View Full Version : Model for a cyclic universe.
Matt Todd
Jan3-12, 08:37 PM
To begin, and beleive me, it will become apparent, I have no training or education in this field. I do however find it fascinating.
Can someone with a greater understanding please tell me if my ideas are laughable or feasable? Has anybody else proposed these ideas?
Okay, so.....
Beggining - Big Bang
Electrons and protons form H2. H2 gravity and time produce stars.
Large stars go super nova, creating heavy elements. Massive stars go hyper-nova creating black holes.
Planets and moons acrete, stabilize orbits, and become solar systems.
Stars form orbits around super massive black holes, creating galaxies.
A super massive black hole attempts to merge with it's anti-matter equivalent, reducing mass and gravity instantly and dramatically, producing massive energy.
- Big Bang
twofish-quant
Jan3-12, 11:51 PM
Electrons and protons form H2. H2 gravity and time produce stars.
Large stars go super nova, creating heavy elements. Massive stars go hyper-nova creating black holes.
Planets and moons acrete, stabilize orbits, and become solar systems.
Stars form orbits around super massive black holes, creating galaxies.
All this isn't implausible. We really don't know how galaxies form, although current thinking is that it's top down with the super massive black hole probably forming before stars.
A super massive black hole attempts to merge with it's anti-matter equivalent, reducing mass and gravity instantly and dramatically, producing massive energy.
Black holes aren't matter or anti-matter. If you merge two black holes, you'll get a bigger black hole. Also mass and gravity doesn't get reduced.
Matt Todd
Jan4-12, 12:09 AM
Thanks for your reply. I need to study some of the learning materials on this site, and get my head around basic physics. My reasoning was basicaly that if a black hole is created by the massive pressure of a star compressing it's collapsed core to a point where it's gravity prevents light from escaping, wouldn't there exist a compressed core of matter? Could there be entire stars made from anti-matter in which the same thing could happen? I'm sure these are very ignorant questions, and I fully intend to study up on the subject. Thanks for your patience and your input, and happy new year.
A super massive black hole attempts to merge with it's anti-matter equivalent, reducing mass and gravity instantly and dramatically, producing massive energy.
- Big Bang
In my understanding indeed black holes and big bang are very much related.
twofish-quant
Jan4-12, 12:12 AM
My reasoning was basicaly that if a black hole is created by the massive pressure of a star compressing it's collapsed core to a point where it's gravity prevents light from escaping, wouldn't there exist a compressed core of matter?
There's a singularity.
Could there be entire stars made from anti-matter in which the same thing could happen?
There are strong observational limits on how much antimatter there can be. Basically if you have a mix of matter/anti-matter you'll see radiation were they mix, and we don't.
Also the big bang isn't an explosion, and the energy that you get blowing up stars is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Also the big bang isn't an explosion, and the energy that you get blowing up stars is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
How would you define an explosion ?
I know super massive black holes.
Let's assume there are even larger, gigantic black holes.
What would be the energy released of such a black hole (if it could/woud explode) compared to the energy/mass of our universe ?
Matt Todd
Jan4-12, 12:28 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. My thinking wasn't so much the explosions of the stars themselves, but more a guess at the possibility that a super massive black hole could have some sort of nucleus, that if there was an opposite version of that nucleus, there would be a vast cancelling out of mass, production of energy, and a vast, almost instant reduction in gravity.
twofish-quant
Jan4-12, 12:38 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. My thinking wasn't so much the explosions of the stars themselves, but more a guess at the possibility that a super massive black hole could have some sort of nucleus, that if there was an opposite version of that nucleus, there would be a vast cancelling out of mass, production of energy, and a vast, almost instant reduction in gravity.
One thing that will help is to put numbers to things. If you think about say an ant trying to push a car, you know that won't work because you have a "feel" for how big a car is and how much force an ant can generate.
It helps to do the same sort of calculation in astrophysics. If you can get a "feel" for how much energy a star puts out, how big a star is, you quickly figure out that stars are tiny in comparison to the universe.
Something that helps is to take an intro astronomy course and every time someone mentions a number, you draw it on a graph, so you get a sense of how big/small, heavy/light things are. Also the movie 'powers of ten" is good for this sort of thing.
Matt Todd
Jan4-12, 12:40 AM
Duly noted. Thanks for your suggestions.
How would you define an explosion ?
The key difference between the big bang and an explosion is that an explosion happens in one place and the BB didn't.
The key difference between the big bang and an explosion is that an explosion happens in one place and the BB didn't.
If you trace back impulse of all mass, where would this end up you think ?
I don't know. Is the implication of your question that you think the BB was a point event?
