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

[modest]

In the due time I will be reading and re-reading on Galaxy formation and evolution and if you do not mind I would post some of these papers.

 

There are two points that

 

I'm looking for:

 

1) How AGN affects the formation of galaxies and their evolution.

 

2) If the size and activity is directly related to the form of the galaxy.

 

Please stay on topic and please discontinue pasting your arxiv search results here at Hypography. If you'd like to discuss an article then tell us why the article is relevant and what aspects you'd like to discuss.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

 

I think you missed the point of discussion.

 

I posted the link to support the point.

 

The ABS do it quite OK.

[maddog]

The Hubble Tuning Fork

The Hubble Tuning Fork

I am ok with the comments clipped from this site except for the following quote [abridged]:

 

We now know he was mistaken in this belief. Spiral galaxies have a great deal of rotation and elliptical galaxies do not. There is no way an elliptical galaxy could spontaneously begin rotating, so elliptical galaxies cannot turn into spiral galaxies. Although Hubble was wrong about his theory of galaxy evolution, the confusing names have stuck: today, elliptical galaxies are still referred to as early galaxies and spirals as late galaxies.

I can think of one mechanism. Elliptical galaxies can attain lots of angular momentum

from having a Galactic sized Black Hole form at the center. This angular momentum would

cause said galaxy to morph into a spiral galaxy. This theory is what was reported on

Discover that Black Holes of galactic proportion are now thought to be common in the

formation of galaxies. Personally, I would think I would have to go back to read the whole

website to get the context of this quote as their may be a dependency I am not aware of.

In actual fact in my opinion the events are cyclic. We see spiral galaxies having a AGN and forming huge jets that eject matter and reform the galaxy. The size of the Nucleon determines the size of the jet and the outcome of the form.

I know you just love cyclicity. There may be processes which cycle here. The one reported

in the show on Discover was how

a the Black Holes at galactic centers would turn-on and turn-off (ergo AGN or not). This

explanation was given on that show as that said Black Hole would run out of fuel, would

then turn-off. Later when more matter would start to fall in, it would turn-on. The

magnetic flux would blow out, fuel depletes, goes out. Eventually stars move nearby,

bleed gas, gas falls in, turn-on. This is cyclical.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

As far as galaxy evolution, in my opinion the sequence of events go through an evolution.

 

The basic motion in the universe is to cluster, if this was the only motion than we would end up with one cluster in time.

 

The property of double layer allows for the formation of matter to be ejected at speeds close to that of light.

 

The two process allows for a recycling of matter.

 

To understand the processes one needs to understand the properties of condensed matter.

 

The following paper is for information.

 

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic Degenerate Stars to Black Holes

May-07

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic

SpringerLink - Journal Article

 

and

Scalar fields: at the threshold of astrophysics

 

Scalar fields: at the threshold of astrophysics

[enorbet2]

Greetz

Maddog I can't tell for certain if you're being serious or deceptively obsequious :bouquet: (wolf spider or trap door spider?) but since there ain't no flies on me, please allow me to respond to the literal and join in the fun.

 

I know you just love cyclicity. There may be processes which cycle here. The one reported

in the show on Discover was how a the Black Holes at galactic centers would turn-on and turn-off (ergo AGN or not). This

explanation was given on that show as that said Black Hole would run out of fuel, would then turn-off. Later when more matter would start to fall in, it would turn-on. The magnetic flux would blow out, fuel depletes, goes out. Eventually stars move nearby,

bleed gas, gas falls in, turn-on. This is cyclical.

 

I disagree. The definition of "cyclical" is mathematical in that there is either a repeating interval in time or an intervallic progression in time following a rhythmic nature ie: not random. Because there are complex perturbations in orbit shape and velocity particularly in the dense fields of galactic nucleii between mass, motion, multiples of gravitational fields, and possibly dark matter and dark energy, the motion is necessarily random and not in the least cyclical, imho, and this is just in regards to balck holes "feeding". Below I'll tackle cyclical redistribution of matter.

 

 

 

The basic motion in the universe is to cluster, if this was the only motion than we would end up with one cluster in time.

