The Cyclic Universe: A Theory of Formation and Evolution

[phinds]

The problem is we don't 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.

 

[phinds]

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]

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?

 

[voxilla]

I'll just get back to on thread topic.
Simply search Wikipedia for 'cyclic model'

 

[Calimero]

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.

 

[voxilla]

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]

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.

 

[phinds]

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.

 

[voxilla]

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.

 

[voxilla]

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]

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.

 

[phinds]

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 anyone place. Again, this is cosmology 101.

If you want to learn more, I recommend:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

[Cosmo Novice]

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]

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:

https://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]

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]

Thank you everyone for helping me attempt to get my head around this.