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

New Theory of Universe Creation

  1. Nov 18, 2003 #1
    I'd like someone to poke some holes in this theory so that I can see what I might have missed in my mind.

    First this assumes a few things:
    A.) That dark energy, exotic matter, or some other form of anti-gravity exists
    B.) That the combined anti-gravity pull of all the anti-gravity in the universe is stronger than the combined gravitational pull of all the matter in the universe.
    C.) That four dimensional gravatational forces can get around the second law of thermodynamics
    D.) That gluons are weaker than the combined anti-gravitational pull of all the dark energy in the universe

    What I think is that this universe was not the first. In fact there could possibly be an infinite amount of universes before ours. To start out eliminate the notion of time as the fourth dimension. I don't think it is an actual dimension but if it is then it is not the fourth, at least in accordance to this theory. For the fourth dimension it is another dimension of space. So now the universe is a giant hypersphere. With this theory we will not start with the beginning but the middle. Imagine a hypothetical universe exactly like ours. Eventually the black holes will attract all the matter in the universe to there cores. Here is the big difference in my theory from others. I think that the cores of the black holes will eventually attract each other and from a universal core. Keep in mind that this would not happen all at once but at different intervals whenever a black hole accumulated enough gravatational force to attract another or join the core. So soon the matter in the core would have a great enough gravatational pull that it might possibly pull in the fabric of three dimensional spacetime (this is a part that I do not know about exactly). As the universe gets smaller the dark energy will get closer to the universal core. Finally when the dark energy reaches the core the combined strength of the anti-gravity is strong enough to send the matter out at great speeds and tear it apart into a quark soup (much like our theory of the big bang). Eventually the quarks would recombine into matter and the process would start all over.

    I have been playing with this for about three years. About from when I was eleven to now when I'm fourteen.

    Any thoughts about this would be appreciated.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 19, 2003 #2
    Anything?
     
  4. Nov 20, 2003 #3
    Can you people find nothing wrong with this?
     
  5. Nov 20, 2003 #4

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your quoted statment is odd.

    Gluons are responsible for holding hadrons together. This force is the strongest at very short distances (inside nuclei), but are essentially nonexistent outside, affecting quarks only. At this level gravity is many many orders of magnitude weaker.
    On the other hand on cosmological scales gravity and anti-gravity (I presume you mean the force which is speeding up the universe expansion) dominate. Electromagnitic force is important, and the nuclear forces can be ignored.
     
  6. Nov 21, 2003 #5

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A) and B) are believed to be correct as we observe the universe expanding at an acclerated rate.

    C) is incorrect, nothing gets around the second laws of thermodynamics, infact in the secnario you describe where matter undergoes graviational collapse to form black holes which then coalesce to form larger black holes follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics involve as both graviational collapse and balck holes coalescing represents a very defibte increase in entropy.

    D) see mathman's post.

    In order for the universe to have a spherical geometry there is simply no need for a fourth spatial dimension (time is not a spatial dimension it is a dimension of space-time.
     
  7. Nov 21, 2003 #6
    A.) I didn't say time was a spatial dimension just a dimension.

    B.) The black holes are only sort of coalescing. Black holes are 4 dimensional holes that draw stuff in. The matter inside the black holes is the stuff attracting, not the event horizons.

    C.) Sorry Mathman I read somewhere that gluons held quarks together. I guess that the source I was reading was wrong.

    D.) We don't know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is absolute in 4 dimensions but I do see your point. Also I don't think it matters since the factors are the same each universal collapse

    E.) jcsd in my first post I ment to say hyper-sphereical universe. Sorry.

    Exotic material, Dark energy,... whatever has more uses than just expanding the universe. It also keeps black holes from collapsing.
     
  8. Nov 21, 2003 #7

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A) the problem is though if you don't specify as dimension in the general sense just means a measurable quantity or a degree of freedom.

    B) colaesce means that they 'join together', a black holes enrtopy is directly proportional to the surface of it's event horizon, so when two black holes join the new black hole must always have an event horizon whose surface is greater in size than the combined surfaces of the two balck holes before it (this would naturally be a result anyway if all the mass of both both black holes combined to form a new black hole, but some of the mass will be lost as gravitaional waves).

