The Universe Beginning, End And In-Between

[Dov Henis]

In forum Biology, thread Genetic Memory, I wrote:

 

"At the beginning the universe was the energy singularity.

 

At the end it will be (near) zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy.

 

In-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution, its evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations".

 

 

Here is a brief elaboration of the above statement:

 

A.

Expansion, the ever increasing distance between galaxy clusters, is a manifestation of ongoing cosmic evolution, of the sum of processes continuously evolving in the universe.

 

Everything in the cosmos is fractal, rehappens on many scales, and is continuously evolving. Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems' evolutions are intertwined.

 

This holds for the universe composition and for its processes, for its energy forms and mass constituents (and also for the very rare bubbles of energy which we call Earth Life).

 

Evolution can only be unfolded backwards; it cannot be calculated forward since it inherently courses towards ever more complex constellations, and this, consequently, at an ever accelerating rate, witness the universe... accelerated expansion is an inherent characteristic of a system undergoing evolution.

 

 

B.

Time is a vital factor for living entities. In cosmic matters time just happens to be the other side of the cosmic coin distance, a factor proportional to distance, or to other continuously changing parameter(s); in cosmic matters time does not warrant a dimensional term separate from them.

 

If in E = mC^2 FOR THE WHOLE UNIVERSE E is constant, then mC^2 is constant and since C is constant it is mandated that cosmic m is also constant, which is bothersome, especially as this equation does not account for cosmic inflation.

 

However, let us dispense with C, which involves a time element, and let the right side of the equation be the sum of all values of m(1+D), where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

 

In this case both m and D vary continuously. From D=0 at singularity m decreases continuously as D increases with inflation ( and vice versa ).

 

This appears rational and true-to-universe, and implies that eventually mass will be diminished (while also diluted locally) and would practically be zero at all locations.

 

Dov

[Dov Henis]

FYI: Here is a para I posted in response to some comments I received elsewhere (PhysOrgForum) re my earlier posting.

 

 

I learned and thought that entropy started with the Big Bang, that "before" the Big Bang the Universe was in a singularity condition, no space, no time and no distance, all mass existed at exactly one point, defined by its own existence, because there was no volume around it, and that therefore all occurrences took place instantaneously, in zero time, because there was no time, because there was no distance, because there was no space.

 

So what may be wrong in my suggested cosmic energy/mass/expansion-distance relationship and/or expression?

 

Anxious to learn,

 

Dov

[Tormod]

If in E = mC^2 FOR THE WHOLE UNIVERSE E is constant, then mC^2 is constant and since C is constant it is mandated that cosmic m is also constant, which is bothersome, especially as this equation does not account for cosmic inflation.

 

Well, you may dispense with c in your above post but recent studies have shown that it has not been constant throughout the history of the universe. That *can* imply that it is not constant throughout the universe as a whole,as well.

 

I don't understand your point about [math]E=mc^2[/math] not accounting for cosmic inflation - general relativity allows incorporation of inflation (this was the origin of "Einstein's Biggest Blunder" - the cosmological constant).

 

(Edit: I should add that special relativity is not violated by inflation either).

[Dov Henis]

I don't understand your point about [math]E=mc^2[/math] not accounting for cosmic inflation

 

- My major point is the uneasy statement in E=mc^2 when applied to the whole universe that both E and m are constant.

 

- The next point is that space-time-distance should not be considered three separate factors but a group of three images of one facor.

 

- And the final point is that in E=mc^2 there is no effect shown of the factor distance (expansion) on the factor mass.

 

Very anxious to learn,

 

Dov

[LaurieAG]

- My major point is the uneasy statement in E=mc^2 when applied to the whole universe that both E and m are constant.

 

- The next point is that space-time-distance should not be considered three separate factors but a group of three images of one facor.

 

- And the final point is that in E=mc^2 there is no effect shown of the factor distance (expansion) on the factor mass.

 

Things go a bit haywire when you go to the absolute extremities of expansion / contraction models with E and m as constants.

 

Since E = mc^2 and D = m/V, m = E/c^2 = D/V and c = the square root of VE/D. Conversely D/V is a constant if E, m and c are constants.

 

At an absolute singularity V = 0 and D is infinite so c = 0.

 

At full absolute expansion D is 0 and V is infinite so c = 0.

 

Things are a little bit different and E comes into play when you look just before the absolutes.

[Dov Henis]

D = m/V, m = E/c^2 = D/V

 

I'm confused, even if you refer to E=mc^2 and not to my suggested expression:

 

(1) If D=m/V, then m=DV and not D/V.

 

(2) What is V, please?

