Cosmological Model of The Universe

michel123456 · December 24, 2009

Go on, Pywakit. But be careful. You won't get any help from anyone the way you are writing down your ideas. You are too enthusiast, as I am myself too many times. Try to cool down, this is my advice.

Try a different way. I don't know which way, because I am searching too. But it is certainly not the good one the way you have chosen.

You have a good model, and you know it.

You need math. Nothing else.

So you are searching for a physicist that do not believe in God or any Creation (namely the BB Theory), that has the knowledge and the certificats (PhD at least), the will & time to spend for free, willing to take the risk of being called a *...* for the rest of his career. You won't find him here (nowhere I am afraid).

But, back to the point:

there is a "philosophical" point of vue I don't like in your model: it is that the epoch we are living now is still (as in the BB model) a specific time, in between some gigantic explosion and some gigantic shrink (in your model). In my opinion (far from pure science), it must be wrong. It looks evident to me that the same way we are "lost in space", we must be "lost in time" too. In other words, the epoch we are living at present time must be as ANY epoch at any time. But that is my quest, not yours.

Friendly.

Michel

Merry Christmas to all.

toastywombel · December 24, 2009

This from http://www.astro.umd.edu

Hopefully this will ease your mind over the charge issue.

There are several sites with a wealth of info on black holes. Good reading. Are there scientists who don't believe black hole exist? Certainly. But I think if you dig into it, you will come down heavily on the side of 'existing'. There is simply too much evidence.

By the way, no 2 black holes will be identical. True, if they shared the exact same mass, charge, and angular momentum they would be 'indistinguishable'. Can't happen in the real universe. The chances would be nearly infinity to one against.

You were earlier arguing that the universe was infinite. If the universe was infinite, like you said, It would seem that it would be impossible that 2 black holes would not end up being identical. By the way, I love the un-supported math and a unrealistic ratio like infinity to one though.

Furthermore, according to your argument all black holes merge and then they reach their critical mass, in which gravity waves are released. I suppose this is when they consume everything?

Well on that point, when the whole universe is made up of a black hole, what makes that black hole not identical to a black hole that sucked up the universe before that? (I know before is not the best term to use, because it implies about time and time stops in the center of a black hole, but hopefully you get the gist of what I am saying.) The truth is nothing, they are both mathematically the same.

So now we come to another problem. The visible universe has been calculated to be anywhere between 90 billion light years and 156 billion light years in diameter. The shape of the visible universe is still in question. And that shape will directly affect the cubic volume numbers. ( sphere, bulging disc, etc.) So the number you produced would be highly questionable at best.

That is your best attempt at deconstructing my second problem with your theory?

Anyway, I hope I haven't upset you. I can be rather abrupt. But let me make this clear. I can be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. I wouldn't be working so hard on this though, if some nice scientist would just point out an actual flaw.

My model has been floating around for 10 months. I've gotten emails from all over the world from very respected scientists. None have pointed to a critical flaw. None have pointed to a not-so-critical flaw. Most were pretty upset with me. Not an unexpected reaction since I was basically saying they were wrong.

So your model has been reviewed by respected scientists. None have pointed out a flaw, yet you go on scienceforums.net to get re-assurance? It seems many have pointed out flaws, the most obvious being you have no math behind any of your "ideas".

But a few have offered support if I can figure out a couple of good experiments. And they have said it's a reasonable model. A couple said it's a good model. I find this very encouraging.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged
What is space and time without light or mass? It is really nothing. It would be impossible to measure space or time without anything tangible such as mass or light. It is like trying to find a point south of the south pole, it is undefined.

What makes you say this? Space itself has energy. Space is energy. There is nothing to suggest that an absolute vacuum is even possible.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

You must not have read the model. And therefore you entirely missed the equation. I will repeat. "The critical mass point of a black hole is EXACTLY equal to the total mass ( matter+energy ) of the visible/LOCAL universe." This would oddly enough include EVERYTHING contained within the 'bubble'. Dark energy, dark matter, normal matter, normal energy, BLACK HOLES ....

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

Sorry about my rant ...

What in the world are you talking about here? My point was that the universe operates under the same laws of chemistry and physics WHEREVER we look. Are trying to suggest that 'anything is possible'? If we were to fuse two hydrogen atoms together an infinite number of times and then somehow come up with something other than helium, that this would have any bearing what so ever on my model or how our physical universe operates? This is irrational. I hope that's not what you were saying.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

What this means is ... if our local ( finite ) universe can exist, there is no logical reason why an INFINITE number of ( finite ) universes can exist ... in an INFINITE universe.

Unless you have reason to believe somebody created us, and only us, and made this universe just for us.

Again, I really do appreciate your input, and I'm sorry for being a jerk.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

There is no math that says the universe ends at the border. You are incorrect. This is an unsupported hypothesis by very bright people. You make the incorrect assumption that just because very bright people have taken a stand that it must be correct. Would you have gone along with Einstein on his cosmological constant ( steady state universe )? Most did. They were wrong. What makes you think people like Hawking can't be wrong? Because we 'know better' now? In science, there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth.

Secondly, you have already shown that ( no offense ) you can make rather ridiculous statements. Why on earth would I not include the mass of black holes in my model when 1. They are part of our local universe. 2. They are integral to the model? Could I really be that stupid? I suppose so ....

Third, there is a great deal of evidence. You just might not be aware of it.

And fourth, to the best of my knowledge, the 'math' and the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM NOW support my model. At least ... no one has ever pointed out a law my model violates.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged
Bottom line here, is I have deconstructed your arguments. You were incorrect in your mass of the universe numbers. You were incorrect on your positive/negative charge black holes merging. You didn't really understand the model. You somehow thought that the total mass would not include ALL the mass ( and energy ) which of course is the crux of my model. You made several statements that have no bearing on my model at all. But so have I. And I have been less patient than I should have been. I am very sorry.

There is still no flaw. Yet. I am not a man of 'faith'. I just follow the evidence. I don't care what other scientists 'believe'. I care what they can prove. The brightest people can blind themselves. And do. Over and over. But not this time, right?

I hope you still don't think you made a valid argument here.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

There is, however math that says space is 'curved'. But only by mass/gravity. The farther you get from the mass, the straighter the lines of space get. And this point is where so many people have a problem. They have seen the pictures of 'curved' space/time and make the assumption that 'nothing' exists out side that curved space.

You made the point that without light ( photons ) or mass, there is nothing to measure 'against'. So 'nothing' is there. Well, from a human perspective, even with all our wonderful machines ... yes. It would appear to be nothing. It would be totally black. No photons. No matter radiating energy that we are used to detecting. But that does not mean there is nothing there. The fabric of space is there. Unless again .... you think that 'space' does not enjoy it's own independant existence. That only our universe's 'space' exists. That space did not exist before WE came along to observe it. There is nothing rational or logical in that concept.

What I am saying is that mathematically, if there is no matter, light, or energy in an area of space outside of the universe than it is mathematically the same as nothing being there.

In my model, the loop is closed. ( Every universe's loop is closed. They all operate the same way, because there is no evidence that other universes would interact any differently with space than ours does.) No photons escape from the final collapse of 'local' space. This solves so many problems that have vexed the scientists.

And I suppose there is evidence that other universes would act the same way with space as ours does, and it is more logical to believe that the other universes would have the same laws of physics. Why? We don't have any evidence or anything that would allow us to assume that the other universes would be just like ours and/or act generally the same way.

And then that begs the question is there more than one space, and in each an infinite number of universes ? This is getting ridiculous. It seems to me you don't want someone to give you good advice; you want to re-assure your ego.

This model also gives us the mass for the big bang. Scientists keep looking for 'magical' ways for matter to materialize from nowhere, and they have been looking for the last 90 years. There are respected models that have this feature. Greene's. Frampton's. After 26 years of trying to find 'magical' means for matter to pop into existence ( branes? ) they are no closer today than they were 90 years ago ... with thousands of people working on it ... with the most sophisticated technology that Einstein could never have imagined. And by the way he did GR in about 5 years on a chalk board.

In my model we never get photons leaking into our universe, not because there is no space between universes, but because each one is closed. And very very far apart. If they were NOT closed ...

1. Our BB would have had to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

2. It would be a one shot deal. Nothing ever existed before we came along. Nothing ever will again.

3. Space would exist solely for OUR existence.

4. If space is infinite, and eternal, then we would get photons leaking into our universe right now. From somewhere. Unless you would assert that our universe, out of an infinite number, is the only one with physics, and photons. That would not stand the logic test. Logically there would have to be an infinite number of ALL possibilities, including ours. So we would be bombarded with photons.

It does not matter what happened before the big-bang, the laws of physics seem to break down at that point. It is not defined, nor does it have any possibility of being defined.

No, if the universe is infinite, and eternal, my model answers the questions better than any other. If the universe is not infinite, it still answers the questions better than any other.

Egotistical much? You ranted so much earlier, and you admit you have no math to back this up, and you are just a laymen, yet you believe your model is the best for explaining how the universe works?

Edited December 24, 2009 by toastywombel

pywakit · December 24, 2009

Go on, Pywakit. But be careful. You won't get any help from anyone the way you are writing down your ideas. You are too enthusiast, as I am myself too many times. Try to cool down, this is my advice.
Try a different way. I don't know which way, because I am searching too. But it is certainly not the good one the way you have chosen.

You have a good model, and you know it.

You need math. Nothing else.

So you are searching for a physicist that do not believe in God or any Creation (namely the BB Theory), that has the knowledge and the certificats (PhD at least), the will & time to spend for free, willing to take the risk of being called a *...* for the rest of his career. You won't find him here (nowhere I am afraid).

But, back to the point:

there is a "philosophical" point of vue I don't like in your model: it is that the epoch we are living now is still (as in the BB model) a specific time, in between some gigantic explosion and some gigantic shrink (in your model). In my opinion (far from pure science), it must be wrong. It looks evident to me that the same way we are "lost in space", we must be "lost in time" too. In other words, the epoch we are living at present time must be as ANY epoch at any time. But that is my quest, not yours.

Friendly.

Michel

Merry Christmas to all.

Thank you very much. Yes, I am wound too tight. Lol. I could be much more 'diplomatic' and way less cocky. You are right of course. And wrong, too I hope. I have sent my model to about 1500 scientists around the world. You would not believe the hate mail I have received.

All I am really trying to do is plant seeds. Just offer a different way to look at our universe. Hopefully one they had never considered before. Then let the thought fester for a few ( or many ) years. I do think it's a good model.

I hope that at some point, the thought will nag enough at some physicist's mind, and he will begin to explore this on his own. It's not like they don't have free time ...

I am always ready to find out I'm totally off on this. But it just hasn't happened yet.

And I don't think I necessarily disagree with your last paragraph.

Thanks again, and Merry Christmas.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote ...

And I suppose there is evidence that other universes would act the same way with space as ours does, and it is more logical to believe that the other universes would have the same laws of physics. Why? We don't have any evidence or anything that would allow us to assume that the other universes would be just like ours and/or act generally the same way.

Yes we do. We have our local universe, and how it functions. That is evidence. Your hypothesis has NO evidence. It is no different than suggesting fairy dust is responsible. It's a wonderful idea ... other physical laws ... but it's just an idea, with nothing to support it. Comes under the heading ... 'anything is possible'. You don't know that at all.