    C) Gluons do bind quarks together to form hadrons.

    D) I can see absolutely no reason for the 2nd law of thermodynamics not to hold in 4 dimesnions (also where are you getting this extra dimension from, it's clear that we ony see 3 spatial dimensions).

    E) what I meant by spherical geometry is the geometry of a space that is the surface of a hypersphere, yo only need 3 dimensions to describe this geometry.
     
  9. Nov 22, 2003 #8
    A.) yes I know that we only see the 3 dimensions but I am imagining the Black holes going into the center of the hyper-sphere. there the "bottoms" of the black holes will eventually combine to form the Universal core I was talking about.

    B.) I just think that time is not a dimension of space-time. I do not hold to the 3+1 theory of the universe. So can you please drop that preconception because we still haven't proven it yet.

    C.) the thing I read said the Gluons held Quarks together inside of electrons, protons, and neutrons. If thats what hadrons are that just forget about reading this.

    D.) Why would we see in four dimensions? The fourth dimension I am envisioning is one linked to gravity. All objects "sink in" a bit into the surface of the Hyper-sphere. Black holes would sink the most. Technically the 4th dimension wouldn't be a spatial one.
     
  10. Nov 22, 2003 #9

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A) That's the problem though you can't postulate the existance of another dimension without evidence. Even the geometry you described doesn't need a fourth dimension.

    B) General relativity has been proven to a reasonably satisfactorily level (that is certain observations cannot be explained without the use of general relativity). It is possible to formulate general relativity in such way that you don't have the concept of space-time, but you have to realize that space-time is a a very useful tool and it's much easier to work with general relativity in this way. Time is a dimension of space-time as that is how space-time is defined.

    C) Hadrons are particles that are made out of quarks and they fall into two seperate groups: mesons, which are usually made of two quarks (tetraquarks made of 4 quarks which has been theoretically predicted would be mesons and so would glueballs which are made out of gluons with no quarks) and are bosons and baryons which are usually made out of three quarks (again the pentaquark which has been predicted and probably observed would be a baryon) and are fermions. Protons and neutrons are baryons and the electron is not a hadron as it is a fundamnetal particle not made out of any quarks, but a lepton which is a fermion.

    D) what your decribing is pretty much the 'rubber sheet' analogy that is often used to describe genral relativity, but as I said before you simply don't need four dimensions as this curvature does not give objects within the space an extra degree of freedom.
     
  11. Nov 22, 2003 #10

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You make a lot of assumptions.

    Seems that you have shown if you assume enough you can prove anything.
     
  12. Nov 23, 2003 #11
    First this assumes a few things:
    A.) That dark energy, exotic matter, or some other form of anti-gravity exists
    B.) That the combined anti-gravity pull of all the anti-gravity in the universe is stronger than the combined gravitational pull of all the matter in the universe.
    C.) That four dimensional gravatational forces can get around the second law of thermodynamics
    D.) That gluons are weaker than the combined anti-gravitational pull of all the dark energy in the universe

    Ans:
    A & B - None exist. The dark matter/energy is due to an effect brought about by ether rotation around rotating galaxies. Anti-matter doesn't exist. Consider opening a bottle of champagne - bubbles form and the champagne is forced out. Matter formed during the big bang in this way and ether space was forced to expand, so it's not anti-gravity.
    C - There are only 3 real dimensions in space. The fourth dimension of time is abstract.
    D - Again no anti-gravity

    These ideas are part of wisp theory, which developed from matter being simply holes in the ether. Holes take on a fractal shape and cause expansion of the ether.
     
  13. Nov 23, 2003 #12
    Wisp don't respond if you haven't read the posts. I was trying to tell others that I did not believe in time as a dimension. So if that was correcting me then you need to read before you post. Also dark ENERGY has been theorized to hold open black holes which I explained also in an earlier post.
     
  14. Nov 29, 2003 #13
    If gravity is a relatistic effect, you must agree on that there cannot possibly exist antigravity.

    I consider myself having proven that gravity is a relativistic effect.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?