Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cavitation-does it relate to the Big Bang?

  1. Nov 24, 2008 #1
    While I am not a scientist, I am working with the application of cavitation onto biomass as a co-catalyst for its rapid dissolving into sugars, which we expect to see catalyzed directly to biodiesel and biogasoline...beyond the ethanol paradigm and its Donner Trail. We utiilze all of the biomass carbohydrates (80% of the biomass by dry weight), as well as other components in the total refining of the "barrel of biomass" into fuel within minutes, not days.

    Working with this phenomenon of cavitation in an applied way, and knowing of its interestins effects of light release within the first stage of cavitation, the bubble expansion out of water..aka sonoluminesence in one induction method, it occurs to me how similar it is in those bubbles to the vacuum bubble of our universe. In each we have light coming seemingly from nowhere at its origins..many theories, but perhaps no consensus to date on the pre-zero nature of the universe...whereas in the cavitation bubble, we know that a force was applied from outside upon water to achieve the effect, either with the special machine I use, or by those applying modulated sound frequency into water to cause its boiling.

    I can't crunch numbers to compare the universe's beginning to a cavitational bubble, but they are similar in many ways with their vacuum interior, their light sources surrounded by cold space and their mystery. While science can identify what is generating the energy of the sun, it is not so clear that pre-zero energy has been identified. Could it be that something analgous to water preceded the universe as we know it, and that some force acted upon that universal water analogue...dark energy perhaps at high frequency, providing for a drawing back rather than the "big explosion" from a dimensionless dot of the "big bang"?

    There are not many recognizable things around us that compare to the first moment of the universe which are closer than a cavitation bubble. In the pre-zero-ness, could some energy, dark energy, have acted upon some form of matter which we really do not understand yet which in a relative way is as water in our measurable universe...dark matter, that resulted in a sucking action which became our universe driven by a burst of energy? It fits with the way nature works around us, the cavitation, or at least the first stage of cavitation (it being "basically" a two stage event of expansion with a release of light, and "they" say, 5000 degrees heat..with some saying higher, for..is it a pico-second?) being the formation of a vessel, then a second stage in which the bubble collapses and...interestingly...a release of an energy wave at the speed of a tsunami traveling through the ocean. BTW..those two stages, deftly delivered, gives economic support for biomass hydroysis.

    Oscillating universe..shock waves upon its collapse...generation of a field out of dark matter? .....perhaps becoming the very energy for its next round of expansion.

    The fascinating tendency for everything to evolve, from a human perspective, would seem to indicate that within the expanding bubble there is some code that tells rocks to want to become people, and beyond. But humans, however far they get before something collides or a supervolcano has its way..are but parasites of the sun.

    Cavitation is really cool.

    My apologies for not talking in physics speak, but I hope that the ideas aren't "anti physics"...except in a constructively negative, cavitating way.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 2, 2008 #2

    Science looks to the first “moment” of the universe and tries to find the mathematical point that preceded the “big bang”. It is reasonable to assume that science might fail when it comes to 0-. Throughout, we find mathematical representations of the spiral force in galaxies, math, music, architecture, etc. When the big telescopes look to the edge of the Universe, it sees black, darkness, dark. Can it be known that the Universe of our science is the Universal Universe? Do we know that there is no end to the size of “our” Universe in terms of science, that the last star in our Universe is simply the last star, but the Universe system does not end in size?

    Is it impossible that the matter between the stars does not continue as matter indefinitely? Is it even possible, based upon our science, that there is a different matter at some point beyond any star that is either different entirely than our matter of space, or our space is a derivative or distilled value of an unknown matter for which we do not have math? Simply, is it impossible that there is an edge to our Universe that at least by analogy, is the edge of a bubble that exists within a different kind of matter? We look for that powerful dimensionless dot of the Big Bang to contain all the energy, to drive the expansion of our Universe, without having the advantage of any real data to define its “source” (although there must be those who think they have some numbers that work). But we know for the reaction that is the Universe, there had to be an action-input of energy. But does that mean what is in effect an “explosion” driving the expansion is the key?

    The bubble of the first stage of cavitation is not driven from within by someone setting off a firecracker, but rather from forces without the bubble- a force within the water-matter. It expands and it does remarkable things. It gives off heat, and it gives off light, from within. A star has its energy generating system, but somewhere along the line fellows have figured that the extraordinary type of energy in the Big Bang went through permutations that resulted in us walking around powered by sunlight. But was that a burst of energy somewhere in a physical point in the universe, or did stars evolve everywhere in many cases, out of some core material which is the Universe as we “know” it? Does the light of cavitation bubbles come from a single point in the bubble, or does it come from major or all parts of the bubble?

    Intuitively, it seems tough to crunch the math on 0- time. But if a force, say, Dark Energy was there before 0, and Dark Matter was “everywhere” before 0, and if Dark Energy acted upon Dark Matter in a way that is analogous to cavitation of water, it seems the math might be easier than explaining a Big Bang shot of energy into…..what??......and in one dimensionless dot, or everywhere?? Maybe it is all based upon something being pulled apart into a bubble analog, rather than something equally unknown being blown apart.

    What's it all about, Alpha?

    Earnest Stuart
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2008
  4. Dec 4, 2008 #3
    http://www.ourundiscovereduniverse.com/ouu_ideas.php My apologies to Terence Witt in advance!

    Terence Witt's null universe theory contemplates a zero balance for the whole enchilada, which makes a lot of sense. The Big Cavitation Bubble theory fits comfortably with Terence's theory in that all that happened is a reaction occurred without a center point of explosion or without any explosion at all, but one in which a fundamental element trades its nature and energy for another state that creates a space in which other reactions can or are "forced" to occur. The problem being that Mr. Witt's Universe as we "know" it now, always was and never "became" or exploded into being, whereas the Cavitation Bubble Universe, while perhaps lacking friction in the first shift, or friction being progressively developed from the shift...requires Will....or oscillation. And Will is equal to the need to believe that the Big Bang occurred as the appearance from nowhere without explanation from a dimensionless dot into our detectable universe that we can live in, are both therefore belief/religions, and are therefore invalid.

    Now, if the Universe is indeed expanding (and recently they found some strange energies traversing the universe in patterns which cannot be explained), and has expanded from a dimensionless dot, then the bubble would have to be collapsing, but not disappearing before it turns around and expands again..something Mr. Witt would not approve of I suspect, possibly with justification. But it avoids metaphysical explanations if the universe is an oscillating bubble that never actually totally disappears and then reasonably stays at zero balance as Mr. Witt theorizes.

    Big Bang, Oscillating Cavitation Bubbles, or Zero balance doesn't cover Why. The only thing we can observe on Why is that there appears to be an evolutionary element to life as we know it, even though Entropy always wins.

    onward through the fog!
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2008
  5. Dec 4, 2008 #4
    Mr. Witt's Universe certainly sticks with the 1st Law of thermo, and does not pretend that there "has" to have been an outside source. Thinking in terms of outside sourcing of energy for the whole enchilada breaks the rule and smacks of metaphysics, even if it is a scientist pushing the slide rule or Nature beyond Its boundaries. That there would be a big valve to keep the whole of energy pumped into the Universe to a certain level seems pretty far out.
  6. Dec 9, 2008 #5
    If the universe is some sort of cavitation bubble, then how do internal structures emerge?
  7. Dec 10, 2008 #6
    See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist:

    Also see my review at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html
    The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
    Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
    Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
    A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
    Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
    Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.

    Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  8. Dec 10, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the dose of crackpottery has crossed the level allowed at PF :smile:

    We close this thread...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook