PDA

View Full Version : I have a theory



llatpog
2008-Apr-02, 12:34 PM
I have been putting thought into a theory and figured I would bounce it off this site.

One thing that I have noticed while listening is how imperfect things are in the universe. Sure, most things can be explained mathmatically, however they are usually not very simple.

With all the inperfections, why does the big bang need to have all the matter in the universe in it? Wouldn't that indicate it being perfect.

What if there were some particles with mass which had not yet be completely pulled into the singularity? Or if they were just never part of the singulatiry.

If this is true, it would explain why there was 1 part per million more matter then antimatter at the big bang. It would also give a point for some particles of the big bang to slow down and gravitate towards...creating the first stars or even galaxies.

So...anyone want to offer discussion on this?

clint
2008-Apr-02, 01:16 PM
One thing that I have noticed while listening is how imperfect things are in the universe.

I would describe it more like this:
the universe is a completely random succession of events, neither perfect, nor imperfect - just random.

What's imperfect (and very much indeed), is our understanding of it.

Steve Limpus
2008-Apr-02, 07:43 PM
With all the inperfections, why does the big bang need to have all the matter in the universe in it? Wouldn't that indicate it being perfect.

The idea of the big bang came from 'playing backwards' the expansion observed in the universe.

If you play it right back to the start, then everything that is (or at least is observed to be), is in the same place. Singularity. Then predictions were made, which were susbsequently observed, making the Big Bang a powerful theory indeed.

If there's something more, where did it come from? (Which isn't to say it didn't or can't.)

Having said that, I don't really buy the singularity either. And in fact the big bang says nothing prior to t=10^-43 seconds. For me, the problem with the singularity (t=0) is that it invokes infinity.

It seems wherever man's theories do that, nature conspires to prevent observation of the fact, for example the event horizon of black holes, or the particle horizon of our universe (which by some accounts might be infinite).

It suggests a fundamental horizon to our knowledge also?

Was the big bang perfect? I've read how some scientists consider the big bang was indeed highly ordered. More highly ordered than anything that has been observed since, and the laws of entropy and thermodynamics have granted time its arrow ever since... I've yet to grasp all of it though.

01101001
2008-Apr-02, 09:23 PM
I have been putting thought into a theory and figured I would bounce it off this site.

I don't think you have a theory. I think you have speculation.

If you're lucky you have a hypothesis -- something that can be tested, but I don't see how off hand.

A scientific theory should be testable, come with support, like data and logical arguments, should match existing observations, and it should yield predictions.

llatpog
2008-Apr-03, 01:20 PM
OK...I used the wrong word...I have a thought which could possibly answer a few questions.

And I know that plugging things in just to make it fit does not mean I am right or wrong...just a line of thought which may or may not be true.

The big bang, even when looking backwards could still have been a single point. I am only suggesting that there may have been some matter with mass which was outside the horizon of this singluar object. Maybe revolving around it in an orbit.

As far as where these particles came from...well...I could ask where the singularity came from.

NHR+
2008-Apr-03, 05:35 PM
The big bang, even when looking backwards could still have been a single point. I am only suggesting that there may have been some matter with mass which was outside the horizon of this singluar object. Maybe revolving around it in an orbit.

So far as I have understood it correctly, the space itself (and time) was created in the Big Bang, so I cannot really understand WHERE exactly that "matter with mass" could have been orbiting the singularity? If it was somehow "outside" the universe way back then, then how (and when) did it get "inside" it?

llatpog
2008-Apr-03, 06:29 PM
Time as we know it started at the big bang. This only means that its as farback as we can go and still have data.

That is the absolute time.

I for one believe in an oscolating theory of the universe, where it expands and contracts. If this is the case, then the space was always there, there were just no...or very few particles.

Is there any real way for us to know how much mass is needed to be completely condensed in order for it to have a huge explosion? You could say all the mass in the universe. But that begs the question...would there have ever been a big bang if there was just that much less mass. And if there was more mass...then the entire mass explosion would be variable on something else.

If a type 1A supernova always explodes with the same amount of mass...every time...then could you not speculate that a huge amount of mass would explode with the same amount of mass as well?

Steve Limpus
2008-Apr-03, 07:26 PM
You sure can speculate, and yours would be no less (well, perhaps not much less) valid than anyone elses ideas about what if anything is beyond the universe we're able to observe.

You might enjoy this:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

The good professor is a bone fide physicst and cosmologist with some interesting ideas - these 'multiverse' ones are also speculation; whether it will help you gain a deeper understanding of the universe is debatable.

Tegmark has a lot of other stuff on his website which is genuine (mainstream?) science. As far as I can tell anyway.

Personally I've come to accept that the universe almost certainly carries on for a fair bit beyond what we can see, and quite probably is very similar to what we already see, somewhat like Tegmark's 'level one' multiverse, except I'll pass on infinity. Beyond that is anyone's guess.

4tune8chance
2008-Apr-03, 09:28 PM
I have been putting thought into a theory and figured I would bounce it off this site.

One thing that I have noticed while listening is how imperfect things are in the universe. Sure, most things can be explained mathmatically, however they are usually not very simple.