And then that begs the question is there more than one space, and in each an infinite number of universes ? This is getting ridiculous. It seems to me you don't want someone to give you good advice; you want to re-assure your ego.

Speaking of ego, I proved you were wrong. Yet I am not hearing you say " You were correct pywakit. I was wrong." I don't believe I ever attacked your character. Did I? Want me to?

And I am at a loss as to why you say these silly things. Who ever said there was 'more than one space'? I certainly didn't. There is no evidence at all of this. Have you been reading Framton's Model again? Shame on you. Just kidding.

If I needed someone to tell me I need to become an astrophysicist before anyone will look at my model, I would not have come here. I was under the mistaken impression that there were some very bright people here who might find the idea intrigueing. And just might want to examine this possibility. My sincere apologies for overestimating your curiosity.

It does not matter what happened before the big-bang, the laws of physics seem to break down at that point. It is not defined, nor does it have any possibility of being defined.

Hmmm. You do seem to make the most illogical of statements in such an absolute way. Now why do you think it doesn't matter what happened before the BB? Seems to me a lot of very real scientists want to know very badly. They must be more curious than you. And I guess we can all call it a day, as you have decreed 'there is no possibility' of it being defined. Yep. We can all go home now ....

Egotistical much? You ranted so much earlier, and you admit you have no math to back this up, and you are just a laymen, yet you believe your model is the best for explaining how the universe works?
______________

Yes. I am. But I am never afraid to lose face by admitting when I'm wrong. So I guess my ego isn't totally out of control. And yes it's true I am not a mathematician. Your logic is, as always, dead-on. I guess I can't use GR because I can't duplicate Einstein's math on my own. Guess I can't use any astronomical observations either, because I don't know how to calculate the speed of a galaxy by measuring the red shift.

Layman that I am, I am confident enough in my model to send it out to scientists, knowing full well they won't like it, they won't like the manner in which it is presented, and they won't like me. Incredibly, some have said it's a good model. Even pissed off they still admitted it wasn't bad. And that they had never condsidered it before.

So nothing to say about charged black holes? Nothing to say about totally misunderstanding the model? Nothing to say about making such a ridiculous statement as "a supermassive black hole has more mass than the visible universe"?

Ego or not, can you maintain a rational conversation? It would appear not to be the case. Refusing to admit error is nothing more than childish petulence. You ought to try it sometime. It isn't so bad. I admit to errors practically every day. Still, my apology stands. I am sorry I offended you.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You were earlier arguing that the universe was infinite. If the universe was infinite, like you said, It would seem that it would be impossible that 2 black holes would not end up being identical. By the way, I love the un-supported math and a unrealistic ratio like infinity to one though.

This is truly childish again. Who cares if 2 times in <infinity 2 black holes are identical? What bearing does this have on my model? None.

Furthermore, according to your argument all black holes merge and then they reach their critical mass, in which gravity waves are released. I suppose this is when they consume everything?

THEY won't be reaching critical mass. They will all have merged to one. One will. And when the last merge occurs, space will collapse into that last black hole dragging gravity waves, photons, dark energy ... whatever ... into the hole. Every last atom.

Well on that point, when the whole universe is made up of a black hole, what makes that black hole not identical to a black hole that sucked up the universe before that? (I know before is not the best term to use, because it implies about time and time stops in the center of a black hole, but hopefully you get the gist of what I am saying.) The truth is nothing, they are both mathematically the same.

Shocking that we would agree. Yes. Identical in MASS/GRAVITY. Identical in charge. And undoubtably in angular momentum. BANG! And we start a brand new universe with exactly the same mass as the one before.

So now we come to another problem. The visible universe has been calculated to be anywhere between 90 billion light years and 156 billion light years in diameter. The shape of the visible universe is still in question. And that shape will directly affect the cubic volume numbers. ( sphere, bulging disc, etc.) So the number you produced would be highly questionable at best.

That is your best attempt at deconstructing my second problem with your theory?

I don't have an answer to the total mass of the visible/local universe. But in the near future, with all the new telescopes going up, we should have a much better calculation than we do now. Your 'problem' was that a 'supermassive black hole was more massive than the entire visible universe'. Yes. Deconstructed. If you can't see that .... Yikes!

So your model has been reviewed by respected scientists. None have pointed out a flaw, yet you go on scienceforums.net to get re-assurance? It seems many have pointed out flaws, the most obvious being you have no math behind any of your "ideas".

Look. Do you have a model? What are all the 'many flaws' that have been pointed out? That would be zero. Not being a mathematician is not a 'flaw' in my model. It's a lack of formal training. Doesn't mean I can't think. And are you deaf? I am here for many reasons. To intrigue. To see if some brainiac can find a flaw where the illustrious scientists have not. To take abuse over my lack of credentials. You have something against new concepts? Maybe you would like to declare you have already considered such a universe. Hmmm?

I asked for help. The help you offer is ... get your PHD. Very generous help. Thank you. You still think, I must asume, that you actually found some flaw. If you really believe that, then you are not capable of rational thought. My condolences.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Shall I tell you your real problem? You started off by assuming I could not possibly have a good model. So you never even actually read it. Never comprehended it. You just erroneously concluded that it was another crack pot theory.

Think about this. What if I am absolutely correct? What if I have come up with the cosmological holy grail? Wouldn't it be amusing if it was discarded ... not to be 'discovered' for another 100 years ... all because you were upset that I couldn't present it mathematically?

But that's impossible, right? I'm not a math guy, so I COULDN'T have solved this.

For that matter .... in your mind .... NOBODY can solve it.

Edited December 24, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

ajb · December 24, 2009

I asked for help. The help you offer is ... get your PHD.

You will need a basic grounding in modern physics if you are seriously hoping to contribute. This does not have to be formal training, but should be of the same standard. It usually becomes clear very quickly if someone has the nessisary background or not.

Don't let this put you off. Read everything you can, get "tooled" up.

... all because you were upset that I couldn't present it mathematically?

But that's impossible, right? I'm not a math guy, so I COULDN'T have solved this.

One problem I encounter on this forum is a communication/language issue. Unless someone asks questions using the right langauge it can be very difficult to respond and point out flaws. When presenting a "theory" this is most obvious. Without a mathematical framework in which to ask questions it can be impossible to answer questions.

It can be very difficult to point to specific flaws if it is not comprehensible to the "community" .

pywakit · December 24, 2009

You will need a basic grounding in modern physics if you are seriously hoping to contribute. This does not have to be formal training, but should be of the same standard. It usually becomes clear very quickly if someone has the nessisary background or not.

Don't let this put you off. Read everything you can, get "tooled" up.

One problem I encounter on this forum is a communication/language issue. Unless someone asks questions using the right langauge it can be very difficult to respond and point out flaws. When presenting a "theory" this is most obvious. Without a mathematical framework in which to ask questions it can be impossible to answer questions.

It can be very difficult to point to specific flaws if it is not comprehensible to the "community" .

Thank you for your thoughts. I don't think, however, that I have provided insufficient information to allow anyone to easily understand the model conceptually. It is an extremely simple model.

So you could say ... " It won't work because black holes don't merge." Or " Black holes can't get that big." Or " Black holes could never 'catch up' to expanding space." Or " It violates the Heisenberg Principle." Or any number of possible objections, and then those can be debated.

It amazes me that so many models that have 'popped up' ( pun intended ) in the last two decades rely heavily on string theory. How did ST morph from a hypothesis to theory? Everything I have read about it has the huge disclaimer ... HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. Yet cosmologists routinely integrate this into their models as if it were a foregone conclusion. Good, solid math and physics behind it? I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong, but the fact remains that after 26 years of intense study, ST is no more a reality than the day it was proposed.

Anyway, if you are trying to suggest my 'language' prevents physicists from grasping the hypothesis, I would just say that people like Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Dr. Michael Ibison ( and many more ) didn't seem to have any such issues.

I am always trying to 'tool up' but some things just are not my bailiwick. I understand very well the inner workings of my corvette's engine, and I could probably put one together, but I could never express mathematically all the forces involved, nor create engineering blueprints.

But I don't need to. I just accept the genius behind it all and enjoy the ride.

All that said, I do appreciate your POV. I have said this many times. I could be flat out wrong. Not a happy thought, but one I am prepared for.

However, the more I study about the behavior of black holes, and gravity ... of space, the more convinced I become that this model is a viable, and reasonable alternative to the current one.

I really don't mean to butt heads with anyone. I am too excitable, I suppose. Just another of my character flaws.

So once again, I do apologize for my manner of address. I will work on improving it.

And my knowledge of physics.

jajrussel · December 25, 2009

If my understanding here is correct, the assumption is that the last black hole standing would achieve critical mass and react with a big bang. The problem here is that what makes the black hole a black hole is gravity. The only thing with energy is mass, and all of it is within the black hole. The idea of spaghettification suggest that all this mass is, or is being pulled apart and that it will eventually be packed within a single point, at the central point of the black hole which normally would not only be moving, but changing direction constantly. All of this, and likely a couple of books worth of other things are going on at the same time and nothing has produced energy sufficient to overcome the gravity that makes the black hole a black hole. As the black hole grows so does the gravity.

Assuming, that the very last particle of mass to arrive at the central point of the last black hole standing is going to achieve critical mass, suggest that up to that point a balance of energies was reached somewhere along the way. Push and Pull balanced. At the point of critical mass there has to be a sustainable reaction with enough force to rip the central point apart. The mass we are talking about here might only fill a very small volume, but its Schwarzschild radius would be really, really large.

Unless, you are suggesting that with nothing to pull on that radius would simply cease to exist, and maybe you are suggesting this since I've noticed that you have said that your model requires space to 'uncollapse' suddenly. My understanding here being that space must be collapsing with that last particle of mass that is going to provide critical mass. I can not seem to get this conception clear in my mind, because then you go on to say that infinite space is already there, and always has been. Which causes me to wonder why your model requires space to uncollapse?

You stated that space is energy, there is no such thing as a pure vacuum. Yet, your model by your explanation, extracts all energy/mass and places it at a single point. Does the fact that the singularity exist mean that you can still say that space has energy? Are we dealing with two entities here, or only one. Most concepts of the big bang seem to require that everything that exist had to be, or be created by the big bang. Usually time, space, matter, and gravity are each a part of that creation. My question to you here; Are space and mater separable to the extent that they can both be defined separately, or must space be energy because there is no such thing as a pure vacuum? You can not put all existing energy into your model black hole if space is energy, and still have an existing infinite space outside the black hole. By definition you have said that space is energy and that all energy is within the black hole.

I to, am not a mathematician. I am not schooled beyond High School. I have no degrees. I do, have my own opinions. I can't seem to accept that time is anything more than a conceptualized tool. I see no reason why we should consider space or time as space/time. I see no reason why time need exist other than as a conceptualized tool. I can't see the universe falling apart if there were no concept of time, but it would be more difficult to understand. Should I express this idea in forum, I would expect my thought to be disagreed with. I would hope for dialog. In my mind the worst insult is to be ignored. I would hope that dialog would be in response to my ideas. Being asked to express your self mathematically, and not being able to, is not implied stupidity. When we begin to defend our lack of education, we are provoking a response away from the original discourse. I don't think that anyone actually cares, if you can not do the math. What is wanted is that you explain your reasoning. It is your model, who can better understand it? Who can better explain it? You do say that your model is better than the present model. I ask what present model? Whose idea, which model are you comparing your model to? I have other questions unless you answer them when you answer these.

pywakit · December 25, 2009

I would begin by describing infinite space as a 3 dimensional straight-lined grid with all lines extending to infinity. I have no reason to think it has not always been here. The physical properties ( laws ) of infinite space would appear to have finite restrictions. If not, there is no reason to think a photon would be limited to 300,000 kps.

