|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big bang cycles | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Justin Horne Inactive Member |
I'm pretty sure that pre-BB, it would have been impossible for the matter to become a black hole. Reason being that a BH is almost a tear in space-time. Pre-BB space-time had not expanded yet, so it would have not caused the black hole. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, which is very possible...
Justin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 782 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
space is a sea of energy in the form of planck particle pairs... Is that what strings are supposed to be ??? Well... It's been a while since I read the Elegant universe... But yes, I think so. What I said before may have been confusing as I am reporting second hand what I have read elsewhere: If the ZPE were decreasing light would experience a blue shift en-route but a redshift from it's emitter. If ZPE were increasing light would experience a slight red-shift en-route but a blue-shift from it's emitter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
john hunter Inactive Junior Member |
There may be a way to verify it.
According to IIS Windows Server the cycles may be due to a reduction in the strength of gravity when mattter is densley packed together. To verify whether this is indeed occuring it would be necessary to measure changes in the earth's gravity as the earth goes around the sun. As the earth-sun distance changes over a year , so the earth's gravity may change. This may be teted for by satellite experiments. All the best, J. Hunter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
If the Big Bang model is incorrect that why are predictions based on the model confirmed so precisely by measurements of the cosmic microwave background? (And specifically by the 'ripples' therein).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Many people believe that the universe goes through "big bang cycles" and that it has been doing so forever- is there any way that we would be able to verify this? I'm not sure that many people actually believe this anymore. But, theoretically it might be possible to have a model that predicts a 'bouncy universe' that could be verified through other predictions made by that model. I can't see any way you could confirm it by direct observation, however, since the Big Bang would destroy all evidence of what was before it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
The universe will not recolapse.
Recent data strongly suggests that the univere is accellerating its expansion. This means that, not only will the universe never experience a "big crunch" but also, that it will experence a "big chill." As space expands faster and faster, distant galaxys will eventualy disapear as they leave our hubble volume, since they will be traveling away from us faster than the speed of light. More and more galaxys will disapear beyond the horizon of our hubble volume until eventualy, in the distant future, our decendants will only be able to see the stars in our own galaxy and those in the andromida galaxy. There is, however, a possiblity that big bang cycles occor when our brane collides with another paralell brane. Such parallel branes could be deteced if some assumptions about string theory are correct. If string theory is right about gravity being able to leave our brane (one possible reason why it's the weakest force) we might eventualy be able to detect faint gravity waves from paralell branes in places where there is no strong gravitational field in our own universe. As to the question of the inital matter being a singularity that is incapable of expansion, see my thread on inflationary cosmology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
I read somewhere (New Scientist magazine I beleive) that quantum wormholes had been shown to exist in just about every part of space. It was also postulated that if one of these quantum wormholes could be forced open then a huge mass of matter and anti-matter would spew forth from it. Unfortunately (or fortunately perhaps) they also said that the amount of energy required to force this wormhole open would be the equivalent of converting the mass of Jupiter into pure energy.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that this amount of energy (stray radiation perhaps) could come together at a given point every once in a very long while and create a spontaneous big bang. I don't understand all the physics of this but it just seems like a neat idea. PY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Your mixing up your sources. Yes I saw that Nova program on time travel, and yes you would need to convert the mass of Jupeter into a form of exotic energy to open up a wormhole to the size of a METER.
What you need to expand an inital clump of matter (even one that weighs only 20 lbs)is and Inflaton (not inflation) feild. again see my thread on inflationary cosmology if you want more info.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zombie commando Inactive Member |
Wormholes simply are not possible for more than a microfraction of a second.
The conjecture that a singularity could pinch off and connect to another singularity somewhere else in space has no basis in reality. It is a mathematical construct born of the Rubber Fabric drawings of Spacetime. You've seen the drawings before that depict a black hole in space. It is a gaping hole heading down from a flat sheet of space drawn as a grid. This is not an accurate dipiction of Space, it's just a simple depiction of one plane of space, instead of a 3D look. People started fudging with these drawings and asked, "Where does the well go to? Could it maybe connect with another well somewhere else in space? What if we fudge our formulas a bit and see what happens?" Here's the real skinny: Any singularity by definition is a Dead End. It is a point in space where mass becomes so dense that the gravitational pull on photons is too great for their escape. It is just a major gravitational well. If two of these were in proximity, I don't care if it is through local space or the imaginary wormhole, the singularities would quickly become one. If they are close enough to interact with common space, they would quickly merge. Sadly, scientists let their Sci-Fi wishes cloud their lines of inquiry. They really WANT timetravel and instantaneous travel and faster than light movement to be a reality. So they LOOK for these results. Which violates the scientific method. Any study of cosmology will have you stumbling all over examples of this. First they created wormholes with wishful thinking, then they looked for ways that these wormholes could be navigated (I.E. rotating and doughnut singularities). Then they talk about all the cool effects of flying through a wormhole. They skip way too fast over the mere existence of them and jump to our interaction with them. The move from Science to Sci-Fi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Though any journey to a black hole would be a one way trip (anything would be destroyed even before it even reached the event horizon) there are other ways to make a worm hole.
Below the plank scale space-time gets all choppy and chaotic. John Wheeler for whom, this choppy foamy nature of space at the plank scale is named after, ("Wheeler foam) decribes space as an ocean. From far above the ocean looks flat but as you get closer and closer to the surface it starts to look choppy and wavy. Once you decend below the plank scale, space can warp and shift and do all sorts of weird things, one kind of weird thing it can do is create a worm hole. These worm holes exsist for such a breif period of time that they might as well not exsist (nothing could make it through them) but if we could capture a wormhole and fill it with a form of exotic matter (Something that exserts negative pressure) we could theoreticaly have a stable wormhole. String theory predicts that time can, in fact, tear. Though Einstien would have said that the idea of space "tearing" was taking the analogy of it as fabric too far, string theory predicts that space tears and reforms, and that wormholes do indeed exsist. Whether or not these wormholes are, or will ever be, usable is another story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Welcome to the forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zombie commando Inactive Member |
Thank you. I only study science as a hobby. I see there are some bonafide experimental scientists and physics professors running around the board....very intimidating.
I don't believe there is exotic matter. I don't believe in dark matter either. As I understand it they both exist to make equations work out, but there is very limited evidence for either existing in the natural universe. I'm in a bit of a rush now, but I will propose a theory I have been discussing with a peer of mine for a bit that eliminates the need for dark matter to even exist as a placeholder. Sorry about bringing the topic off skew for a moment by mentioning dark matter, but I feel it is so akin to exotic matter in many ways......at least in presentation. This message has been edited by zombie commando, 12-04-2004 05:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Though any journey to a black hole would be a one way trip (anything would be destroyed even before it even reached the event horizon) That's the theory. Until we find a black hole and drop a sensor in we don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Click on the "reply" icon when you respond so that we can know when you have posted a responce.
Well, as for this exotic matter that can exert negative pressure it has been shown to exsist experamentaly. It could acount for the missing "dark energy" in the universe As for dark matter there is mounting evedence that it too exsists. And it isn't just a place holder, other theories point to its exsistance as well. I know that we have some observations that reveal it's presence. Perhaps some other cosmology buffs could provide a link?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
That's the theory. Until we find a black hole and drop a sensor in we don't know. Well, first of all, we have found black holes with X-ray telescopes. We know the gravitational tidal forces of a black hole would completley destroy anything that got anywhere near it. Hell, we couldn't even land a probe on a nutron star, let alone a black hole.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024