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

[Little Bang]

Rather interesting how everyone has their own view of the universe as either steady state or a Big Bang among others and yet no one every uses their own ideas to explain how matter got here in the first.

[Moontanman]

Rather interesting how everyone has their own view of the universe as either steady state or a Big Bang among others and yet no one every uses their own ideas to explain how matter got here in the first.

 

Actually there is another theory and it explains the matter quite nicely. Brane theory is not a red headed step child, it is every bit as substantiated as SS and BB more so in my view and the view of many others much more informed than me. BB and SS are the past, Brane theory is the future.

[Pluto]

G'day All

 

Matter has always being here or there in one state or another state or phase.

 

The question is how does it recycle?

 

The key areas to look would be compacted matter such a Neutron Cores and so called black holes (not the one with a singularity) that have a finite compact core and a so called event horizon.

 

The compact cores take in normal matter, that degenerates and than ejected via jets.

[CraigD]

Doesn't the fact that a strong gravitational field causes time to approach zero imply that there was a beginning?

It does not.

 

The fundamental problem with models of this sort – which we might term “gravitational time dilation frozen egg at the beginning of time” models – is that General Relativity does not predict that a clock in a strong gravitational field appears to an observer near it to run slower, but appears that way only to an observer far from it, in a weaker gravitational field. If the model has such a distant observer, he’s merely observing the egg to be a gravitationally time dilated object (eg: a black hole). If it doesn’t, no time dilation, or any subsequent decrease in time dilation when the egg “hatches”, is predicted.

As the universe expands to our present size the clock we use to measure frequency is faster than the earlier clock giving us a red shifted view of the early universe.

A cursory playing around with the simple gravitational time dilation equation

[math]\frac{t'}{t} = \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}}[/math]

(where [math]t'[/math] is the duration of an event as measured by an observer distance [math]r[/math] from a central body, [math]t[/math] is the duration for an observer infinitely (or, practically, very far away), and [math]r_0[/math] is the central body’s Schwarzschild Radius)

leads me to think this model can’t be made to predict observed data.

 

The basic problem is that, for objects other than superdense ones like black holes, [math]r_0[/math] is much smaller than the physical size of the central body - a star, ordinary or super-large galaxy, or some unnamed primordial object. For example, for a star like our 700000000 m radius Sun, [math]r_0[/math] is about 15000 m. The model requires that the early universe emitted EM radiation in a fairly ordinary way, but that most source of it (stars, etc.) have time dilations [math]\frac{t'}{t}[/math] that were once close to 0, increasing to near the 1 presently observed smoothly (linearly). Otherwise, the observed Hubble redshift would reveal only very and effectively not-at-all redshifted objects, rather than the smooth distribution actually observed. However, gravitational time “gets close to one” quickly for small increases in [math]r[/math], which just doesn’t match what we observe. Here are a few examples

        r0/r     t'/t
       1        0
       1.000001 .000999999500000375
       1.00001  .003162261848898664496
       1.0001   .00999950003749687478
       1.001    .03160697706205069843
       1.01     .0995037190209989136
       1.1      .3015113445777636225
       2        .7071067811865475245
      10        .9486832980505138
     100        .994987437106619955
    1000        .99949987493746091

The model also has a “find tuning” problem – how do you get the early universe to have most of its light emitters time dilated to near 0, when just a slight increase in density (decrease in [math]r[/math]) results in a black hole, a slight decrease in density (increase in [math]r[/math]), in a dilation much too far from 0?

 

I’d be curious to see if you can get the model to work better than I can, LB, but suspect you’ll run into the same difficulties, and be forced, as I’ve been, to give it up as unworkable and wrong.

[modest]

[math]\frac{t'}{t} = \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}}[/math]

(where [math]t'[/math] is the duration of an event as measured by an observer distance [math]r[/math] from a central body, [math]t[/math] is the duration for an observer infinitely (or, practically, very far away), and [math]r_0[/math] is the central body’s Schwarzschild Radius)

leads me to think this model can’t be made to predict observed data.

 

The problem being the equation or LB's method describes a change in spactime geometry between points of reference. We wouldn't expect the geometry to change but the scale factor. Redshift and time dilation would therefore have to be treated with velocity.

 

//edit

I'm sorry, did I say velocity? I'm sure I meant "treated with the scale factor of an RW-like metric where scale is time dependent and geometry isn't" Yeah. Velocity :rolleyes:

//edit

 

It's really interesting to think in that light though. Intuition would say density has changed from emitting to detection so the photon climbs out of a gravity well. But I guess it really doesn't.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Mike, this is very interesting. Are you saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to parts contained in the whole?

How do you get that conclusion? Typically 'laws' such as this or the conservation of mass and energy apply equally to internal parts of any system.