With all the inperfections, why does the big bang need to have all the matter in the universe in it? Wouldn't that indicate it being perfect.

What if there were some particles with mass which had not yet be completely pulled into the singularity? Or if they were just never part of the singulatiry.

If this is true, it would explain why there was 1 part per million more matter then antimatter at the big bang. It would also give a point for some particles of the big bang to slow down and gravitate towards...creating the first stars or even galaxies.

So...anyone want to offer discussion on this?

So if I understand you correctly, the big bang (our big bang) expands into a pre existing universe populated sparsely say with a smattering of matter or dark matter/energy.

Can you have overlapping universes?

Vanamonde
2008-Apr-04, 09:27 AM
I think the best reason that the Big Bang had to start with all of the matter and energy in the universe is that it came with a law that they have to be conserved.

They can change in many forms but never be created or destroyed.

llatpog
2008-Apr-04, 03:32 PM
The idea of an oscolating universe is not a new one. The idea that our universe expands from a big bang...then contracts again was actually a common though until Dark Energy came about.

So...that being said...we consider our universe the expansion of everything that started in the big bang. But with an oscolating system, everything would need to be dragged back into another singularity.

With an idea I mentioned before, at what point of mass would it take to cause an expansion like that? With less mass in the universe...then the big bang coul never have happened. However it could happen with more mass. Just like a type 1A, it explodes because it has taken on more mass then it can sustain...and explodes...but there is still more mass out there for it to take in.

With these two things, it can be argued that the explosion could happen before all the mass in the universe actually did get down into a singularity.

You would still maintain the conservation of energy. And if mass can not be created or destroyed...just changed...then there is no problem with suggesting that there may be some particles with mass ourside the singularity.

Vanamonde
2008-Apr-06, 04:32 AM
...at what point of mass would it take to cause an expansion like that?

The Big Bang is not an explosion. The term was invented to be dismissive but but caught on anyway.

We do not know why or how it happened. According to the Standard Model, we will never know what happened before the first 10^43 sec as the size was so small and the stuff so hot and dense, the known laws of physics due not apply.

Certainly we cannot know that happened before. For more, check the Timeline of the Big Bang at Wikipedia.

dcl
2008-Apr-22, 02:45 PM
The Big Bang theory was arrived at by building as comprehensive as possible a picture of the present universe, then "running time backward" as far as our present knowledge of physics permits. The process started with what we know about the present structure of the Universe and the observation that it is expanding. Running time backward allowed us to see what the Universe would have looked like at successively earlier stages in its evolution, at each stage being guided exclusively by what the science of physics has taught us about how matter and energy behave under a wide range of conditions. Thus, we were able to "watch" the Universe as it contracted, the galaxies and galaxy clusters comprising it contract and revert successively into cold gas and dust clouds, into the first stars, into cold clouds of nearly pure hydrogen too cold to produce any radiation, into a hot plasma of protons, neutrons, mesons, gluons, electrons, and corresponding antimatter particles that broke down even further into an even hotter mix of quarks, mesons, and electrons, and finally into incredibly hot photons - pure energy - with the spectral distribution corresponding to a black body with a temperature increasing without limit while contracting with no known mechanism for preventing it from contracting to a point. Our knowledge of physics guides us back in time only to about 10 exp -43 second (exp denotes exponentiation) after the expansion began.

I envisage the point at which this radiaton appeared as located in a four-dimensional space about which we know nothing. We cannot even speculate about what caused the huge concentration of pure energy to appear at that point. We also have no basis for speculating what preceded that dramatic event.

I described in the opening entry in the thread that I started entitled "The Shape of the Universe" my view of how the Universe started from a point in that four-dimensional space and expanded into that space to become our Universe we find ourselves in today.

llatpog
2008-Apr-25, 07:50 PM
I just got finished reading Stephen Hawking's - A Breif History of time. Granted a lot was difficult to understadn, he does mention near middle-end that its possible that there is no such thing as a singularity...which means a black hole is not really a singularity. However a Black hole does cause all space time to no longer exist inside the event horizon.

He does work on deducing that it is possible that even if everything started near a single poiont, that it was possible that everything just condensed to a big fuzzy point...rather then everything being in 1 place at 1 time.

Plus, listening to Astronomy cast, it is explained that there is no center to the universe. However if everything expanded from a singularity...there should be a center.

It was menioned in one of the question shows that the reason this is so difficult to grasp is because we live in a universe with some shape and dimention that we can not understand at all. We can explain it as a 'donut' but its not really donut shaped. Even a Donut has a center.

This is a completely different argument then what I was suggesting before...and should be in a different string.

I think something that helps my train of thought is to thing that there needs to be some critical mass at which a masive expansion is triggered. It should be able to be described mathmatically. Any less mass and you can't have an expansion. More mass would not be allowed as an expansion needs to happen at a critcal mass.

I think it is just too convenient to say that all the matter in the universe comes down to that point of critical mass to create a large expansion. I am suggesting that it takes a finite point of critical mass to have that expansion.

damian1727
2008-Apr-25, 09:06 PM
what the @@@@ are you talking about? :)

Vanamonde
2008-Apr-26, 06:03 AM
Center, inside, outside - these are ideas of four dimensions, one of time and three of the physical world.