If space was truly a 'void' there would be no lines to warp. Space would not be affected by anything. It could have no laws, no properties. But we know mass/gravity warps those lines. To have 'properties' at all suggests an energy of some kind to enforce the laws. That energy would exist universally, and homogeneously.

This force would affect matter in the exact same way as 'dark energy'. Indeed I think this force IS dark energy. As I have said, I think this is a property of space rather than a separate force acting on space.

And I further assert that 'space' is not expanding ... so much as 'smoothing'.

How our local universe came to be originally, I can't say for sure. But I would guess that it is the macro version of those particles that manifest themselves, then are annihilated. Essentially akin to a build up of static charge. ( chaos ) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and unless the particles are popping in from another dimension, it would have to be one of three things. God playing with particles, particles borrowing energy from space itself, or manifestations of a force completely separate from space. So-called Dark Energy.

We know ( or think we know from GR ) that a black hole breaks space down. To our perception ... mathematically curving the lines to infinity ... completely. But we are not comfortable yet with such large scale objects, and obviously we are not in a position to really step outside our local universe and watch the process. So the breakdown may not be complete at all.

We speak of objects, or matter being 'within' the black hole. I don't see it that way. I just see it as a very dense point. There is no 'within'. We don't drop INto a black hole. We drop ONto a black hole. The surface area is just too small and it's below our ability to detect it.

Let's talk matter for a moment. We know that the properties of matter preclude it fom becoming infinitely large in volume. Gravity will collapse anything if it gets too massive. Yet, because the math tells us with 'certainty' that it's possible, we speak of a singularity as 'infinitely' dense. I don't think the properties of matter allow this either. Very dense indeed. But not infinitely so.

Anyway, we have no problem accepting that matter has it's own limitations, without the need for some outside, distinctly different force acting upon it. The foremost property of mass is gravity. It's 'inherent' property. Yet when we look at the manifestations of space's properties, we arbitrarily attribute those manifestations to an outside force. That is because it has apparently never occurred to us that space is anything other than 'nothing'.

Now you are asking me to describe what happens at the point of critical mass ( or the BB ), which physicists have pondered for 90 years. I can only surmise, and I am probably wrong. But I think a big bang is space and matter reaching their physical limits. Matter has become so dense, so gravitationally strong that it finally butts up against a finite limit. Matter's limit, and space's limit. And I think they are both actually just 'space'. Different only in form. Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, matter is simply borrowed energy from space. It makes sense that their conversions would be ruled by the same laws.

You may have noticed that I tread lightly on dark matter/dark energy on my main model. I merely say the model is unaffected by either. Technically this is accurate, although perhaps misleading. It was deliberate on my part because Dark Energy is the darling of the cosmo universe. But in fact, the 'closed loop' is NOT affected, although dark matter adds it's mass ... and dark energy ( or space's inherent energy ) adds it's mass, too.

When space 'completely' collapses just before the BB, all that energy stored in that collapsed ( finite ) area is added to the singularity. I think that the deciding factor to the BB is likely the near infinite spin. Einstein was probably close to right about a collapsing star spinning so fast that it would fly apart from angular momentum before actually collapsing 'all the way'. Well, the BB showed us that there is no 'all the way' ... meaning all the way to infinitely dense. So it would appear that Einstein was just off by a little. The rotational force ... the kinetic energy built up ... finally overcomes the gravitational force. So really it doesn't matter if the 'critical mass point' is an actual 'reaction' or simply flying apart. The effect is identical.

Either way, space is taking back all that 'borrowed' energy. Or at least as much as it can. It is also entirely possible that the last black hole does not fly apart ( or react ) totally. It is possible that it retains a good portion of it's mass, falling back 'in'. Anyway, as space snaps back to 'straight lines' or as close as gravity will allow it, it carries matter from the BB with it. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that this process ... this expansion of space ... is limited to C. ( this would be no different from a singularity exceeding light speed rotational velocity due to space being 'broken'.) This would explain much about the isotropy. Explain much about hydrogen/helium levels. Explain CMBR. Explain space's 'temperature'.

As far as extracting 'all' energy, in this I am referring to all physical matter/energy originally manifested from the big bang. There is no reason to think that space must give up all its energy too. I would think that a direct result of distance. The closer ( and more curved ) space is in relationship to the singularity, the more energy it gives up. I don't think there is a hard and fast cut-off point here. This 'fudge factor' would allow for Heisenberg's Principle.

If the singularity did not drag all normal matter/energy in ( as opposed to stored energy from space ) and then be forced to release it, then the universe would be a one-way deal. Everything would end up entombed forever in the black hole. The process could not be duplicated. I wonder how long it would take for a black hole containing all the matter/energy of our visible/local universe to 'evaporate'. According to Hawking ... correct me if I am wrong ... the escaping particles, full to the brim with kinetic energy pair up and go on to live long and happy lives ... heading out of the universe. If other universes exist in infinite and eternal space, and underwent the same 'evaporation' we would be bombarded with similar particles having made the eternally long trek across the voids between universes. Literally a solid 'wall' of them. What's the expected life span of a photon? If left alone? Eternity?

And the alternative is that nothing ever existed before our universe. And nothing will again. This is totally and egotistically illogical. If ours came to be, what in the world would make someone think that others wouldn't too? God? Not a rational conclusion.

Matter and gravity are the creation of the BB. We can be fairly certain of this. Time and space? Not so certain. There is no reason to believe they were not already there. And there is no evidence that would contradict this. And no evidence to support time and space being created along with matter and gravity. This is pure supposition.

So to answer your last question. Yes. Sort of. Space and matter are distinguishable only in form, and how the laws treat those forms differently. But ultimately, at point of conversion, they are essentially the same in that they are now subject to overlapping laws.

Whew!

I hope this doesn't just make it all the more confusing ....

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh. I compare my model to the generally accepted BB model, and to other models such as Greene's, Turoks, Frampton's, and any others that can not explain the structure and function of our universe without resorting to 'new physics, or eseentially 'metaphysical' phenomena.

Edited December 25, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

michel123456 · December 25, 2009

Please forgive for the bad word to word back-to-original translation from the Greek edition of Brian Greene’s “Elegant Universe”.

From Chapter 13, p453.

“With this, Wheeler meant that if we exclude a few specific identities, all the black holes look like the same. But what are those specific identities we are talking about? The one of course is mass. And the others? As it has been shown through several researches, they are the electrical and some other charges that are characteristics of black holes, and the rhythm at which they are executing revolutions, their spin. Nothing more. Two black holes with the same mass, the same charge and same spin are exactly the same. (…) That rings us the bell hardly. Remember that those exact characteristics- mass, charge and spin – are those who differentiate an elementary particle from another. The similarity with the characteristic identities has driven from time to time several physicists into the strange speculation that black holes may at last be gigantic elementary particles.”

I put it because it seems to me that the idea of a Universe been swallowed by one of its element is a matter of small/big issue.

toastywombel · December 25, 2009

Hello everyone. New guy. I think this forum's rules are wound a little less tightly than some, but I will apologize anyway ahead of time ... just in case. And of course if you wish to throw me off the site ....

I vigorously defend my thoughts on things, and I offer my criticism when asked. I have not been completely kind on my total review of your theory. This is partly because my emotions were involved in my criticism, this began at about my third response to you. I would like to apologize about that. I am going to now offer a completely logical review that is extensive and thoughtful.

I need help. I am not all that bright even though I have been contemplating the universe for about 50 years.

I find this could be viewed as a poor introduction to offering a theory about the universe. It can lead many to discredit you right off the bat.

A fairly respected cosmologist/astrophysicist offered me 'serious consideration' and probable funding through his institute if I can devise an experiment supporting my model. ( not my first offer ) This in response to the letter I sent him that follows. Many scientists have looked at my model, and none have found ( or bothered to tell me ) a critical flaw.

This is not good information to include when introducing a theory either, one may find these comments somewhat egotistical. However, let us move on.

So if you are terribly bored, feel free to dismantle my model .... or better yet, don't find a flaw and suggest a direction I can take in exploring experiments.

Thanks ...

......................................................................................................

I am writing to you because the science community does not make allowances for innovation, or insights from a layperson. ( non-theist version ) It's not my desire to annoy you, or waste your time. But it is my hope that in the spirit of open-mindedness, you might take a few minutes to read the following.

It seems impossible to separate ego ( I have a big one, too ) and beliefs from an objective view of the universe. Having read a great deal about black holes, I am struck not by the consensus of opinion, but the lack of one. It fascinates me that the less someone knows about these structures the more authoritative they sound.

I realize that my theory on black holes flies in the face of mainstream science, and undoubtedly your 'beliefs' too. Perhaps you have already traveled this road and found it desolate. If so, my apologies.

I first proposed this on 1/26/09. It is short, and self-explanatory.

Pinkerton Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe 1/26/09

The Theory:

1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass.

Yes I completely agree.

2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit.

3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe.

Okay so if we were to formulate this into an equation. Lets substitute finite critical mass limit with the variable "x". And how about we offer "m" and "e" in the place of matter and energy, respectively.

x=m+e.

If this is true this must also be true:

x-e=m

x-m=e

x-m-e=0

These are some important variations that you might want to keep in mind. They seem trivial, but if you plan to make this into a good theory they would be a necessity.

The Process:

1. Black holes convert all matter/energy into sub-elemental hydrogen for uniform 'stacking'.

Several questions here:

What kind of sub-elemental hydrogen? Why not even more elemental particles?

Are these black holes rotating black holes or Schwarzchild non-rotating black holes? Both of which are predicted by relativity.

This is from Wikipedia:

"Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter. A black hole can be inferred by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit a region in space. Alternatively, when gas falls into a stellar black hole from a companion star, the gas spirals inward, heating to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation that can be detected from earthbound and earth-orbiting telescopes."

Hawking radiation is released by black holes and it can be recorded and observed at times. This would make it hard for a black hole, in your theory ever to reach it's critical mass limit.

Also this it is good to keep in mind that the more massive a black hole the less dense it becomes. This is why the Hawking Radiation theory is so widely accepted. It predicts that black holes will eventually dissipate and spread apart.

M87, which is considered by many astronomers to be a super-massive black hole is estimated to contain several billion solar masses, but its about the size of the solar system. While, V616 Monocerotis, is only about 11 solar masses, and it is only about the size of the distance between Venus and Mercury.

Essentially the more mass "m", the less density is needed to create a black hole. As seen by the equation by Schwarzschild which was derived from relativity.

R = 2GM/c^2.

As you see the mass directly effects how large the radius of the black hole will be. This means the larger the black hole becomes the less dense it becomes. This would make it hard for a limit to exist.

physlink

2. Black holes do not appear to be subject to normal laws of space ( rotational speed limits, inertia )

3. Black holes ( to our knowledge ) currently merge at velocities 'tethered' by the rotational force and tidal forces of the satellite galaxy, or even just a single stellar companion.