 

 

Dov

[Harry Costas]

Hello Don

 

V= Volumn

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the expansion of the universe.

 

There is no evidence to show that.

 

=======================================

As for the start of the universe again there is no evidence, just the Big Bang theory.

 

As for the end of the universe, there is no end just a random dispersion of matter. The more we see into deep space the more we find.

 

Why should ther be an end?

 

========================================

 

The Big Bang theory has put alot of people into thinking along the lines as being "THE" theory.

 

Many scientists do not agree with the BB.

[Little Bang]

Dov, I would love to know where you have seen energy being transformed into matter? Photons being turned into matter.

[Dov Henis]

I'm confused, even if you refer to E=mc^2 and not to my suggested expression:

(1) If D=m/V, then m=DV and not D/V.

(2) What is V, please?

Dov

 

It dawned on me that LAG refers to the Lorentz beta b value,

b = v / c where v is the velocity of a mass moving in space.

 

This would be involved in calculating mass change relative to its velocity, but would not be involved in the matter of my suggested expression.

 

I think,

Dov.

[Dov Henis]

Dov, I would love to know where you have seen energy being transformed into matter? Photons being turned into matter.

 

Seen ? I have not "seen" this.

 

According to relativity the mass increases with velocity. The values are all theoretical values and with present technological capabilities no experiment can be done to verify these facts for macroscopic bodies.

 

But in microscopic particles, these facts are experimentally verified using synchrotrons where the magnetic field is adjusted taking into consideration of the actual change of mass with speed.

 

Now there is the Tevatron particle accelerator, a tunnel 4 miles in circumference at Fermilab. And the LHC high energy accelerator, 17 miles circular tunnel, at CERN. In these accelerators protons circulate in opposite directions at the speed of light.

 

Planned for 2007, accelerated protons will be smashed at conditions in a small volume that occurred a few seconds after the Big Bang.

 

Matter is made of atoms, comprised of electrons orbiting around the nucleus, made of protons and neutrons. Inside protons and neutrons are quarks. Accelerating a beam of particles to nearly the speed of light and shooting them into a material target breaks the nucleus and recreate fundamental particles. Most of these particles existed independently, for a fraction of a second only, in the primordial universe after the Big Bang following which energy transformed into matter. At CERN the energy conditions that existed then would be recreated and formation of new matter and its opposite- the antimatter would be observed.

 

Dov

[Harry Costas]

Hello Dov

 

I agree with you

and inside quarks there are preons.

 

I like to know your thoughts on the ongoing universe.

[Dov Henis]

I like to know your thoughts on the ongoing universe.

 

Harry,

 

I'm embarassed by yr complimentary tone.

 

I do not have any educational or experience background in astronomy. I simply file in my mind info I happen to read or to find in searches mostly in the internet. This is the sum total of my background re the ongoing universe.

 

Some of my own thoughts/reactions in this matter are briefly summed in

 

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=268

 

However, again, I am definitely not a prime authority in this but just a somewhat informed on-looker.

 

Dov

[Jay-qu]

However, again, I am definitely not a prime authority in this but just a somewhat informed on-looker.

 

Dov

 

arent we all B)

[Harry Costas]

Hello Dov.

 

 

 

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I understand.

[HydrogenBond]

Planned for 2007, accelerated protons will be smashed at conditions in a small volume that occurred a few seconds after the Big Bang.

 

I see a conceptual problem here. If the BB expanded and the experiment is using a contraction technique, how can these be the same? What they need to do is make the two oppsing proton stream come very close, and begin measuring as they expand away from each other. If the BB was called the big implode, the experiment would be correct. If one did the experiment correctly to reflect what almost everyone expects from a BB, instead of using a big implode technique, most of the substrcuture would not form.

[Dov Henis]

This further reflection has been lingering in my mind and so far I have been reluctant to bring it to light, realizing that I am ignorant of the voluminous scientific astronomy knowledge and fearing that it be shown absurd-ridiculous.

 

The two major astronomy unknowns yet are the dark energy/mass and the accelerating expansion of galaxy clusters. I overcome my reluctance-apprehension and ignorantly but common-sensely suggest that:

 

- by E=sum total of all spatial values of m(1+D) mass has been decreasing with the increase of D since singularity and in fact there is NO missing mass/energy,

 

- the accelerating expansion, typical of a rate of evolution, is driven by the cosmic evolution and it is the nature of the cosmic evolution that we do not yet understand.

 

There. I said it.

 

Now let the onslaught begin.

 

Dov

[Jay-qu]

you are saying that dark matter does not exsist? For a start you would need to come up with a non-keplarian way of describing how galaxies rotate..