 

I don't think this is entirely accurate, even if we apply only the simple old Newtonian concept of gravity. We know the Universe to be structured at several large scales in clusters of gravitationally bound galaxies very loosely bound to other large clusters but most separated by vast areas of empty space (admittedly some are only half-vast) :bouquet: and if we accept expansion it is highly likely that if no other forces appear these clusters will eventually separate from each other leaving only super vastly separated local groups that will eventually combine such as is the destiny of the Milky Way and Andromeda. Consider Einstein's concept of gravity and the bar moves a little further toward expansion. So both forces are at play, locally clustering, but on larger scales flying apart. Presently it is expected that over many eons all that will be left is super massive black holes slowly dissipating into particle soup, the end of matter as we know it. Factor in Dark Energy and this is happening more quickly and more inevitably in Cosmic Time, than previously thought, and actually tends to reduce clustering in favor of flying apart.

 

 

The property of double layer allows for the formation of matter to be ejected at speeds close to that of light.The two process allows for a recycling of matter.

 

I don't see how you can say this considering many Black Holes appear to be a net loss in that far less matter/energy escapes than is semi permanently captured (though others may be a net gain, so it is not pssible to generalize about "all black holes") . I say "semi permanently" since the lifespan of Black Holes is an unknown and can only be projected and in any projection it must be considered that what is ejected at relativistic speeds is not necessarily about to be reconstituted as matter any time soon even on a Cosmic scale, if ever. The LHC and Herschel/Planck projects are bound to add considerable new data to the mix soon, but it is far from clear just yet and possibly won't be clear until gravity is reconciled with Quantum Mechanics.

 

In conclusion, cyclical redistribution of matter through the action of black holes, even in general, is far from proven and is far more likely doubtful. You seem to be referring to the perceived Trans-Plankian problem with Bekenstein-Hawking radiation but that has been largelyly resolved of late. Quoting from Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The trans-Planckian problem is nowadays mostly considered a mathematical artifact of horizon calculations.[10][13] The same effect occurs for regular matter falling onto a white hole solution. Matter which falls on the white hole accumulates on it, but has no future region into which it can go. Tracing the future of this matter, it is compressed onto the final singular endpoint of the white hole evolution, into a trans-Planckian region. The reason for these types of divergences is that modes which end at the horizon from the point of view of outside coordinates are singular in frequency there. The only way to determine what happens classically is to extend in some other coordinates that cross the horizon.

 

There exist alternative physical pictures which give the Hawking radiation in which the trans-Planckian problem is addressed. The key point is that similar trans-Planckian problems occur when the modes occupied with Unruh radiation are traced back in time.[14] In the Unruh effect, the magnitude of the temperature can be calculated from ordinary Minkowski field theory, and is not controversial.

 

To visualize Black Holes as closed Fountains feeding the pond that feeds the fountain in some sort of cosmic eternal motion machine, seems, well , there's no other way to put it, just wrong. Even your quoted Harvard study on condensates doesn't place such on a scale that it/they "reseed(s)" the Universe.

 

Pluto, if I have incorrectly restated or interpreted your case, please let me know, as it is refreshing to see some of your own ideas here for a change and that considerably increases the interest in this thread, at least for me.

 

Maddog, you're great fun no matter what you're ultimately up to.

 

Cheers All

[Pluto]

G'day enorbet

 

I do not see a black hole as something that cannot be worked with.

 

I see it as a Condensed matter that is able to form vector fields that prevent EMR from escaping.

 

Apr-02

Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes

 

Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes

 

A new, static, spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's equations is described, that presents a very different alternative from classical black holes for the endpoint of gravitational collapse. The solution is characterized by an interior de Sitter region (p= -rho) of gravitational vacuum condensate with an exterior Schwarzschild geometry of arbitrary total mass M. These are separated by a very thin shell with a microscopic but finite proper thickness of ultracold matter with the eq. of state p= rho, replacing both the Schwarzschild and de Sitter classical horizons. These extreme eqs. of state arise naturally as the allowed phases in the effective theory of quantum gravity, and the classical event horizon is replaced by a phase boundary in the quantum theory. The new solution has no singularities, no event horizons, and a globally defined timelike Killing field. Its entropy is maximized under small fluctuations and is given by the standard hydrodynamic entropy of the thin shell, which is of order M, instead of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula (which is of order M^2). Hence unlike black holes, the new solution is thermodynamically stable and suffers from no information paradox. The formation of such a cold (1 μ K) gravitational condensate stellar remnant very likely would require a violent collapse process with an explosive output of energy. The formation and excitation of such remnants could provide more efficient central engines than classical black holes for some very high energy sources observed in the universe.

[maddog]

As far as galaxy evolution, in my opinion the sequence of events go through an evolution. The basic motion in the universe is to cluster, if this was the only motion than we would end up with one cluster in time. The property of double layer allows for the formation of matter to be ejected at speeds close to that of light.