4. Over eons of time black holes will grow in mass/gravity.

5. Although some escapes temporarily through x-ray/gamma ray bursts ( and possibly through Hawking Radiation ) they continue to grow in mass/gravity.

6. Eventually unencumbered by the rotational/tidal force of orbiting galaxies, black holes could theoretically achieve near infinite velocities. Therefore significantly speeding up the merging process and 'chasing down' gravitational sources at velocities far out-pacing the expansion of space.

I would ask what force would be causing the black hole to move faster. Also keep in mind the more mass in a black hole the less dense it becomes. It could be inferred that the more massive the black hole gets the more it becomes gravitationally tethered down by itself because it loses so much density.

7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons.

Actually, relativity implies that a black hole would have a limited rotational speed. As expressed by the equation:

Jmax < M2G/c.

"Whether a particular star has J over or under the limit depends on its mass, rotation speed, and spatial extent. Since real stars tend to have most of their mass concentrated near their centers, the internal distribution of mass, rather than just the optical diameter, is important. The Sun, due to its rather slow (25-day) rotation, has an angular momentum of about 1.63x1048 gm-cm-2-s-1 (assuming uniform rotation throughout, and standard models for the interior mass distribution; Allen 1970), which is only 0.185 of the maximum value allowed were it to somehow collapse to become a BH. But a rapidly rotating massive star will typically have an angular momentum exceeding its Jmax, and such stars must shed angular momentum and some mass before they could form BHs." Link

Essentially the rotational speed of the black hole is limited by its gravitational power. If the rotational speed becomes to great the angular momentum will cause the black hole to dissipate. This is because the angular momentum of the black hole is greater than the gravitational force. Plus the tidal forces of the surrounding matter would rip the black hole apart.

8. The strain on space ( ripple effect ) increases with the growing mass.

It is good to note that there is a rather large dearth of intermediate sized black holes. If you are implying that the black holes merge it would incline that all black holes form the same way and continue to grow. You would have to find a way of formulating your theory to fit the fact that most black holes are either relatively small or extremely massive.

9. As our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only one black hole remains, containing nearly all the mass in the visible/local universe ( still within upper mass limits predicted by physicists )

10. At this trigger point, all remaining space containing matter/energy collapses into the black hole.

Again, this does not correlate with observations. The larger the black hole the less dense it is. The observations of black holes to date completely contradict the fact that a black hole, with all the mass of the visible universe, would become smaller than it originally was .

11. When the last sub-atomic particle reaches the point of singularity, critical mass is achieved.

12. The Big Bang.

13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it.

Why would space snap back. What force would cause this? Also what would cause this force to stop once it has started?

14. Space immediately begins to cool, and star/galaxy formation begins.

The Logic:

1. All things in the physical universe have a critical mass point. Except, so far, black holes.

2. I believe theoretical physics currently allows for such a process, and observations are beginning to bear out this reality.

3. At the time calculations were made regarding upper-mass limits, black holes were mere theoretical oddities, and even Einstein argued against the possibility of their actual existence in physical space.

4. Though we have never seen a black hole reach critical mass, that in no way suggests they don't.

5. The visible/local universe has yet to reach infancy compared to it's expected life span. It is premature to assume on such small evidence that the current expansion will go on forever.

The Evidence/Proof:

1. The laws of physics, quantum mechanics.

Please specify. Classical physics often views black holes as a point of no size with no observable physical properties, while quantum physics views black holes as objects with physical properties and specific temperature. Link

2. The observations, predictions and experiments providing adequate proof/accuracy of those laws.

3. The current chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe.

4. The current ( and upwardly mobile ) estimated mass of the visible/local universe now approaching the numbers derived for black hole upper-mass limits.

5. Recent observations of black holes merging or set to merge.

6. The recent acceptance that all galaxies have black holes, or super-massive black holes at their core.

7. The recent observations detecting more galaxies gravitationally bound to ours, and Andromeda.

8. No evidence to support the recent hypothesis that black holes are limited to 50 billion sols.

9. No evidence of black holes showing appreciable loss of mass over time.

10. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else.

11. No evidence of branes, strings, 5th through 11 dimensions, etc.

12. Closed-loop obeys all laws of thermo-dynamics/entropy.

A singularity where there is no size would imply that there is no temperature, which is impossible according to the final law of thermodynamics.

The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.

13. Not affected by hypothetical dark matter/energy.

Predictions:

1. Black holes in excess of 50 billion sols will be discovered through the latest and soon to come optical/radio telescopes.

2. Every new discovery will fit within the parameters of this model.

3. This cycle will repeat endlessly.

In Conclusion:

1. This model answers the question of the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe.

2. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe.

3. This model explains where the big bang got it's mass.

No it does not, it simply implies that the mass has existed forever either in the form of energy or matter.

4. This model appears to violate no known laws.

5. This model requires no 'new' laws to function.

6. This model is vastly superior to all flawed existing, and previous models.

7. It still leaves the question "How did it begin?" to future theorists.

It is also my theory, however, that per Einstein's Uniformity of Space math ( born out by observations ), the universe is indeed infinite. That black holes are simply 'borrowed' energy from the fabric of space. That dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a 'property' of space. This process/cycle is akin to the sub-atomic particles that 'materialize' and are instantly annihilated by anti-particles ... but on a much larger scale.

And I also suggest that this process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. The distance between black holes would be equivalent to the distance between the 'materializing' particles. If the loop was not closed, then we would get photons from outside our universe leaking ( over eternity ) here into our universe. And of course if the loop was not closed ... meaning if even a single photon were allowed to escape, the 'next' black hole would be one photon short of critical mass. I don't think space allows this to happen.

Logic tells me that if this theory is incorrect, then the universe did in fact have a beginning. And therefore it can not be either infinite, or eternal. That there really is nothing beyond the bubble of our expanding visible universe. That there was some metaphysical reason ( ie: God ) since it truly would have had to spring into existence from 'nothing' ... because there was no space with it's inherent energy to 'borrow' from.

I think there is sufficient evidence in Einstein's math to safely conclude this is not a possiblity. The 'lines' of space would not have an 'endpoint'.

It is possible that my supposition of black hole inertia-less velocities will not be born out by future observations, however this would not stop the process. Instead, it would merely slow it down. No matter how far space 'expands' the last black hole standing would warp space sufficiently to pull back any remaining mass/energy.

Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could simply materialize from 'nothing' ( and sans God ) then that same process could happen at any time, at any location. Such as two seconds from now inside the Moon's orbit. That would appear ( so far, anyway ) not to be the case. There must be a process. A function that allows matter to exist, if only temporarily.

Logically, it took all the energy from our universe to create our universe.

I hope this didn't take too much of your time.

Thank you for your attention.

James Pinkerton

After Galileo's conviction for heresy ... and his subsequent sentencing ...

As he was being led away, he was credited with uttering these words under his breath .....

"But they move. They move!"

As I am being led away I will quietly utter these words .....

"But they merge. They merge!"

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For example ... take the recent measurements of the rotation of our visible universe.

Einstein showed that a collapsing star's rotational speed would not be limited to C, and he used this argument to defend his denial of black holes. He said the heavier the mass/smaller the diameter, the faster the spin .... in theory to infinity. ( and the star would fly apart from angular momentum ... and so far he appears to have been wrong on this ) But he was also talking about 'infinitely dense' mass at a finite point in space. The total mass of our visible universe is rather large by standards we are comfortable with ... but certainly not infinite. So in the case of 'our' singularity neither would the rotational speed be infinite. But off the scale fast ...

So what if this singularity containing all the mass of our universe 'went off'? Would it not be reasonable that something this massive spinning this fast would transfer major angular momentum to all the material expanding outward from the 'bang'?

Is there a way to correlate the speed of the rotating singularity to the ( presumed ) current rotational speed of the universe 13.7 billion years later?

Edited December 25, 2009 by toastywombel

michel123456 · December 25, 2009

Very touching, Toasty.

Hit by the Christmas spirit.

pywakit · December 26, 2009

Toasty wrote:

It is good to note that there is a rather large dearth of intermediate sized black holes. If you are implying that the black holes merge it would incline that all black holes form the same way and continue to grow. You would have to find a way of formulating your theory to fit the fact that most black holes are either relatively small or extremely massive.

From Cosmos July 2009:SYDNEY: Astronomers have detected the first strong evidence for a new class of 'mid-size' black holes that could help prove how supermassive black holes form.

Until now, black holes have either been supermassive – millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun — or stellar mass black holes, small black holes that form from the death of stars.

Now, astrophysicists from the Centre d'Etude Spatiale des Rayonnements in Toulouse, France and the University of Leicester, UK and the have found a middle-mass black hole, dubbed Hyper-Luminous X-ray source 1 or HLX-1.

The black hole, which is 290 million light years away, is at least 500 times the mass of the Sun.

Missing link

The find, reported today in the journal Nature, may be the missing link to theories on how supermassive black holes form. No-one knows how supermassive black holes, such as the one at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, are created. One theory is that they grow from the merger of smaller black holes.

But until now, no one had found any direct evidence of the intermediate-mass black holes thought to be the building blocks of supermassive black holes.

...........................................................................................

Much more to cover, but I have not had much time today. Hope your day is going well. And thank you for the apology, but it was not necessary. You haven't offended me at all.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

Actually, relativity implies that a black hole would have a limited rotational speed. As expressed by the equation:

Jmax < M2G/c.

"Whether a particular star has J over or under the limit depends on its mass, rotation speed, and spatial extent. Since real stars tend to have most of their mass concentrated near their centers, the internal distribution of mass, rather than just the optical diameter, is important. The Sun, due to its rather slow (25-day) rotation, has an angular momentum of about 1.63x1048 gm-cm-2-s-1 (assuming uniform rotation throughout, and standard models for the interior mass distribution; Allen 1970), which is only 0.185 of the maximum value allowed were it to somehow collapse to become a BH. But a rapidly rotating massive star will typically have an angular momentum exceeding its Jmax, and such stars must shed angular momentum and some mass before they could form BHs." Link

Cambridge MA (SPX) Nov 17, 2006

The existence of black holes is perhaps the most fascinating prediction of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. When any mass, such as a star, becomes more compact than a certain limit, its own gravity becomes so strong that the object collapses to a singular point, a black hole. In the popular mind, this immense gravity well is a place where strange things happen.

And now, a Center for Astrophysics-led team has measured a black hole spinning so rapidly - turning more than 950 times per second - that it pushes the predicted speed limit for rotation.

"I would say that this regime of gravity is as far from direct experience and knowing as the subatomic world itself," says CfA astronomer Jeffrey McClintock.

Applying a technique to measure spin developed jointly by McClintock and CfA astrophysicist Ramesh Narayan, the team used NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer satellite data to provide the most direct determination yet of black hole spin.

McClintock and Narayan led an international group consisting of Rebecca Shafee, Harvard University Physics Department; Ronald Remillard, Kavli Center for Astrophysics and Space Research, MIT; Shane Davis, University of California, Santa Barbara, and Li-Xin Li, Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Germany, in this research. The results are published in today's issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

"We now have accurate values for the spin rates of three black holes," says McClintock. "The most exciting is our result for the microquasar GRS1915+105, which has a spin that is between 82% and 100% of the theoretical maximum value."

"The black hole spin frequency we measured is the rate at which space-time is spinning, or is being dragged, right at the black hole's event horizon," says Narayan.