EDIT: "I don't know" => the singularity => I don't know
I don't know. Is the implication of your question that you think the BB was a point event?
EDIT: "I don't know" => the singularity => I don't know
It doesn't need to be an infinite small point, per se.
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 06:36 AM
If you trace back impulse of all mass, where would this end up you think ?
This mass would be everywhere, because if you trace geometric expansion backwards you just get a more dense Universe. Now if you trace back all mass from the OU it all ends up right here on Earth, however you are asking for all mass in the entire U.
As BB expansion occurs at all points, fits in with isotropy and allows for almost exact uniformity then the answer has to be that if you trace back ALL mass, eventually it was eveywhere (as everywhere was more condensed then.)
Hope this helps and its an interesting topic.
If you would geometrically trace back all current motion vectors, it for sure must up in a point in our current space ?
If you would geometrically trace back all current motion vectors, it for sure must up in a point in our current space ?
nope ... you are assuming a point origin of the singularity and all evidence is that that is not the case ... it happened everywhere at once and has no center that you could project back to.
This is cosmology 101 and is addressed on this forum with GREAT frequency.
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 07:42 AM
If you would geometrically trace back all current motion vectors, it for sure must up in a point in our current space ?
If you could do this for the Observable Universe, or the parts of the Universe we are causally connected with then the centre would be the Milky Way - this is the center of the Observable.
The Universe as a whole is isotropic, isotropy precludes centers and edges, centers/edges would invalidate isotropy which we know is not the case as we can see uniformity in the CMB.
As i stated, if you trace back ALL motion vectors, not just those in the Observable Universe, you would merely end up with a more dense Universe, there is no place in space you can point to and say the BB started there (After planck time), because "there" didnt really exist. You are trying to "place" a global geometric expansion into a pre-existing background prior to current physical laws and metrics.
To clarify, you can point to any place in the Universe and say that the Big Bang began there and you will be correct - the Big Bang Banged everywhere at once.
I hope this helps
nope ... you are assuming a point origin of the singularity and all evidence is that that is not the case ... it happened everywhere at once and has no center that you could project back to.
This is cosmology 101 and is addressed on this forum with GREAT frequency.
Let's assume I write a big bang simulator in software, and I use plain euclidiean 3D + time space. If I'm given all current motion vectors and trace them back where would I end up in this simple universe ?
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 07:50 AM
Let's assume I write a big bang simulator in software, and I use plain euclidiean 3D + time space. If I'm given all current motion vectors and trace them back where would I end up in this simple universe ?
If you are using flat euclid space you end up with an open and flat cosmology. Therefore the mass in the U is infiite, with infinite motion vectors accordingly. If you take an infinite amount of mass/space that has expanded, and you trace it back, then you would end up with an infinite (just more dense) Universe at or near to the point of the BB.
Either finite or infinite models DO NOT allow for any center/edges within their topology, while the balloon analogy has its limitations it seems quite relevant here.
If you are using flat euclid space you end up with an open and flat cosmology. Therefore the mass in the U is infiite, with infinite motion vectors accordingly. If you take an infinite amount of mass/space that has expanded, and you trace it back, then you would end up with an infinite (just more dense) Universe at or near to the point of the BB.
Either finite or infinite models DO NOT allow for any center/edges within their topology, while the balloon analogy has its limitations it seems quite relevant here.
please don't say point ... you KNOW what confusion this causes
please don't say point ... you KNOW what confusion this causes
My (dangerously speculative) point still is that the big bang could be an exploded black hole, and those are very well located in space/time.
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 08:21 AM
please don't say point ... you KNOW what confusion this causes
Haha good point!
To clarify for the OP when I say "point" i refer to an instance of spacetime temporally near to the Big Bang - as close as we can get with currently understood physics. Not to a compressed point in spacetime.
My (dangerously speculative) point still is that the big bang could be an exploded black hole, and those are very well located in space/time.
This is NOT just speculative, it is nonsensical.
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 08:30 AM
My (dangerously speculative) point still is that the big bang could be an exploded black hole, and those are very well located in space/time.
Well for this you would require a background medium that existed prior to the Universe.
Please see the following link to help clear up your current confusion:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506992
You would need to invent new laws of physics for a black hole to explode - there are no known mechanisms for this, except a white hole which is merely a time reversal of a black hole and has never been observed in nature.
You would need to invent new laws of physics for a black hole to explode - there are no known mechanisms for this, except a white hole which is merely a time reversal of a black hole and has never been observed in nature.