The two process allows for a recycling of matter. To understand the processes one needs to understand the properties of condensed matter.

I am not aware of a process double layer.

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic Degenerate Stars to Black Holes May-07

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic

SpringerLink - Journal Article

It is annoying to bait someone with a link to a paper whereupon they find that to view the

paper they must pay for it. I want to view more than the abstract. So I gather you didn't

read this paper either. Please don't in the future post a link to paper that has to be purchased, unless you are willing to foot the bill. You could have warned me also. ;)

 

maddog

[maddog]

Maddog I can't tell for certain if you're being serious or deceptively obsequious :lol: (wolf spider or trap door spider?) but since there ain't no flies on me, please allow me to respond to the literal and join in the fun.

Enorbet2, you have me a bit befuddled. My "Cyclicity" comment was directed squarely at

Pluto who is a known Cyclic Hound. I meant no mischief. I was throwing him a bone that

the process of massive Black Holes as AGN have a process to turn-on, turn-off in a cyclical

manner.

I disagree. The definition of "cyclical" is mathematical in that there is either a repeating interval in time or an intervallic progression in time following a rhythmic nature ie: not random. Because there are complex perturbations in orbit shape and velocity particularly in the dense fields of galactic nucleii between mass, motion, multiples of gravitational fields, and possibly dark matter and dark energy, the motion is necessarily random and not in the least cyclical, imho, and this is just in regards to balck holes "feeding". Below I'll tackle cyclical redistribution of matter.

Excuse me. How "cyclical" being mathematical in any way prevent what I said ? ;)

What I was referring to was an AGN to be an effective light switch. On-Off.

Maddog, you're great fun no matter what you're ultimately up to.:lol:

As Harry Potter says, "I am up to no good".

 

"Mischief managed". :)

 

maddog

[enorbet2]

Enorbet2, you have me a bit befuddled. My "Cyclicity" comment was directed squarely at Pluto who is a known Cyclic Hound. I meant no mischief. I was throwing him a bone that the process of massive Black Holes as AGN have a process to turn-on, turn-off in a cyclical manner.

<snip>

Excuse me. How "cyclical" being mathematical in any way prevent what I said ? :Alien:

What I was referring to was an AGN to be an effective light switch. On-Off.

 

Sorry, maddog, I knew it was a bone but couldn't tell if you were waiting in the bushes holding a string attached to it. Confusier and confusier, eh? The confusion may be on my part because I may be missing something here, but it is my understanding that black holes, even those at galactic centers, don't contain "a switch". Much as spiders don't dine in a pattern they define but rather one of chance when a victim wanders too close, I'm aware of no pattern or cyclic behaviour, just a relatively constant appetite awaiting passersby. Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Similarly, while not likely of design, Pluto has thrown me a bone because, like you, maddog, I was intrigued by the quote from the abstract on gravitational vacuum condensate (there has been serious discussion since before 2002 and I don't know how I've missed it heretofore), so I didn't give up there but googled "gvc" and found several interesting sites, after gasping at the $109 US list price on a new book "Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman Approach" by Herbert Hamber, but thankfully a comprehensive preview is the tinyurl below. See page 302 if you can as Google Books seems to generate search term based previews so it might take a few turns to see the appropriate pages w/o buying the book (though it seems really excellent) and this might still work at least once or twice before you limit out

 

Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman ... - Google Books

 

if no go....

 

Interesting powerpoint slideshow here:

http://server.physics.miami.edu/~cgc/Miami2007/Burdyuzha.ppt

 

HUGE, very worthwhile abstract here

Gravitational vacuum condensate stars — PNAS

 

big preview here

Gravitational vacuum condensate stars

 

While I am glad to see Pluto actually injecting something from his own mind, he does still seem to fall back on some links that don't seem (at least to me) to support his contentions. Unless I am missing some major fundamental process, once again I see no cyclical action here reseeding an infinite universe. In fact the latest stuff on GVC seems to fit right in with Standard Model very nicely, simplifying while removing paradox, eliminating the need for the singularity, and likely pleasing Stephen Hawking even if his monikered radiation is shown not to exist. Even on Mt Olympus there are hierarchies and "druthers".

 

So "Thanks, Pluto" but it still doesn't make your case and is more speculative than some things you fault for being too speculative since it depends on "Quark-Gluon Plasma" (BBT component) and Higgs Bosons and IIRC the LHC is not even up and running yet and Fermilab has yet to step up in that regard if they even can. Man! I can't wait for Herschel-Plank and other experiments so close to fruition to add new data!