The high-speed black hole, GRS 1915, is the most massive of the 20 X-ray binary black holes for which masses are presently known, weighing about 14 times as much as the Sun. It is well known for unique properties such as ejecting jets of matter at nearly the speed of light and rapid variations in its X-ray emission.

Note that the spin is measured at the event horizon. Not at the near-zero ( presumed ) surface of the singularity itself. If the event horizon is spinning at 950 times a second, do you think the singularity is spinning slower?

................................................................................

More in a bit ...

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From The Age.com.au

After 29 years of thinking about it, Stephen Hawking has decided to admit he was wrong about the digestive habits of black holes.

The renowned Cambridge University scientist presented a paper today arguing that black holes, the celestial vortexes formed by collapsing stars, can eventually reveal details about the objects they swallow up.

Hawking, a leading expert on universal dynamics, had previously insisted black holes destroy all molecular fingerprints of their contents and emit only a generic form of radiation.

But today at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Hawking presented a series of mind-boggling new calculations that suggest black holes are able to cast out their contents "in a mangled form" - and that there's only one way in and one way out.

Hawking, 62, said he no longer believed a 1980s theory that black holes might offer passage into another universe, a rival explanation for identifying where matter and energy go when consumed by a black hole.

.........................................................................................

Hawking is not infallible.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From Curious About Astronomy:

Has there been an experiment that measured speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum?

Is that true that in some experiment was measured a speed, faster than the speed-of-light in the vacuum?

Yes.

If the answer is YES, what kind of particle was used for that experiment: a photon, a neutrino or other particle?

Photon.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:
Hawking radiation is released by black holes and it can be recorded and observed at times. This would make it hard for a black hole, in your theory ever to reach it's critical mass limit.

From cosmology.berkeley.edu:

How do black holes evaporate?

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

This is a tough one. Back in the 1970's, Stephen Hawking came up with theoretical arguments showing that black holes are not really entirely black: due to quantum-mechanical effects, they emit radiation. The energy that produces the radiation comes from the mass of the black hole. Consequently, the black hole gradually shrinks. It turns out that the rate of radiation increases as the mass decreases, so the black hole continues to radiate more and more intensely and to shrink more and more rapidly until it presumably vanishes entirely.

Actually, nobody is really sure what happens at the last stages of black hole evaporation: some researchers think that a tiny, stable remnant is left behind. Our current theories simply aren't good enough to let us tell for sure one way or the other. As long as I'm disclaiming, let me add that the entire subject of black hole evaporation is extremely speculative. It involves figuring out how to perform quantum-mechanical (or rather quantum-field-theoretic) calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with experiments. Physicists *think* that we have the correct theories to make predictions about black hole evaporation, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure.

.......................................................................

Again, black holes may very well leak. This does not affect my model.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:
Essentially the more mass "m", the less density is needed to create a black hole. As seen by the equation by Schwarzschild which was derived from relativity.

R = 2GM/c^2.

As you see the mass directly effects how large the radius of the black hole will be. This means the larger the black hole becomes the less dense it becomes. This would make it hard for a limit to exist.

We may be talking at cross purposes here. I am not talking about the 'size' of a black hole being the Scharzschild Radius. I am talking about the mass of the 'object' at the center. There is some dispute as to whether it is an infinitely dense, 'zero' volume singularity, or a finite density with a measurable surface area. Either way, we have a small paradox. How can gravity escape from a black hole? But it does apparently. And this little fact is critical to my model.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Thanks again Toasty for your input. I meant to post this first. Sorry.

I always claim that I am unafraid to admit mistakes, so allow me to offer evidence of this. You are absolutely right about GR not predicting speeds faster than light. Every time I screw up like this I think I should be taken out and shot! But then I go back and read my favorite guys' mistakes. Einstein, and Galileo.

I feel better already!

Ok. I think I can CYA on your points. Let's see if I can stop you from throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Lol.

If I am not mistaken, GR breaks down at the singularity. Einstein asserted that although GR predicted such objects, they could never actually occur due to angular momentum ( centrifugal force ) of a rotating body ( such as a collapsing star. I don't remember him addressing static black holes though, even though GR predicted both.

Also, I have been unable to find evidence for a static BH, and it seems as if all the new discoveries are of rotating ones. And if I am not mistaken here, too ... it has just been in the last few years that rotating BH's were discovered at all.

I really don't think there is such a thing as a non-rotating BH, no matter how it was originally formed. Any matter dropping in will form an accretion disc ... a spinning accretion disc ... which would lend it's angular momentum to the singularity. Another point which I may have already made. The only rotational 'drag' on a singularity would seem to be anything in orbit around it. If that is gone, if there is no more accretian disc, there should be nothing left to slow the spin down.

Regardless, Einstein made a case for the 'impossibility' of their existence. Current observational evidence would strongly contradict that 'impossibility'.

I have made the assertion that at the point of singularity, space is so broken that the normal restrictions imposed by the properties of space no longer are in effect. And this would apply to both spin, and your 'gravitational anchor' ... meaning the black hole is NOT tethered by it's own gravity, but rather by any mass ( accretian disc, stellar companion, galaxy ) orbiting the singularity in 'normal' space. Once that mass has been consumed, there would be no restrictions on movement. Even if both these hypotheses are wrong, the model can still function. The black hole will always gravitate toward mass.

Understanding what we do about star/galaxy formation, and angular momentum, it seems unlikely that galaxies and their attendant black holes would ever be on intersecting paths. But I may be wrong on this too.

Btw, sorry for jumping around. I will hopefully not miss any of your objections. I also appreciate your observations regarding the model's preamble, but it doesn't want to let me edit. It is a difficult and delicate balance between humility, and confidence. I obviously failed to accomplish this. I wanted everyone to know I was willing to be proven wrong, and at the same time lend credibility to my model through 3rd party 'verification'. Regardless ... all statements at the beginning are true.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I wrote in an earlier post:

What this means is ... if our local ( finite ) universe can exist, there is no logical reason why an INFINITE number of ( finite ) universes can exist ... in an INFINITE universe.

Unless you have reason to believe somebody created us, and only us, and made this universe just for us.

Should read ... CAN'T.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

Several questions here:

What kind of sub-elemental hydrogen? Why not even more elemental particles?

Are these black holes rotating black holes or Schwarzchild non-rotating black holes? Both of which are predicted by relativity.

You are correct. They could be more elemental. The point is the singularity is homogenous in form. And when the BB happens, the released mass immediately transforms into hydrogen, and helium.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

Also this it is good to keep in mind that the more massive a black hole the less dense it becomes. This is why the Hawking Radiation theory is so widely accepted. It predicts that black holes will eventually dissipate and spread apart.

I think you might be wong here. You speak of it being 'less dense' but the singularity itself is ( nearly ) infinitely dense and contains all the accumulated mass. And see the previous post on this.

Toasty, it is worth noting that in 1975, when Hawking first proposed 'evaporation', there was no evidence of supermassive black holes. No one at that time was seriously considering their existence. In fact, it wasn't until several years after Einstein's death ( in the early 60's ) that science really started to look at BH's at all. Einstein said they couldn't exist in reality, so everyone ... or mainstream, anyway, went along with it. Another problem Hawking was unaware of in 1975 was that BH's merged. Look, it took him 29 years to admit his mistake on black holes 'shunting' mass to another dimension. ( information irretrievably lost ) It's not like there wasn't any evidence in all that time ..... He just couldn't see it, or accept it.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

I would ask what force would be causing the black hole to move faster. Also keep in mind the more mass in a black hole the less dense it becomes. It could be inferred that the more massive the black hole gets the more it becomes gravitationally tethered down by itself because it loses so much density.

First, clearly ... black holes are not tethered by their own gravity. If it were spinning at high frquencies, you would think it even less likely to be moving anywhere at all. A spinning object 'wants' to remain at a fixed point in space. Just like a spinning top on a table. If you have ever tried to change the position of something containing a gyroscope, you would know how hard it is to move it from it's resting position.

So what makes it spin faster is accreting more mass. What makes it change it's position in space is either inertia, angular momentum of orbiting mass ... or gravity from somewhere else.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

M87, which is considered by many astronomers to be a super-massive black hole is estimated to contain several billion solar masses, but its about the size of the solar system. While, V616 Monocerotis, is only about 11 solar masses, and it is only about the size of the distance between Venus and Mercury.

The 'it' you refer to is not the gravity well of the singularity. Your implication is that the more massive a black hole gets, the less gravitational force it exerts. This is incorrect.

Essentially the more mass "m", the less density is needed to create a black hole. As seen by the equation by Schwarzschild which was derived from relativity.

If I am not mistaken here ... that should read " the more VOLUME , the less density is needed to create a BH."

R = 2GM/c^2.

As you see the mass directly effects how large the radius of the black hole will be. This means the larger the black hole becomes the less dense it becomes. This would make it hard for a limit to exist.

Again, you are not speaking of the actual singularity. You are speaking of the Schwarzschild Radius. This has no bearing on the gravitational attraction. The more massive, the more gravity.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

Essentially the rotational speed of the black hole is limited by its gravitational power. If the rotational speed becomes to great the angular momentum will cause the black hole to dissipate. This is because the angular momentum of the black hole is greater than the gravitational force. Plus the tidal forces of the surrounding matter would rip the black hole apart.

Ok. First .. there is no evidence to date that such an event has occurred. And we can look a long way back in time. This is/was Einstein's argument against black holes existing at all. He was wrong. If you were correct, then what is the upper limit? If I am not mistaken we have evidence of a supermassive weighing in at 18 BILLION sols. Think it doesn't have a spin? The more mass it accretes, the heavier it gets, and the faster it spins. How could this, or any other supermassives exist at all? We know that the supermassives studied so far have spin from the accretion discs. Stellar compaions? Spin. How big must it get before it flies apart ... or dissipates? 100 billion sols? 500 billion?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

Again, this does not correlate with observations. The larger the black hole the less dense it is. The observations of black holes to date completely contradict the fact that a black hole, with all the mass of the visible universe, would become smaller than it originally was .

No. The more massive a black hole gets, the denser the singularity gets. But even with all the mass of our visible/local universe, it would still not be 'infinitely' dense, because the properties of space, and matter won't allow that. The Schwarzschild Radius will increase with mass. Again, correct me if I am misunderstanding you.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

Why would space snap back. What force would cause this? Also what would cause this force to stop once it has started?

The inherent energy in space itself. It tries to maintain straight lines. If it did not, there would be no 'curved' space. "Space is UNIFORM unless disturbed by mass ( gravity )." How can you 'disturb' something that doesn't exist?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nothing would make it 'stop', but there is a direct relationship between the CONCENTRATION of gravity, and whether or not space collapses. Clearly something like our own body and it's gravitational force will 'displace' space without totally collapsing it. So space must have a 'stretchy' quality. More evidence that space is 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'.

Toasty wrote:

Please specify. Classical physics often views black holes as a point of no size with no observable physical properties, while quantum physics views black holes as objects with physical properties and specific temperature.

Link

Both. Neither contradict the processes involved in the model. ( to my knowledge ) Both disciplines break down at the singularity. That is not a contradiction. It is a failure of the those disciplines to adequately explain those processes.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

A singularity where there is no size would imply that there is no temperature, which is impossible according to the final law of thermodynamics.

