucleosynthesis (common grad course in Astrophysics).

 

Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fusion: Nucleosynthesis

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1985ApJ...295..604T&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=56&q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9909297&ei=weG6SfGeOpjAtge2o7HiDw&sig2=0khCvx5-u8KSDQS6AYXauw&usg=AFQjCNGtDA-uf7VERLLT61j2Utc7pK4-5w

 

:) ;) :hihi:

 

maddog

[maddog]

But! till this date I cannot understand how the Big Bang Theory became the standard model. Not only that people who think along the lines of the BBT find it offensive that anybody should think differently. It must be Human Nature.

For Human Nature ... maybe yes, maybe no.

 

What is universal is anyone telling one how they "should" believe. On that note I would agree, it can be annoying. For myself, I would you are welcome to your beliefs. They are yours, anyway.

 

maddog :)

[freeztar]

That a black hole is losing mass it already had is exactly what Hawking radiation predicts. Unlike the more common kinds of radiation associated with black holes, which are produced mainly by thermal glowing of their disks of infalling matter, Hawking radiation is predicted to occur even if the black hole is surrounded by no matter or light at all.

 

Thanks for the correction Craig. I believe I was confusing the two. :)

[Pluto]

G'day maddog

 

I'm fully awear of most of the element formations within and outer envelope of the Stars.

 

The question is this:

 

Where does the Neutrons come from to form the Neutron star?

 

That would also answer the mechansim.

 

Also forgive my English, in actual fact its not my English the problem, its my dislexia. That's life.

 

Moderation Note: The subsequent discussion regarding the origin of neutrons in neutron stars has been moved to 19049

[modest]

While I can find no theoretical or observational support for Pluto’s idea that neutron stars or black holes just spit degenerate matter out in their disks and jets, I find the question of what would happen if you could remove degenerate matter from a super-dense object like a neutron star an interesting one. Once it is no longer part of a large mass, a lump of matter like neutronium is essentially the enormous nucleus of a nameless unstable element, and should fission like mad. Would it emit free neutrons, which would each beta decay in about 1 minute to produce an atom of hydrogen, or would it do something more exotic? The question is way over my head. :Alien: :shrug:

 

Yeah! :)

 

I propose... The free neutrons would decay to protons and electrons—a process that would only be stopped by the formation of deuterium which could capture free neutrons before they decay. The decay of free neutrons will happen at an energy too high for protons and neutrons to combine forming deuterium, so... Depending on how quickly it's allowed to cool (or how quickly it's pulled out of the gravity well, I suppose), you'd either end up with pure hydrogen (if all the neutrons are allowed to decay) or some combination of hydrogen and helium.

 

While I have no (well, virtually no) understanding of the physics needed to come to this conclusion, I do recognize the situation is indistinguishable from big bang nucleosynthesis.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

Which has, of course, been well-modeled. We stand on the shoulders of giants ;)

Where does the Neutrons come from to form the Neutron star?

If you squeeze a proton and an electron together tight-enough you will get a neutron. This is called electron capture. According to wikipedia... that's what happens.

Neutron degeneracy is analogous to electron degeneracy and is demonstrated in neutron stars, which are supported by the pressure from a degenerate neutron gas. This happens when a stellar core above 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit) collapses and is not halted by the degenerate electrons. As the star collapses, the Fermi energy of the electrons increases to the point where it is energetically favorable for them to combine with protons to produce neutrons (via inverse beta decay, also termed "neutralization" and electron capture). The result of this collapse is an extremely compact star composed of nuclear matter, which is dominantly a degenerate neutron gas, sometimes called neutronium, with a small admixture of degenerate proton and electron gases.

 

Degenerate matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

[maddog]

Sorry, pluto, but you're barking up a tree with this one.

And a Wrong tree at that.

 

maddog

[line]

I predict that the Big Bang will be forgotten oen huundred years from now. You want to bet?

[freeztar]

I predict that the Big Bang will be forgotten oen huundred years from now. You want to bet?

 

Sure, I'll also bet you that neither of us will be around in one hundred years. ;)

[CraigD]

I predict that the Big Bang will be forgotten oen huundred years from now. You want to bet?