 

Well, most if not all experiments deal with closed systems.

Modest is saying that the SSU that I formerly used has caused me to change my identity to a FS (Flat Space) universe that I am promoting now.

Formerly, the SSU did not comply with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or entropy in general.

Closed systems automatically include the internal parts but the main point of interest is placed on the totals of the closed systems.

 

The 'entropy' discussion, IMO, deals with the 'heat' energy in the system.

So the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that 'heat can only flow from hot to cold'.

So I admitted that the heat energy in my FS universe is not a closed system, but is a 'balanced' system with the 'spent' heat leaving the system to maintaion a balanved distribution of heat that is being added by the new star formations.

So in this case, there is no heat death.

That is the only way that entropy can be applied to my FS universe.

 

Hmmm, that may not be the best way to put it, let me try this:

Any system follows these laws (conservation of mass/energy, 2ndLOT, etc). The individual components that comprise the closed system will also follow these laws IF you consider them all. If not, you are no longer looking at a closed system.

 

The matter content does comply to the Conservation of Matter Law that includes all the parts.

But the energy content has a beginning and an end to maintain a balance.

So the energy content also complies to the total energy content by its maintaining a balanced state.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Knowing how matter recyles may answer many issues ans still conserve matter.

 

 

 

[astro-ph/0409441] Relativistic Jets from Accretion Disks

Relativistic Jets from Accretion Disks

 

Authors: R.V.E. Lovelace, P.R. Gandhi, M.M. Romanova

(Submitted on 17 Sep 2004 (v1), last revised 17 Sep 2004 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: The jets observed to emanate from many compact accreting objects may arise from the twisting of a magnetic field threading a differentially rotating accretion disk which acts to magnetically extract angular momentum and energy from the disk. Two main regimes have been discussed, hydromagnetic jets, which have a significant mass flux and have energy and angular momentum carried by both matter and electromagnetic field and, Poynting jets, where the mass flux is small and energy and angular momentum are carried predominantly by the electromagnetic field. Here, we describe recent theoretical work on the formation of relativistic Poynting jets from magnetized accretion disks. Further, we describe new relativistic, fully-electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations of the formation of jets from accretion disks. Analog Z-pinch experiments may help to understand the origin of astrophysical jets.

 

 

[astro-ph/0602453] The Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) Model of Galactic Black Hole Candidates and Active Galactic Nuclei

 

The Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) Model of Galactic Black Hole Candidates and Active Galactic Nuclei

 

Authors: Stanley L. Robertson, Darryl J. Leiter

(Submitted on 21 Feb 2006)

 

Abstract: The spectral, timing, and jet formation properties of neutron stars in low mass x-ray binary systems are influenced by the presence of central magnetic moments. Similar features shown by the galactic black hole candidates (GBHC) strongly suggest that their compact cores might be intrinsically magnetic as well. We show that the existence of intrinsically magnetic GBHC is consistent with a new class of solutions of the Einstein field equations of General Relativity. These solutions are based on a strict adherence to the Strong Principle of Equivalence (SPOE) requirement that the world lines of physical matter must remain timelike in all regions of spacetime. The new solutions emerge when the structure and radiation transfer properties of the energy momentum tensor on the right hand side of the Einstein field equations are appropriately chosen to dynamically enforce this SPOE requirement of timelike world line completeness. In this context, we find that the Einstein field equations allow the existence of highly red shifted, Magnetospheric, Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO). MECO necessarily possess intrinsic magnetic moments and they do not have trapped surfaces that lead to event horizons and curvature singularities. Their most striking features are equipartition magnetic fields, pair plasma atmospheres and extreme gravitational redshifts. Since MECO lifetimes are orders of magnitude greater than a Hubble time, they provide an elegant and unified framework for understanding a broad range of observations of GBHC and active galactic nuclei. We examine their spectral, timing and jet formation properties and discuss characteristics that might lead to their confirmation.

[Little Bang]

It does not.

 

The fundamental problem with models of this sort – which we might term “gravitational time dilation frozen egg at the beginning of time” models – is that General Relativity does not predict that a clock in a strong gravitational field appears to an observer near it to run slower, but appears that way only to an observer far from it, in a weaker gravitational field. If the model has such a distant observer, he’s merely observing the egg to be a gravitationally time dilated object (eg: a black hole). If it doesn’t, no time dilation, or any subsequent decrease in time dilation when the egg “hatches”, is predicted.

 

The fact that we can synchronize two clocks put one in a plane fly it around for awhile bring it back down and find that the one on the ground ran slower is not related to your statement because of some observer relationship? I am speechless.