The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. ALL energy from the 'original' BB is recaptured. So the processes of thermo dynamics, and entropy are irellevant. Nothing escapes. Who says we have to cool anything to absolute zero? I don't care if the singularity is running a high fever. It doesn't change the process of black holes merging into one.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Toasty wrote:

No it does not, it simply implies that the mass has existed forever either in the form of energy or matter.

Not following your logic. All I am doing is explaining where OUR BB got it's mass. From the previous finite universe. Other explanations have it 'spontaneously' materialize from nothing. Or branes. Or packets. Or time reversal.

I am not making a serious attempt to explain eternity. I don't know how the process began. I just have reason to believe, based on all available evidence, that this bang wasn't the first one. And I further contend that there are many reasons why a closed loop makes more sense than the other models out there ... as I have already explained ... and it doesn't require a complicated and contorted solution. It doesn't require non-existent super-physics. Not to say we won't ever 'invent' them. It doesn't require non-existent branes, or strings. It really is a very simple solution.

With all due respect, I don't think you have pointed out anything that falsifies my model. Unless you are aware of observational evidence to contradict it, or where mathematics precludes it, or where physics, or quantum mechanics prohibits it.

A singularity is NOT infinitely dense. It is NOT infinitely small. To be either would require an infinite amount of mass, and it would have to be 'shunting' mass to another 'dimension', because space won't allow those shenannigans in THIS dimension. If it did, everything would be stuck in a black hole. Everything in the INFINITE universe would be stuck in ONE black hole. Remember, Hawking is no longer on that page.

Edited December 26, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

pywakit · January 1, 2010

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you.

Thank you for being so patient with me ...

ajb · January 3, 2010

It amazes me that so many models that have 'popped up' ( pun intended ) in the last two decades rely heavily on string theory. How did ST morph from a hypothesis to theory? Everything I have read about it has the huge disclaimer ... HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. Yet cosmologists routinely integrate this into their models as if it were a foregone conclusion. Good, solid math and physics behind it? I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong, but the fact remains that after 26 years of intense study, ST is no more a reality than the day it was proposed.

String theory seems so beautiful and has all the right features to be a unification scheme. It almost seems to good not to be close to being right. Cosmology may be the only place one could hope to test string theory, thus stringy-cosmology remains an important area of study.

On nomenclature, by string/M theory you should view it as a large base of knowledge of quantised extended objects, this is of course still work in progress. It is possible that this mathematical framework will be fundamental in a unification scheme. It may of course turn out to be only part of the story or it could even be completely misguided.

Anyway, if you are trying to suggest my 'language' prevents physicists from grasping the hypothesis, I would just say that people like Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Dr. Michael Ibison ( and many more ) didn't seem to have any such issues.

I do not know these two gentlemen.

Quite often language can be a problem talking to other researchers in general, this is particularly true when dealing with both mathematicians and physicists.

However, the more I study about the behavior of black holes, and gravity ... of space, the more convinced I become that this model is a viable, and reasonable alternative to the current one.

So you are reading up on general relativity?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you.

Thank you. I also hope the same for you.

pywakit · January 3, 2010

ajb writes:

String theory seems so beautiful and has all the right features to be a unification scheme. It almost seems to good not to be close to being right. Cosmology may be the only place one could hope to test string theory, thus stringy-cosmology remains an important area of study.

On nomenclature, by string/M theory you should view it as a large base of knowledge of quantised extended objects, this is of course still work in progress. It is possible that this mathematical framework will be fundamental in a unification scheme. It may of course turn out to be only part of the story or it could even be completely misguided.

First let me say I very much appreciate your input. You raise a salient point here, and hopefully I can address it in a coherent manner.

Beauty is seductive. We are drawn to it in almost every imaginable way. Often though, we find it to be an illusion. We can say 'space' is stunningly beautiful, but we know it will kill us if we are not careful.

And so it is with strings/super-strings/m-theory. Lol. ( I believe Witten said M could stand for 'magic', among other things.) No, I suppose it won't actually kill you, but it can certainly lead you down an illusory path.

If you don't want to be seduced by any one particular 'beauty' you must keep many examples around you. As an ex-musician ( lead vocalist in rock bands for many years ... unsuccessful I might add ) I was exposed to many many beautiful girls. This made it difficult to settle on any one particular girl, because there might be ( and frequently was ) a 'more' beautiful girl just around the corner.

Although I tend to be rather hard on strings, I don't deny their beauty. As a musician however, I could not help but notice what seemed to be missing from ST, or SST. When we visualize them, we think of them vibrating like the strings on a violin, or viola. What's missing, or appears to be missing are one, and possibly two things that are necessary for a string to vibrate. Perhaps this is something covered long ago, but I will state it anyway. Strings must be held taut to vibrate. The more the strings are tightened, the higher the frequency of vibration. Of course, the thickness, and composition of the string will have a bearing ultimately on the possible range of 'vibrations'.

'Limp' strings don't vibrate.

Second, there does not seem to be a reasonable mechanism involved to make the string vibrate even if they WERE taut. No 'bow'.

And these 'missing links' would appear to reduce our process to a 'magic' act.

If I were to offer any 'help' to Greene, and Turok, I would suggest that they try looking at this another way.

Let's take a transitional step here. Wind chimes. Held in place by a string ( lol ) at one end, and gravity at the other, the energy of moving air molecules acts as the bow, and causes them to vibrate/resonate. If the action is strong enough the chimes will strike each other making them 'louder' and causing each chime to add it's particular vibration to the totality of resonance. So where do we take this?

I can't help but notice the prevelence of 'spheres' in our universe. From the very very large to the very very small. So consider this possibility. Instead of vibrating strings think of spherical 'bells' ringing. I would picture it as a miniaturization of the classic atom. All those little spheres whizzing around the larger central sphere. Each orbiting sphere would have it's own particular vibration caused by the 'wind' ( EM ) and all would interact with the central sphere creating a totality of resonance. This would allow for a much simpler, and I think much more elegant manner in which approach the stability of the atom, and therefore the stability of matter.

Again, I am just speculating ... but I think this 'girl' is a little more beautiful than the one I was with yesterday. Lol. And this 'hypothesis' does not conflict with my model. ( I don't think )

Dr. Tyson is the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. Dr. Ibison is a research physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin. Ibison is considered a little controversial, where Tyson is more mainstream. And yes ... I agree ... language can be a tricky thing.

As Martin clearly showed in the 'assumptions' thread, my understanding of GR, and SR are quite limited. I am always trying to absorb more knowledge, but I know some aspects ( such as the math ) will always elude me. Still, that doesn't seem to stop me from grasping concepts, or seeing patterns in nature, or what's missing from the picture. If I have any skills at all, it would be the above ...

Of course, there are times I will see a relationship where one might not exist. But still, a useful tool to have in my belt, I think.

I would never suggest Greene or Turok abandon their research. All roads should be thoroughly explored. The only danger is becoming so enamored with the beauty in front of us we fail to see the deeper beauty standing in the shadows ....

The girl with ... shall we say ... the natural beauty, as opposed to the one requiring a lot of 'make up'. Lol. And clearly, strings require a great deal of 'make up'.

ajb · January 3, 2010

The girl with ... shall we say ... the natural beauty, as opposed to the one requiring a lot of 'make up'. Lol. And clearly, strings require a great deal of 'make up'.

Let me explain further...

By passing to strings we get

1) A consistent quantum theory that does not require renormalisation.

2) A (perturbative) theory of gravity, the graviton is necessarily in the closed string spectrum.

3) It appears large enough to include all the gauge symmetries of the standard model.

4) They theory is chiral, has been a problem for unification schemes in the past.

5) It predicts the number of space-time dimensions.

It was realised that branes are also very important in the theory. This lead to the realisation that the five superstring theories are perturbations about particular vacua of a larger 11-dimensional theory known as M-theory. (Why does the bosonic string not fit into this?) So there could be one unique all encompassing theory, all we have to do is find the correct vacua that describes our universe. This is the landscape problem.

Any one of the above list would be enough to get people excited. Passing from points to strings gives something so great it can't be all wrong!

String theory has also lead to exciting developments in gauge theory via the gravity-gauge duality. People are doing calculations in quantum gravity to get answers for the strong force (well the super strong!).

For a great introduction to strings and branes I direct you towards Richard J. Szabo's BUSSTEPP Lectures on String Theory.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ajb

pywakit · January 3, 2010

Let me explain further...

By passing to strings we get

1) A consistent quantum theory that does not require renormalisation.

2) A (perturbative) theory of gravity, the graviton is necessarily in the closed string spectrum.

3) It appears large enough to include all the gauge symmetries of the standard model.

4) They theory is chiral, has been a problem for unification schemes in the past.

5) It predicts the number of space-time dimensions.

It was realised that branes are also very important in the theory. This lead to the realisation that the five superstring theories are perturbations about particular vacua of a larger 11-dimensional theory known as M-theory. (Why does the bosonic string not fit into this?) So there could be one unique all encompassing theory, all we have to do is find the correct vacua that describes our universe. This is the landscape problem.

Any one of the above list would be enough to get people excited. Passing from points to strings gives something so great it can't be all wrong!

String theory has also lead to exciting developments in gauge theory via the gravity-gauge duality. People are doing calculations in quantum gravity to get answers for the strong force (well the super strong!).

For a great introduction to strings and branes I direct you towards Richard J. Szabo's BUSSTEPP Lectures on String Theory.

How can I say this without offending you? You speak as a man in love. This 'girl' has been unfaithful to you for 26 years, yet you are convinced that she will prove her faithfulness someday in the future. Surely you realize that there could be any number of explanations that could also produce the same 'evidence' and make the same 'predictions'.

Yes ... it CAN be all wrong. Forgive me again, but I did not come up with my hypothesis altering strings in a vacuum. You make an assumption ( yes, an understandable one ) that I know nothing about them. I know enough to understand they are HIGHLY SPECULATIVE no matter how much you want to believe in them.

Yes, it all may be true. But there are many problems with strings. Furthermore, thousands have been working on this for decades, and yet we are ( hate to repeat myself ) NOWHERE NEAR proving they even exist, let alone stand as a platform for building upon.

I think my spheres are a much more logical choice as a replacement for 'points'. I also think my spheres could better describe the properties of the graviton. I also think all of the above could just as easily ... if not more elegantly ... be attributed to spheres. Won't you at least consider them? No? Lol. Ok.

ajb · January 4, 2010

Surely you realize that there could be any number of explanations that could also produce the same 'evidence' and make the same 'predictions'.

I know of no other theory that is finite (requires no renormalisation) and contains a perturbative theory of gravity. I am also no aware of any theory that predicts the number of dimensions of space-time.

Yes ... it CAN be all wrong. Forgive me again, but I did not come up with my hypothesis altering strings in a vacuum. You make an assumption ( yes, an understandable one ) that I know nothing about them. I know enough to understand they are HIGHLY SPECULATIVE no matter how much you want to believe in them.

As you know not very much about relativity, it is quite natural to expect you to know even less about string theory.

It is speculative in the sense that we have not managed to construct a physical theory based on string theory that can called a unification scheme. However, the natural and attractive features of string theory guarantee that it will be studied for a long time yet.

Even if stringy-theories turn out not to be useful in unification they have been very useful in other contexts, including the gauge-gravity correspondence, like the AdS-CFT.

Either way, string theory represents a non-trivial extension of quantum point-particle theories to a quantum theory of extended objects. This has had much influence on point-particle theories and mathematics.