I’d take that bet, though be warned, the effort involved in making wagers over such long time periods – creating special trust fund accounts, contracting with a future executor, etc – is considerable.

 

I think the position that any non-trivial thing will be forgotten in 100 years, however, is an unwise one, given the example of history through the present. Even millennium-old pre-scientific creation accounts, and old, geocentric models, have not been forgotten today, even though they are now known with certainty to be wrong.

 

;): Why do you believe the Big Bang theory will be forgotten 100 years from now, line? The only reasonable rationale I can imagine for believing this is to believe that nearly everything known today will be forgotten in 100 years, due to some human catastrophe – an “end of the world” scenario – that leaves no or only a few illiterate humans with only rudimentary knowledge of the past alive. I don’t think this scenario is very likely.

[line]

Sure, I'll also bet you that neither of us will be around in one hundred years. :)

 

There is a prediction that science will extend life to such an extent that you will be tired of living and commit suicide. If that happens, who would be around a century from now will depend on who get tired of living first.:)

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

I was going to make a comment on Neutron production via the pinch of magnetic fields. I will come back to it as soon as I find the paper on

SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

 

Be back soon.

[modest]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

I was going to make a comment on Neutron production via the pinch of magnetic fields. I will come back to it as soon as I find the paper on

SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

 

Be back soon.

 

I moved your post which was off-topic to this thread:

19042

Please be sure any further posts you make in this thread involve "the origin of the universe—bang or no bang. You may not have noticed my advice to you earlier:

 

Pluto, I understand you want to tie photodisintegration, supernova, jets, and other such astronomical processes to an unchanging / recycling cosmos, but a lot of what you are saying is very inconsistent with well-established scientific theory.

 

Your arguments do not support your conclusions and your links don't support your arguments. It has consistently dragged this thread off the topic of "the origin of the universe" to the subject of degenerate matter, compact objects, and the like and you've been unable to tie the subjects together.

 

So, when your suspension is up in a week it would be best if you started a thread on the subject of compact objects, degenerate matter, jets, or whatever it is specifically you'd like to investigate. I think that would be all-around best.

 

~modest

[maddog]

With the proper realignment of this thread back to the subject [assuming it hasn't already been beaten to Death]; let requote the original question.

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide. Without me influencing? What do you think?

Was there a Big Bang?

Yes the has been a number of Big Bang theories. The current concept was spawned

from the notion from Gamov's original theory after WW II.

The inflation concept has been added to the beginning to deal with a number of issues.

Was there a String Theory?

There are 5 current String Theories which are now found by Edward Witten to be isomorphically equivalent. This revelation is what spawned M-Theory.

Was there a M- theory ?

Yes. There is. Though I had read that Ed Witten is now considering using some

combination of Twistor Theory with M-Theory.

Was there a steady state theory?

There was a number of these as well. The one that Einstein had originally based his

GR notions on was the De Sitter model [which Hubble wrecked in 1927]. Then in the

40's Hoyle created the Steady State theory everyone hears about. It has long been out

of favor (since the discovery of CMBR).

Was there a wave theory?

The notion of waves go way back in Physics. They are everywhere. History has mostly

accorded this to the Wave Nature of Light for building up most of the study of Waves.

Quantum Mechanics borrowed a lot from the notion of waves once Einstein had written

his original paper on "Quantization of Light" in 1905.

Was there a Plasma Theory?

Plasma is often thought to be "4th state of matter" = fire. <<= closest thing to it.

Was there a Recycle theory?

This has often cited by Pluto (I think was his favorite) Question.

I assume by this "Recycle" of the Universe itself ? If so, then there have been many

theories one way or the other. Until recently it was thought the Universe was closed,

finite which was under expansion, would eventually slow down, stop, contract into

Hawking's "Big Crunch". The data recently analyzed by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) that the Universe is not Just expanding. The expansion is accelerating

outward. This doesn't kill "Recycling" per se. It does make it harder to understand what

is really going on.

Was there a GOD theory?