Well, a white dwarf can go supernova if you feed it enough, if you feed a black hole enough it might go big bang
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 08:50 AM
Well, a white dwarf can go supernova if you feed it enough, if you feed a black hole enough it might go big bang
A star goes nova because eventually its fuel is consumed and if it is massive enough. I wont go into too much detail but there are a number of mechanisms that occur inside a Star prior to it going Nova which are understood. (And some less so)
Black Holes have no measurable pressure, Black Holes can be measured through Spin, Mass and Angular Momentum.
You can't just say it "might go big bang" without referencing any material or proposing any new ideas.
You can't just say it "might go big bang" without referencing any material or proposing any new ideas.
The idea is that black holes are made up of sub atomic particles, and during an explosion (after a critical mass has been reached) those are reduced into sub sub atomic particles, releasing massive amounts of energy in the process, see other related thread.
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 09:03 AM
The idea is that black holes are made up of sub atomic particles, and during an explosion (after a critical mass has been reached) those are reduced into sub sub atomic particles, releasing massive amounts of energy in the process, see other related thread.
The problem is we dont know what Black Holes are made of. We can see what goes in, but after that its all guesswork. I do not know what sub sub atomic particles are. I think you are grasping at straws and you are looking for evidence for an idea you have.
Science is done the opposite way, you see the evidence and fit the solution. Not try to find a solution and fit the evidence.
I think you may be wasting yours/other posters time with this.
Matt Todd
Jan4-12, 09:05 AM
So the BB bang singularity happened everywhere, and black hole singularities are localized within the black holes. Originally the two singularities smacked of something cyclic to me, but it's becoming apparent that it isn't so.
If the cosmic background noise we see is evidence if the first atoms being produced, wouldn't it make events leading up to that difficult to interpret? Did the early universe defy the laws of physics in some way?
Science is done the opposite way, you see the evidence and fit the solution. Not try to find a solution and fit the evidence.
Science can be analysis, synthesis, engineering, reverse engineering. I'm qualified and experienced in all of this. I'm just trying to find a solution for an unsolved problem. If you have a better model, please tell.
The problem is we dont know what Black Holes are made of. We can see what goes in, but after that its all guesswork. I do not know what sub sub atomic particles are. I think you are grasping at straws and you are looking for evidence for an idea you have.
Science is done the opposite way, you see the evidence and fit the solution. Not try to find a solution and fit the evidence.I think you may be wasting yours/other posters time with this.
Yep, I think so too.
So the BB bang singularity happened everywhere, and black hole singularities are localized within the black holes. Originally the two singularities smacked of something cyclic to me, but it's becoming apparent that it isn't so.
If the cosmic background noise we see is evidence if the first atoms being produced, wouldn't it make events leading up to that difficult to interpret? Did the early universe defy the laws of physics in some way?
You might find it interesting to read "The First Three Minutes" by Weinberg.
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 09:41 AM
Science can be analysis, synthesis, engineering, reverse engineering. I'm qualified and experienced in all of this. I'm just trying to find a solution for an unsolved problem. If you have a better model, please tell.
I do not have an alternative model as I am not trying to promote/argue a particular point of view that differes from the accepted. The burden of proof here is on you, what is the problem you are trying to find a solution for?
I'll just get back to on thread topic.
Simply search Wikipedia for 'cyclic model'
Calimero
Jan4-12, 10:26 AM
If you would geometrically trace back all current motion vectors, it for sure must up in a point in our current space ?
Sure, right there in the tip of the pencil you are using to draw those vectors. But that is also true for any other point in space, it is purely coordinate choise. Any point in space can be equally considered as center of universe.
Sure, right there in the tip of the pencil you are using to draw those vectors. But that is also true for any other point in space, it is purely coordinate choise. Any point in space can be equally considered as center of universe.
I mean more like trace back averages, ok this might sound confusing, let me explain.
If you have a molecular explosion like dynamite, molecules undergo turbulent motion paths. If you would take a snapshot 1 second after the explosion, and another one a little bit later to calculate the motion vectors of all molecules, wouldn't it be possible to identify the point of explosion with this information ?
Calimero
Jan4-12, 12:54 PM
I mean more like trace back averages, ok this might sound confusing, let me explain.
If you have a molecular explosion like dynamite, molecules undergo turbulent motion paths. If you would take a snapshot 1 second after the explosion, and another one a little bit later to calculate the motion vectors of all molecules, wouldn't it be possible to identify the point of explosion with this information ?
Exactly. Now take snapshot of the universe from Earth (you only need one because you can deduce velocity from the redshift). You will find out that all velocity vectors are pointing away from Earth, so you will conclude that Earth is the center of expansion. Now go at any distance you like, take snapshot again, and you will find out that your new place also looks like center of expansion. This is where balloon analogy comes to the rescue. Search these forums, there is plenty explanation about it.