Yes, it all may be true. But there are many problems with strings. Furthermore, thousands have been working on this for decades, and yet we are ( hate to repeat myself ) NOWHERE NEAR proving they even exist, let alone stand as a platform for building upon.

The main problem with string theory, as an unification scheme is the landscape problem, That is the theory has many vacua.

This is not necessarily a fundamental problem. For example general relativity has more that one cosmological solution. The question here remains, why the particular solution for our universe.

String theory suffers this problem, but the number of solutions is massive. However, by itself I would say that it does not completely rule out a stringy-universe.

As for the experimental verification the best places to look are cosmology and astrophysics. It could be possible that an imprint of string theory could be seen in the early universe or in black hole physics.

Supersymmetry is a fundamental part of string theory. Thus I would take verification of SUSY at LHC to be telling us that string theory is probably on the right lines. However, SUSY can be independent of strings. As such SUSY should be "circumstantial evidence ".

Extra dimensions could also be detected at LHC. Again, this could be independent of stringy ideas.

Could be interesting times ahead.

I think my spheres are a much more logical choice as a replacement for 'points'. I also think my spheres could better describe the properties of the graviton. I also think all of the above could just as easily ... if not more elegantly ... be attributed to spheres. Won't you at least consider them? No? Lol. Ok.

Write down a classical action and see if the standard methods of first quantisation work. I expect there will be problems, strings seem to have just the right numbers of degrees of freedom to not require renormalisation.

Maybe I should say that I am not a string theorist as such. I am very impressed with string theory, even if it has not really lived up to the expectations once made of it. It ties in with many nice mathematical structures.

My mathematical interests are not unrelated to string theory and I do take inspiration from this field and also SUSY field theory and modern methods of quantisation. (I do have an acknowledgement in one string theory paper though! )

pywakit · January 4, 2010

Lol. ajb I very much admire your enthusiasm. I am not here to debunk strings. I think there is a great deal of knowledge to be obtained from this line of research. I am not at all offended by your assumptions regarding my knowledge of GR, SR, ST, SST, or M-theory. As I have said before, I am always trying to improve my understanding of these theories.

I just finished a quick review of the information contained on these sites ...

New Insights Into Open String Theory:http://www.sciencedaily.com

String Theory and the Unification of Forces:theory.tifr.res.in

M-theory, the theory formerly known as Strings:http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk

Problems with string theory:http://www.braungardt.com

Physical Reality Of String Theory Shown In Quantum-critical:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/09

In its near 40-year history, string theory has ...:download.iop.org

Just one exerpt .... from Physicsworld.com

Why can’t string theory predict anything?

String theory replaces a microscopic world-view based on point-like

elementary particles with one based on 1D strings. Compared with the

particle view, however, strings have got physicists virtually no further

forward in explaining what they see when they actually probe nature at

small scales using machines like the LHC. This may not be surprising given

that strings are 10^20 times smaller than particles such as protons and

neutrons. But why is it so hard to turn stringy ideas into hard predictions?

The theoretical framework of the particle world-view is quantum field

theory (QFT), which describes particle interactions as being due to the

exchange of a field quantum (photons, for example, mediate the

electromagnetic force). For some deep reason, a type of QFT called a

gauge theory describes the electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions

extraordinarily well, and has done for nearly 35 years via the Standard

Model of particle physics. Because QFT allows particles to appear from

“nothing” via quantum fluctuations of the underlying fields, the vacuum is

not really empty space at all. The starting point for calculating physical

quantities in both field theory and string theory, since string theory is

rooted in the same quantum-mechanical principles as QFT, is therefore to

write down the appropriate “Lagrangian” and understand the vacuum.

In the Standard Model, this is reasonably straightforward, since the

Lagrangian is fixed once you know the particles and ensure that the

interactions between these particles respect gauge symmetry (which in the

case of electrodynamics, for example, makes the values of measured

quantities independent of the intrinsic phase of the electron wavefunction).

As for the vacuum, in order to give particles their masses theorists invoke a

scalar field called the Higgs field that has a non-zero value in the vacuum.

Once you have got the Lagrangian, you can then derive a set of Feynman

rules or diagrams that allow you to calculate things. The simplest diagram

you can draw corresponds to the classical limit of the theory (i.e. where

there are no quantum fluctuations) and yields a probability amplitude for a

particular physical process, for example an electron scattering off another

electron. By then adding the contributions from increasingly complex

diagrams (using perturbation theory), QFT allows you to refine the

calculations of this probability – to a precision of 10 decimal places in the

case of quantum electrodynamics.

The stringy world-view turns these 1D diagrams into 2D diagrams, since

the space–time history of a string traces out a 2D surface rather than a

line. This is great for incorporating gravity, which the Standard Model

ignores, because gravitational interactions of point-like particles lead to

infinities in the calculations. The problem is that theorists do not know

what the Lagrangian is in string theory. Instead, researchers have five sets

of possible Feynman rules, each of which approximates the physics

described by a different Lagrangian (i.e. a different formulation of string

theory). The upside is that the five different string theories are linked by

dualities that suggests string theory has a unique underlying structure

(called M-theory); so it does not matter too much which one you work with.

The downside is that the five “backgrounds”, as string theorists call them,

live in 10D space–time.

If we lived in a 10D world, then it would just be a case of finding an

experiment to verify which of the five backgrounds fits best. But when you

curl up six of the dimensions on a Calabi–Yau manifold in an attempt to

describe the four dimensions of the real world, you produce a slightly

different background with its own set of Feynman diagrams. Indeed, the

number of 4D Lagrangians you can get is about 10^500, each of which

corresponds to a different way of compactifying the 6D manifold, choosing

fluxes and choosing branes (i.e. “non-perturbative” effects that are

extremely difficult to calculate). Since each result corresponds to a

different universe, you really need to study all 10^500 in order to find out

whether or not string theory describes the real world (unlike in QFT, where if

you see something in nature you do not like, then you can add a new

particle or field into the Lagrangian). The punch-line of this string theory

“landscape”, however, is that it is the only explanation physicists can offer

for the cosmological constant – a property of the vacuum that was

discovered in 1998 and which QFT gets wrong by a factor at least 10^60.

Very difficult reading for a man of my cognitive abilities. But I think I understand it to some small degree.

It may very well end up unifying 'everything'. It also might end up proving my theory of space=energy. But the predictions you claim seem a little problematic. It does not appear to be the 'cut and dried' answer. There are too many variables. Too many 'possibilities'. Too many DIMENSIONS that have no basis in fact, and have yet to be verified in any tangible way.

Also, you write:Write down a classical action and see if the standard methods of first quantisation work. I expect there will be problems, strings seem to have just the right numbers of degrees of freedom to not require renormalisation.

That would be well beyond my level of expertise. I only offered 'spheres' as a possible alternative to strings, and I gave my reasons why. You say strings 'seem' to have the right numbers of degrees of freedom. Are you suggesting that spheres would not? Perhaps the concept of spheres is too new to your thinking, and you have not fully explored the possibilities. Or perhaps there is nothing to explore there ... lol.

I agree that things are getting very interesting. It's a very very exciting time to exist!!

You write:I know of no other theory that is finite (requires no renormalisation) and contains a perturbative theory of gravity. I am also no aware of any theory that predicts the number of dimensions of space-time.

I don't either. But the fact remains with all the focus on strings there could be a viable, but as yet unconsidered alternative out there. Again, as far as predicting the number of dimensions, please correct me on my information, but it seems the predictions range from 11 to 26 dimensions. None of which can be shown to exist. But maybe you mean that it predicts the 4 dimensions we are familiar with.

You write:The main problem with string theory, as an unification scheme is the landscape problem, That is the theory has many vacua.

This is not necessarily a fundamental problem. For example general relativity has more that one cosmological solution. The question here remains, why the particular solution for our universe.

String theory suffers this problem, but the number of solutions is massive. However, by itself I would say that it does not completely rule out a stringy-universe.

10^500? Yikes. Massive indeed. It is also true that ST/SST/M-theory CAN provide a 'possible' description of black holes that GR can not. This does not however verify in any way that it is an accurate description, nor does it provide evidence, conclusive or otherwise ...

All that said ... As I have previously stated, the research to date on strings does nothing to falsify my cosmological model. And although it is interesting to debate the validity of strings, it remains to this day a 'hypothetical'. And I stand by my assertion that it certainly does not provide for a stable foundation from which to build your 'skyscraper'.

Also, as a point of clarification ... I speak of Brian Greene frequently, only because he is the 'public face' of ST, but I am not unaware of Michael Green's work.

Perhaps my biggest problems with strings are the manner in which they 'clump' and also the problem I have visualizing 'limp' strings vibrating at all. I do not see a satisfactory mechanism for drawing the strings 'tight'.

Furthermore, the biggest problem I have, as I have stated before, is that there is no mechanism for reversing expansion. It just 'magically' happens in M-theory.

I am reminded of the cartoon where the professor/scientist, in explaining ST to his class, has the top and bottom halves of a chalkboard filled with stupidly complex equations ... and in between the two halves is the word *MAGIC* ...

The very same word used by Witten.

Anyway, I only have done all this as a reasoned rebuttal to your enthusiastic defense of ST/SST/M-theory. I would be very excited if the theory ( even in it's overall failure ) can provide us with a better understanding of the most basic functions of our universe.

But if you are going to dismantle my model ... magic is not an acceptable construct for your argument, no matter how 'promising' it may appear.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ps:

You write:(I do have an acknowledgement in one string theory paper though!)

I forgot to offer my congratulations on this ...

Edited January 4, 2010 by pywakit

michel123456 · January 5, 2010

My point of vue is that ST is very (very) interesting. There are some conceptual problems that make this Theory difficult to spread. But I think those can be managed.

For example, Pykawit is proposing spheres. Don't forget that we are talking about fundamental elements. How could be a fundamental element a sphere, a 3d construction ? There is a contradiction, IMO, what is the sphere made of? Some other, smaller elements? It is a never ending story.

The regular concept consists on finding a fundamental element (particle) that is like a geometrical point without dimension. Result of Democritos concept. String theorists make a step further, introducing fundamental elements of 1d, kind of geometrical segments. Objects that have one dimension in opposition with points that have no dimension. I think this step was inevitable from the moment we accept the concepts of quanta, the Planck length & the Planck time. Because those concepts are simply saying that null distance (a point) is physically meaningless. So that Democritos quest is ending somewhere before reaching a point. The surprising thing is that, instead of diminishing the number of dimensions in order to present only one dimension (a line), ST presents an increasing number of dimensions. That is quite bad. But I think that can be managed too. All the difficulty is in the definition of the word "dimension". All String theorists (not those on the beaches looking with binoculars: those in universities) are supposing that all extra dimensions must be spatial ones. These are the Calabi-Yau manifolds. What is a "dimension" really? I suspect there is a misunderstanding there. In my opinion, of course.

ajb · January 5, 2010

Again, as far as predicting the number of dimensions, please correct me on my information, but it seems the predictions range from 11 to 26 dimensions. None of which can be shown to exist. But maybe you mean that it predicts the 4 dimensions we are familiar with.

Free superstrings require the space-time dimensions to be 10, the free bosonic string 26. Interacting strings have the dimensions as a parameter. However, in most approached to QFT we have asymptotically free fields, so in string theory we would expect to have (at least asymptotically) free string and so a prediction on the number of space-time dimensions.