This is not and likely CANNOT be a scientific question with a scientific answer. Can it be

answered at all. Well, only personally and only to yourself and your belief. What you

believe, that is your answer.

Yes you did miss a few I have reading upon (ala Roger Penrose, Roads to Reality). Namely:

Pilot Wave Theory (by David Bohm & others) -- as an alternate to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.

[look up "Schroedinger's Cat, etc.]

Loop Quantum Gravity (Derived from GR by Lee Smolin, et al) as a pathway to a Quantum

Gravity Theory.

Twistor Theory (a long time theory from Roger Penrose) -- I have been reading on since my college days in 70's. [this makes all coordinates Complex]

Wavelets (new theory that expands on signal processing beyond Fourier Transforms & FFTs).

Just to name a few.

Or is there a combination theory?

This is likely or Quantum Gravity would not have been so elusive to find a viable theory.

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

Depends on definitions {Right vs Wrong}.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Well done maddog.

 

Before I start writing I better keep to the subject.

 

What do you think of this paper?

 

If I have posted this before, I'm sorry.

 

[astro-ph/0108051] Quasi-Steady State Cosmology

Quasi-Steady State Cosmology

 

Authors: G. Burbidge (UCSD)

(Submitted on 2 Aug 2001)

 

Abstract: A brief historical account of modern cosmology shows that the standard big bang (BB) model, believed by so many, does not have the strong observational foundations that are frequently claimed for it. The theory of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) and explosive cosmogony is outlined. Comparisons are made between the two theories in explaining the observed properties of the universe, namely, the expansion, chemical composition, CMB, QSO redshifts and explosive events, galaxy formation, and the m-z and theta-z relations. Only two of the observed properties have ever been predicted from the theories (a) the expansion predicted from Einstein's theory by Friedmann and Lemaitre, and (:) the acceleration predicted by the classical steady state theory and the QSSC.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Supernova process ti this date is not understood and to rely on redshift data is to question the expansion and acceleration of the universe.

 

This paper is quite interesting, it expresses concerns over the subject matter.

 

[astro-ph/0511628] Do recent supernovae Ia observations tend to rule out all the cosmologies?

Do recent supernovae Ia observations tend to rule out all the cosmologies?

 

Authors: Ram Gopal Vishwakarma (Zacatecas University)

(Submitted on 21 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 18 Jan 2008 (this version, v4))

 

Abstract: Dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe have been the direct predictions of the distant supernovae Ia observations which are also supported, indirectly, by the observations of the CMB anisotropies, gravitational lensing and the studies of galaxy clusters. Today these results are accommodated in what has become the `concordance cosmology': a universe with flat spatial sections t=constant with about 70% of its energy in the form of Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda.

However, we find that as more and more supernovae Ia are observed, more accurately and towards higher redshift, the probability that the data are well explained by the cosmological models decreases alarmingly, finally ruling out the concordance model at more than 95% confidence level. This raises doubts against the `standard candle'-hypothesis of the supernovae Ia and their use to constrain the cosmological models. We need a better understanding of the entire SN Ia phenomenon in order to have cosmological consequences from them.

 

If this is correct than why is the BBT standard model remaining as a standard?

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Could this paper have any validity?

 

[0904.3973] Gravitational and Cosmological Spectral Shift with Remote Quantum States

Gravitational and Cosmological Spectral Shift with Remote Quantum States

 

Authors: Charles Francis

(Submitted on 25 Apr 2009)

 

Abstract: A class of coordinate systems is found for Friedmann Cosmologies with local gravity such that it is possible to formulate quantum theory over astronomical and cosmological distances. When light from distance objects is treated as a quantum motion, new predictions are found for cosmological redshift and lensing. Good agreement is found between predictions and supernova redshifts for a closed Friedmann Cosmology with no cosmological constant and expanding at half the rate of the standard model. A previously unmodelled component of cosmological redshift accounts for the anomalous Pioneer blueshift, and for the flattening of galaxy rotation curves simulating a MONDian law. Distant lenses have a quarter of the mass required by standard general relativity. Missing mass can be accounted by a massive neutrino. CDM is not required.