[maddog]

Sorry, maddog, I knew it was a bone but couldn't tell if you were waiting in the bushes holding a string attached to it. Confusier and confusier, eh? The confusion may be on my part because I may be missing something here, but it is my understanding that black holes, even those at galactic centers, don't contain "a switch". Much as spiders don't dine in a pattern they define but rather one of chance when a victim wanders too close, I'm aware of no pattern or cyclic behaviour, just a relatively constant appetite awaiting passersby. Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't mean to imply it too exactly like a light switch. The notion of a super massive

Black Hole as explanation for AGN is not my idea. I learned of it from a show on Discover

(maybe 3 weeks ago), on a now thought conventional theory as to the explanation of

AGN. When a Black Hole runs thin of fuel to swallow, its accretion disk would thin out.

This show demonstrated how the Blandford-Znajek Mechanism (creation of jets) would

blow out the gas from the disk because of the magnetic flux potential. Professors from

UCLA and others hosted the show.

Similarly, while not likely of design, Pluto has thrown me a bone because, like you, maddog, I was intrigued by the quote from the abstract on gravitational vacuum condensate (there has been serious discussion since before 2002 and I don't know how I've missed it heretofore), so I didn't give up there but googled "gvc" and found several interesting sites, after gasping at the $109 US list price on a new book "Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman Approach" by Herbert Hamber, but thankfully a comprehensive preview is the tinyurl below. See page 302 if you can as Google Books seems to generate search term based previews so it might take a few turns to see the appropriate pages w/o buying the book (though it seems really excellent) and this might still work at least once or twice before you limit out

Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman ... - Google Books

I added this book to my Google Library (sad to say it is incomplete -- guess they want you

to shell out the $$ for it). :eek2:

 

Interesting powerpoint slideshow here:

http://server.physics.miami.edu/~cgc/Miami2007/Burdyuzha.ppt

HUGE, very worthwhile abstract here

Gravitational vacuum condensate stars — PNAS

big preview here

Gravitational vacuum condensate stars

I will read through these. Thanks.

While I am glad to see Pluto actually injecting something from his own mind, he does still seem to fall back on some links that don't seem (at least to me) to support his contentions. Unless I am missing some major fundamental process, once again I see no cyclical action here reseeding an infinite universe. In fact the latest stuff on GVC seems to fit right in with Standard Model very nicely, simplifying while removing paradox, eliminating the need for the singularity, and likely pleasing Stephen Hawking even if his monikered radiation is shown not to exist. Even on Mt Olympus there are hierarchies and "druthers".

I wouldn't go that far either.

So "Thanks, Pluto" but it still doesn't make your case and is more speculative than some things you fault for being too speculative since it depends on "Quark-Gluon Plasma" (BBT component) and Higgs Bosons and IIRC the LHC is not even up and running yet and Fermilab has yet to step up in that regard if they even can. Man! I can't wait for Herschel-Plank and other experiments so close to fruition to add new data!

Yep. I concur. :Alien:

 

maddog

[HydrogenBond]

One of my older theories, to explain how so many galaxies could form in such a small time at the beginning of the universe, was connected to these galaxies expanding from dense centers of galaxy scale mass-energy. What made me think along this line was the amount of time required to form some of the most highly spiraled galaxies and super structure, based on using the existing models, should have taken longer then the universe is old.

 

Although I could not prove the earliest galaxies formed in galaxy scale popcorn fashion, this theory did not have any of the conceptual time problems associated with the highly spiral galaxies and superstructure formation. It did not have to ignore this data. I pictured the situation as mini big bangs with early galaxies puffing up. The black hole in the center may be a trace of what may have been; dense zone of mass/space/time.

 

The question becomes how do you get from a BB singularity and cause this to subdivide down to galaxy sized chunks, which then mini-big bang, with some going too far causing matter to be hurled deeper into space for the traditional galaxy contraction mechanism? This came to me very recently.

 

The model I came up with has to do with entropy and the wave-particle nature of matter and energy. A point singularity, for initial universe formation, as well as black holes, indirectly define the general characteristics of a particle state. A particle, by definition, acts like a singular state. Although these singularities are not particles in the formal sense, they behaving like they are in one place like a particle. All we need to do is shift the ratio of this particle analogy to particle-wave and the phenomena will change, such as in the double slit experiment, where the wave aspect allows the phenomena to effect two slits at once, and is therefore not acting like a singularity any more.