I mean more like trace back averages, ok this might sound confusing, let me explain.
If you have a molecular explosion like dynamite, molecules undergo turbulent motion paths. If you would take a snapshot 1 second after the explosion, and another one a little bit later to calculate the motion vectors of all molecules, wouldn't it be possible to identify the point of explosion with this information ?
You REALLY need to drop this belief that the "big bang" was an explosion, because that mistaken belief causes just the kind of confusion you now find yourself in.
You REALLY need to drop this belief that the "big bang" was an explosion, because that mistaken belief causes just the kind of confusion you now find yourself in.
Please don't get angry, I more like the reasoning of Calimero.
Exactly. Now take snapshot of the universe from Earth (you only need one because you can deduce velocity from the redshift). You will find out that all velocity vectors are pointing away from Earth, so you will conclude that Earth is the center of expansion. Now go at any distance you like, take snapshot again, and you will find out that your new place also looks like center of expansion. This is where balloon analogy comes to the rescue. Search these forums, there is plenty explanation about it.
I know I annoy some people here, so you please just ignore my posts.
Calimero, there is one subtle difference because my 'dynamite' snapshots are taken from a point of view outside of the explosion. Your snapshots are taken from a 'molecule' which is part of the explosion.
bapowell
Jan4-12, 03:12 PM
Well, a white dwarf can go supernova if you feed it enough, if you feed a black hole enough it might go big bang
Do you have any idea why a white dwarf explodes when it acquires too much mass? I'm guessing no, or else you'd realize that the mechanism at play here is not relevant -- at all -- to a black hole. In other words, it's not that a black hole "might" explode. It won't. One way to find this out is to learn about them. Unless you take the time to actually learn some astrophysics and cosmology, you are wasting your time as well as ours.
I know I annoy some people here, so you please just ignore my posts.
Calimero, there is one subtle difference because my 'dynamite' snapshots are taken from a point of view outside of the explosion. Your snapshots are taken from a 'molecule' which is part of the explosion.
The problem is that those of who are here to learn physics and to help others learn physics DO get frustrated by someone who persists in refusing to acknowledge reality and persists in espousing a point of view that is demonstrably false.
Calimero took the point of view of being inside the universe because there IS no other point of view. There is NO "outside" to the universe. It does not have a center. It does not have an edge. It did not start at any one place. Again, this is cosmology 101.
If you want to learn more, I recommend:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Cosmo Novice
Jan4-12, 04:46 PM
Calimero, there is one subtle difference because my 'dynamite' snapshots are taken from a point of view outside of the explosion. Your snapshots are taken from a 'molecule' which is part of the explosion.
Thats preciesly the point. There is no outside viewpoint for the Universe, not only that but most likely if not exactly euclidean flat and infinite then some sort of higher-n manifold like an n-sphere, with no real middle or edge - completely isotropic, the same as a flat universe.
Matt Todd
Jan4-12, 05:34 PM
Well for this you would require a background medium that existed prior to the Universe.
Please see the following link to help clear up your current confusion:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506992
You would need to invent new laws of physics for a black hole to explode - there are no known mechanisms for this, except a white hole which is merely a time reversal of a black hole and has never been observed in nature.
This is along the lines of what I was thinking, although I'm not comfortable with existing laws of physics, and my maths is poor. My imagination alone isn't going to make this happen, haha. I was thinking that a black hole singularity could be a lot like a neutron star except compressed beyond our understanding of it's limits. If in some way a black hole could have some sort of polar or charged nucleus instead of a singularity, and it merged with an opposite in some way, would it not disrupt and possibly eliminate both black holes resulting in energy?
Cosmo Novice
Jan5-12, 03:07 AM
This is along the lines of what I was thinking, although I'm not comfortable with existing laws of physics, and my maths is poor. My imagination alone isn't going to make this happen, haha. I was thinking that a black hole singularity could be a lot like a neutron star except compressed beyond our understanding of it's limits. If in some way a black hole could have some sort of polar or charged nucleus instead of a singularity, and it merged with an opposite in some way, would it not disrupt and possibly eliminate both black holes resulting in energy?
Black holes only have measurable spin, mass and angular momentum, they have no measurable charge.
We can speculate on anything past the event horizon - common opinion in the field is that the singularity is not likely to exist (A point of infinite density.) more likely our mathematics is flawed and we need a QG modification to GR to remove the mathematical artifact of the singularity.
If two black holes merge you end up with a single black hole of more mass.
Matt Todd
Jan6-12, 11:21 PM
Thank you everyone for helping me attempt to get my head around this.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.