String theory is the only theory I know that generically makes a prediction of the dimensions. How this relates to the four we seem to observe is not exactly clear. This is to do with compactification or branes or both.

10^500? Yikes. Massive indeed. It is also true that ST/SST/M-theory CAN provide a 'possible' description of black holes that GR can not. This does not however verify in any way that it is an accurate description, nor does it provide evidence, conclusive or otherwise ...

The huge number of vacua is a technical problem, it is far too many to systematically investigate. However, this by itself does not rule out string theory.

One thing that string theory allows you do do what general relativity can not is get an understanding of the microstates associated with black hole entropy. That is a statistical mechanics understanding of the entropy rather than just a thermodynamic one. You can also do this via loop quantum gravity.

Without some direct observation of black holes this is still all very "theoretical".

All that said ... As I have previously stated, the research to date on strings does nothing to falsify my cosmological model. And although it is interesting to debate the validity of strings, it remains to this day a 'hypothetical'. And I stand by my assertion that it certainly does not provide for a stable foundation from which to build your 'skyscraper'.

It is hard to know what to do. As string theory elevates some of the problems with point-particle theories (including gravity) it seem very natural to try to push it as far as possible and consider stringy-cosmology and astrophysics.

Perhaps my biggest problems with strings are the manner in which they 'clump' and also the problem I have visualizing 'limp' strings vibrating at all. I do not see a satisfactory mechanism for drawing the strings 'tight'.

The dynamics of interacting strings is well studied, at least numerically. You would have to do a literature search to find out more. People like Mark Hindmarsh work on dynamics and observations of strings (both fundamental and cosmic) in cosmology.

As for the limp part, the action for a free string is proportional to the tension. A string with no tension would have a vanishing action, i.e. it would be topological and I expect have no propagating degrees of freedom. But don't quote me on that.

Furthermore, the biggest problem I have, as I have stated before, is that there is no mechanism for reversing expansion. It just 'magically' happens in M-theory.

Expansion of what?

Anyway, I only have done all this as a reasoned rebuttal to your enthusiastic defense of ST/SST/M-theory. I would be very excited if the theory ( even in it's overall failure ) can provide us with a better understanding of the most basic functions of our universe.

It would take a lot for me to become completely disinterested in string theory. Again, I am no string theorist but some developments in (closed and open) string field theory, Lie 2-algebras and 2-plectic geometry and the Bagger–Lambert–Gustavsson very much interest me. All represent leaving Lie theory and entering something a bit more general.

I forgot to offer my congratulations on this ...

Not at all. All I did was point out a few basic properties of elliptical operators they needed. Not even sure I should get a mention really. But I was still pleased at the time.

pywakit · January 6, 2010

I am sure that most of you understood the meaning of my statement "In science there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth." But just in case there are a few who did not ...

I was not only referring to the numbers of scientists on board with a particular belief, hypothesis, or theory ... but the numbers themselves. The math.

I don't want to offend anyone ( of course ) but it is inevitable, so allow me to apologize ahead of time.

Let's start with two hypotheses.

Hypothesis A. The universe ( space ... finite, or infinite ) began with us.

Hypothesis B. The universe ( space ... finite, or infinite ) existed before us.

Man has assumed Hypothesis A ( generally speaking ) since he first contemplated the universe. This led us to the belief in God, and other religions ... all which reinforced our belief that we were put here for some 'reason' and that we were 'special' in the universe. We have exhausted every possible avenue ( at least to this date ) in the attempt to 'prove' this hypothesis, and have failed. This does not preclude the possibility, but certainly there is no evidence to support this.

So let's try Hypothesis B. Now we assume the universe has existed before, and ( perhaps ) by extension eternally. In either hypothesis, Man has evolved/devised a set of constructs in which to explain the processes of the physical universe we currently reside in.

Math is the most successful logical construct we have come up with. And there is no question it is a beautifully expressive ( albeit one-dimensional ) way to describe the three physical dimensions of space, matter, and energy. But we now know that it has serious limitations.

The reality is ... math provides answers that are in direct conflict with known observations. If there was no conflict, math would easily explain all the processes/phenomena we have observed. In short, to put this another way, the universe didn't care what methods we use(d) to describe it before we came along ... and it doesn't care now. The universe has shown it has physical properties that will not conform to our wishes.

It won't allow matter to get infinitely big, and it won't allow matter to get infinitely small. I can say this with near certainty, because if it DID allow infinitely small, we would all ( eventually ) be stuck in a black hole along with the rest of the infinite ... or for that matter 'finite' universe. It would truly require a 'magic act' or the intervention of some 'higher power' to prevent this from happening. The other point is ... NONE of the existing models ( bounce, crunch, standard ) could function ... and there would never have been a 'big bang' or any variation thereof.

ST/SST/M-Theory were 'invented' as an attempt to reconcile the known observations and standard math. To bridge the gap between 'impossible' mathematical answers, and what our eyes were/are telling us. On it's face, reducing our universe down to one-dimensional processes seems a logical step to take. But I think the universe is not going to go along with us on this one. It clearly has 'properties'. It clearly has 'limits'. And I think we need to accept this as a 'working model' until proven otherwise.

Michel sees a 'contradiction' in my little spheres. What purpose could it serve to consider three-dimensional spheres when one-dimensional 'strings' are so much closer to 'infinitely small'? Well, my answer would be ... there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects in a three-dimensional universe. They are purely mathematical constructs. And they are butting up against reality. So 'stringers' are left trying to quantify 'metaphysics' mathematically. If infinitely small can not exist in this universe, then we are 'stuck' with a limit. Things can only get so small. And my spheres 'could' be as small as anything can get. There 'could' be no further reduction in size. And whether they are pure bundled energy, or a form of actual matter, they are going to have three physical dimensions. "ZERO POINT" is a mathematical construct. It IS an infinitely small point. And it does not appear to be real.

ajb writes:

String theory is the only theory I know that generically makes a prediction of the dimensions. How this relates to the four we seem to observe is not exactly clear. This is to do with compactification or branes or both.

Both are mathematical constructs divorced from any observation made to date. ( to my knowledge )

ajb writes:

The huge number of vacua is a technical problem, it is far too many to systematically investigate. However, this by itself does not rule out string theory.

One thing that string theory allows you do do what general relativity can not is get an understanding of the microstates associated with black hole entropy. That is a statistical mechanics understanding of the entropy rather than just a thermodynamic one. You can also do this via loop quantum gravity.

Without some direct observation of black holes this is still all very "theoretical".

I would classify this as very 'hypothetical'. Not theoretical.

ajb writes:

It is hard to know what to do. As string theory elevates some of the problems with point-particle theories (including gravity) it seem very natural to try to push it as far as possible and consider stringy-cosmology and astrophysics.

Yes. I am in agreement. It needs to be explored further.

ajb writes:

Expansion of what?

Space. More specifically ... our visible/local/finite universe.

ajb writes:

It would take a lot for me to become completely disinterested in string theory. Again, I am no string theorist but some developments in (closed and open) string field theory, Lie 2-algebras and 2-plectic geometry and the Bagger–Lambert–Gustavsson very much interest me. All represent leaving Lie theory and entering something a bit more general.

I would never suggest you lose interest. There is still much to learn in this 'field' of inquiry. I think the results will ultimately prove the 26 plus or minus dimensions existed soley within the confines of mathematics, but we will still learn a great deal along the way.

What my model does is just take our known observations, known physical properties of space, our experiments, our understanding of chemistry, EM, and the rest ... and puts them all together in one tidy little package. As I have said before ... mathematical probability/certainty does not equal 'actually existing' in our known universe. We know this to be true, for if it were not ... if the universe did not operate under strict laws, we would have seen SOME evidence of this in it's ( our visible/local universe ) 13.7 billion year history.

Once again, I am sorry if I appear to be trampling on anyone's beliefs, or understandings.

And just to be clear here ... my model does not rely on my 'spheres' any more than it relies on strings. To repeat, I only offered them up as a reasonable alternative to 'magic', since they would operate just fine ( I think ) in the three-dimensional universe we occupy ...

Edited January 6, 2010 by pywakit

ajb · January 6, 2010

I think one thing that must be made clear is that a physical theory is a mathematical model and that I would not worry about any conceptional difficulties of an infinitly thin classical string or infinitly small classical point-particle. Neither are directly observable in the theory so we are ok.

I think you will admit how profound mathematics has been in understanding nature and in particular the physical sciences. This is truly wonderful and gives me great confidence that one should not be afraid to follow the mathematics. However, one must also not get lost in endless generalities nor lose site of (at least attempting to) make contact with the natural world.

I think I would agree that theoretical physics can seem to lose sight of this contact. Part of theoretical physic is to understand the mechanisms needed, so toy models and idealisations are key.

(What I am interested in is even further from "physics" that this. I work on "general methods and constructions", particularly form a geometric angle .)

Buy a sphere do you mean a ball [math]B_{3}[/math] or a sphere [math]S^{2}[/math] which is the boundary of the three-ball. It could be interesting to find out what has been studied about the classical and quantum theory of such objects (as embeddings in a larger space-time ).

I think it would get tough very quickly.

Anyway, push your ideas until they succeed or fail. You will learn a lot even if it just falls apart.

michel123456 · January 6, 2010

Michel sees a 'contradiction' in my little spheres. What purpose could it serve to consider three-dimensional spheres when one-dimensional 'strings' are so much closer to 'infinitely small'? Well, my answer would be ... there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects in a three-dimensional universe. They are purely mathematical constructs.

QUOTE]

Yes, you are probably right. I was probably wrong. But I realized it after writing my post. Except for the point that we are not living in 3D universe, we are living in 4D universe. You forgot Time.

And when you say "there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects(...)" what would you say for zero-dimensionnal object (a point)?

liarliarpof · January 6, 2010

ajb, Thank you for for the explicit reference to perturbations. I am ST agnostic. Just wanted to quote 'Astronomy magazine' ed., David J. Eicher, from the recent COLLECTOR'S EDITION titled 'COSMOLOGY'S GREATEST DISCOVERIES'. The following is excerpted from the 'Editor's page': "...NASA astronomer Sten Odenwald poses the question "What if string theory is wrong?"(p.78), in which he outlines the widespread role the hypothesis plays in explaining how matter behaves. We need to remind ourselves that string theory is as yet an idea!"

pywakit · January 6, 2010

Michel sees a 'contradiction' in my little spheres. What purpose could it serve to consider three-dimensional spheres when one-dimensional 'strings' are so much closer to 'infinitely small'? Well' date=' my answer would be ... there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects in a three-dimensional universe. They are purely mathematical constructs.

QUOTE']

Yes, you are probably right. I was probably wrong. But I realized it after writing my post. Except for the point that we are not living in 3D universe, we are living in 4D universe. You forgot Time.

And when you say "there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects(...)" what would you say for zero-dimensionnal object (a point)?

No Michel. Lol. I didn't forget 'time'. Our universe's physical objects have three PHYSICAL dimensions. I have never thought of time as a PHYSICAL object. But of course it is a 'dimension' ... or parameter ... as in space/time. I assumed you all knew what I meant. My apology for not being clear.

Back later ....

Sign In

Cosmological Model of The Universe

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mr Skeptic

pywakit

michel123456

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Important Information