[jackson33]

Maybe someone can correct me; But, isn't entropy primarily from conductive heat and isn't Mike 'warm to cold' also conductive heat. Where energy by connection (conduit) is transfered. In space, heat transfer is from radiation from matter, having nothing in similarity. Radiation or energy flows...period... whether long or short waves lengths (cold to hot, if absorbed/spent) into and through very cold space. No hot to cold involved. For equilibrium to be achieved wouldn't that mean that all matter was capable of only the same emittance of energy of a single wavelength, which IMO could never be achieved in any theory, which continually is producing the ultimate source of energy, the stars.

 

Mike; Regeneration from existing matter, or that matter itself is limited to the total elements available (the total always the same) is embedded in both BBT and SSU. The differences are in a beginning or end and by implication a set starting point or an eternal existence. SSU, really IMO, simplifies the process w/o need for exotic explanations. Shape of the U, would be best served through proving SSU, where gravity becomes a factor and where total explanation, will likely be understood in years to come.

 

Hoyle's SSU or the ones before under the same eternal principles differ no more or less than the Religious 15th century 'spontaneous' or who ever you attribute BBT to. There are additionally 8 or ten modern days theory for understanding the Universe, couple on this thread, which are simply complicated of basic SSU or BBT...

[Pluto]

Hello Jackson33

 

I think you hit the nail on the head

 

Regeneration from existing matter, or that matter itself is limited to the total elements available (the total always the same) is embedded in both BBT and SSU. The differences are in a beginning or end and by implication a set starting point or an eternal existence. SSU, really IMO, simplifies the process w/o need for exotic explanations. Shape of the U, would be best served through proving SSU, where gravity becomes a factor and where total explanation, will likely be understood in years to come.

[Little Bang]

This question doesn't seem related to this thread but I think I can show how it is connected depending on the response. How did science come up with a radius of 400,000,000 years for the formation of the first stars?

[CraigD]

The fact that we can synchronize two clocks put one in a plane fly it around for awhile bring it back down and find that the one on the ground ran slower is not related to your statement because of some observer relationship?

The choice of frame of observation is critical to relativity, although the example LB describes is more complicated than more traditional examples.

 

In the case of the clock on an airplane compared to one on the ground, the clock on the plane will not always be observed to have run slower. It’s a complicated moving system, because Earth rotates, and has an appreciable gravity well. Informally and in short, if the airplane flies east-west, opposite the Earth’s rotation, its clock will run faster than the ground clock, west-east, with the rotation, slower – these due to special relativistic time dilation. The higher it flies, the faster the plane’s clock runs relative to the ground’s, due to general relativistic gravitational time dilation.

[Moontanman]

The choice of frame of observation is critical to relativity, although the example LB describes is more complicated than more traditional examples.

 

In the case of the clock on an airplane compared to one on the ground, the clock on the plane will not always be observed to have run slower. It’s a complicated moving system, because Earth rotates, and has an appreciable gravity well. Informally and in short, if the airplane flies east-west, opposite the Earth’s rotation, its clock will run faster than the ground clock, west-east, with the rotation, slower – these due to special relativistic time dilation. The higher it flies, the faster the plane’s clock runs relative to the ground’s, due to general relativistic gravitational time dilation.

 

Craig, I don't see how the direction the airplane flies would have any appreciable effect on the time on the clock. Nor do I see how the rotation of the Earth could have any real effect on the time on the clock. The distance from the bottom of the gravity well should be the only variable with any real effect.

[Little Bang]

The clock on the plane will run faster Craig and the rest of your argument has very little bearing on the issue.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Just thinking aloud

 

It is said that normal matter as found on earth makes up 4% of all the matter in the universe and that degenerate matter makes up 96%.

 

Knowing this how does the Big Bang work?

[Little Bang]

Isn't it possible that the other 94% is just electromagnetic radiation with 2% being dark matter. The equation f = MC^2/h suggests that EM also has a gravitational field. The BB would have been an explosion of EM. Scientist have estimated the formation of the first stars at around 4 X 10^8 yrs after the BB. If that is true then I would guess that the creation of the protons and anti-protons would have occurred somewhere between 2 or 3 X 10^8 yrs before the BB.

[Moontanman]

Isn't it possible that the other 94% is just electromagnetic radiation with 2% being dark matter. The equation f = MC^2/h suggests that EM also has a gravitational field. The BB would have been an explosion of EM. Scientist have estimated the formation of the first stars at around 4 X 10^8 yrs after the BB. If that is true then I would guess that the creation of the protons and anti-protons would have occurred somewhere between 2 or 3 X 10^8 yrs before the BB.

 

Actually that isn't a bad idea. It makes as much sense as anything I have heard in a long time. Is this your musings or is their a school of thought to defend this idea?