 

The next question is how do you shift a more or less pure particle type phenomena into a wave-particle phenomena? The simple answer is to increase entropy, since being in two places, like in the double slit, increases the disorder or entropy of the singularity. So we have entropy driving the particle-wave shift, which causes the singularity to show both particle and wave effects, implicit of a split where it can be in two places instead of only one.

 

If we keep causing the split states, to wave out further, using higher and higher entropy, it breaks down into smaller and smaller particle like singularities, each going through their own double slit, until we reach the mini big bang phase. The next question is, what is the nature of the double slit, which in experiments is created by a wall and slits?

 

If the minimum sized star needed to form a blackhole is about 3.8 solar masses and this blackhole is a singularity, it has its GR reference at the limit. A larger blackhole will not change this limiting center reference, but will only have more of it. If the larger blackhole has a different center GR reference, the smaller blackholes would not be blackholes, but something that falls short of the limiting reference; gray holes?

 

When we get the first entropy-wave-particle split of the singularity, the wall for the double slit is the limiting GR reference, which will not change until we get to 3.8 solar masses. As far as the splitting sees, everything is still overlapping due to the point-instant reference seen by all. The solid wall is this lingering GR limiting reference. The slits that appear in this wall are created by entropy potential, with increasing entropy, increases the number of slits. I like the idea of this occurring in a quantum way, until there are more slits than wall; mini big bangs due to too much wave. This causes the universe to expand relative to galaxies with the uniformity due to all seeing their limiting GR reference change at the same time.

[lbiar]

I'm against universe expansion and big-bang and according to visual expansion.

 

I consider the universe infinite in time and space, by that I don't think in a origin. Nothng can be created, always exist, things may to be transformed but not created.

 

I have made a new post over this in: http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/23346-the-universe-not-expands.html#post297975

 

Thanks.

[Boerseun]

I'm against universe expansion and big-bang...

Good thing we're not talking politics! When we're talking empirical data, what you're for or against don't count for much, unfortunately...

[lbiar]

Good thing we're not talking politics! When we're talking empirical data, what you're for or against don't count for much, unfortunately...

 

I send you to another post on this forum: http://hypography.com/forums/alterna...tml#post297975

 

or directly to my web (only speak over this) in The Universe not expands

 

By that I don't give more information, all is there.

[C1ay]

Nothng can be created, always exist, things may to be transformed but not created.

 

Good thing we're not talking politics! When we're talking empirical data, what you're for or against don't count for much, unfortunately...

 

It is one of the fundamental laws of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed and we have no empirical data to prove otherwise. I am generally against any creation theories that rely on the creation of matter, particularly those that theorize it was created from nothing. If there was a Big Bang it is my own belief that it must have redistributed existing matter as opposed to creating it.

[Boerseun]

... and we have no empirical data to prove otherwise..

True. But what I quoted him as saying is that he's "against" expansion - for which we do have evidence. Now - whatever your take on expansion, "for" or "against" don't come into it. Only the evidence does. Okay - I'm getting anal here.

[lbiar]

True. But what I quoted him as saying is that he's "against" expansion - for which we do have evidence. Now - whatever your take on expansion, "for" or "against" don't come into it. Only the evidence does. Okay - I'm getting anal here.

 

 

Sorry for the mistake. How you say, my note "against" is incorrect.

 

On my web I write arguments, ...

 

"Only the evidence does" - I have arguments agains the evidence: Information for scientists « Evidence for the Big Bang?

 

Any person see things different, but I don't see any evidence of big-bang how I say in that page, a few examples: theories without proofs and many times againts physic laws or according to physic laws unknowns cannot to be evidences, for example: blackbody CMB (is only theorical and never show), Deuterium from Three Minutes (is only a theory), inflationary, ...

 

I speak over this evidences in that page, I repeat that I don't see any evidence of big-bang, I’m according to visual expansion of the universe, but this not means a real expansion how I say in my work.

 

Thanks.

 

It is one of the fundamental laws of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed and we have no empirical data to prove otherwise. I am generally against any creation theories that rely on the creation of matter, particularly those that theorize it was created from nothing. If there was a Big Bang it is my own belief that it must have redistributed existing matter as opposed to creating it.

 

Is near to my arguments in my work, but I give more arguments over many more things.

 

Thanks.

 

I have put a resume over my work in the other thread : http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/23346-the-universe-not-expands.html#post298074 with the sub-title: (a resume of my work)

 

Thanks.