The universe has more. For example, if we could have flown around in the universe when it was just 100 miles across, we would not find a center. It is just every time we moved 100 miles, we would be back to where we started. The "center" is always exactly where you are! Pick a center, any center - we are ALWAYS at the center. But finding The Edge is like "chasing rainbows".

Reality check - at that time, it was so hot, no known matter could have existed and according to this popular thing I HATE called inflation, it was expanding at much greater than the speed of light. It was also dense - as dense as the core of a neutron star or worst. I believe We Just Do Not Know.

The problem is all of the diagrams you have seen, all of the artist creations were done by fourth dimension thinkers for fourth dimension thinker. The universe is bigger and weirder than that. "The map is not the territory."

I require ibuprofen when trying to think of these things. Is okay, I have plenty.

dcl
2008-Apr-26, 09:19 PM
Vanamonde, I regret that I cannot follow the substance of your latest message. I'll explain the problem I'm having with your first few sentences. Beyond that point, I'm totally lost. I'll state each of your sentences, end it with two hyphens and a colon (--:), then start my response on a new line.

Center, inside, outside - These are ideas of four dimensions, one of time and three of the physical world--:
The dimensionality of a space is measured by the number of mutually perpendicular straight lines that it can contain at every point. Our familiar space contains three dimensions. Each can be described in terms of the direction you are facing. Thus, there are backward/forward, left/right, and up/down. The surface of the earth has just two dimensions, for example, north/south and east/west Special relativity recognizes these three spatial dimensions and the one dimension of time: future/past. comprising a total of four dimensions, collectively called spacetime. General relativity also embraces these four dimensions but adds at least one additional spatial dimension to accommodate space curvature caused by the presence of mass. The four-dimensional space that I envisage as containing our Universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere. It takes a good imagination to envisage this space. It has a three-dimensional closed "surface" analogous to the two-dimensional closed surface of a sphere, and it has a center in a direction perpendicular to all three mutually perpendicular straight lines that define the three-dimensional space comprising its "surface". It cannot be readily visualized.

For example, if we could have flown around in the universe when it was just 100 miles across, we would not find a center. It is just every time we moved 100 miles, we would be back to where we started--:
I'm not visualizing the geometry that you're trying to describe. This universe is 100 miles across, which sounds as if it's a circle with a diameter of 100 miles. What you described can't happen with a disk 100 miles across.

Pick a center, any center - we are ALWAYS at the center. But finding The Edge is like "chasing rainbows" --:
At this point, I'm lost. I hope you'll try again.

llatpog
2008-Apr-28, 04:34 PM
Hmmm....let me see if I can explain this. Maybe I just can't.

If I take a line (1 dimention), I go from Point A to Point B...and I will never end up where I started. If I take a circle (2 dimentions), I go from Point A to Point B, I will always end up where I started. If I take a Sphere(3 dimentions), and start at any point I will eventually end up where I started, but I will often come close but not quite where I started...as all my lines will not be parallel.

But adding X number of spacial dimentions (not time)...we can end up going from one point and coming back to the same place all the time everytime. From the way I understand...this is the current model of the universe.

In the end, our universe needs to act as a 3 dimentional object, a 2 dimentional object, and a 1 dimentional object all at the same time. It does not have a center like a line. It does not have an area like a circle. It does not have volume like a sphere.

However, here on earth or in any other part on a planet or in a universe...you need to have these three things in order for life to work.

So...my question really is how can there be a universe where none of these things are true...yet all need to be true for life to exist?

********************************

My other part of my argument is basically that the Big Bang happened at a singulatiry in which all mass was condensed...and it was actually the universe...with all the properties within it.

At some point, the singularity had to expand. All that mass was down to a single point...and all that mass was pure energy. This type of expansion should be able to be reproduced.

A Type 1A supernova gives off the same amount of light every time because it reaches a point of critical mass and explodes.

So, this singularity might be explained by reaching a point of critical mass at which time it expands. What I am arguing is that if there were just a little less mass, the the critical mass would never come about and then no expansion. If there were more mass...then the expansion would have happened before all that mass was in the singularity.

*********************

Another thought of the singularity is that it would have had to been universal in density. Heavier elements would be at every point just like the lighter elements. However in a Big Crunch, he heavier elements should be closer to the center of the singularity...and the lighter ones on the outside.

Given the current model of the universe...the singularity is the universe...and therefor there is no center of the singularity either.

**********************

Hawkings explains that it does not have to be a singularity if you introduce time as an imaginary number (i). But if you use 'i' then singularities don't exist. I don't quite understand it all myself...but I am just going off of his suggestion.

dcl
2008-Apr-28, 08:45 PM
llatpog, your statements are ambiguous, based on erroneous assumptions, or just plan not true. I'll give you two examples:

You said, "If I take a circle (2 dimentions), I go from Point A to Point B, I will always end up where I started." That is not true unless points A and B are the same, in which case you don't have a circle.

You said, "If I take a Sphere(3 dimentions), and start at any point I will eventually end up where I started, but I will often come close but not quite where I started...as all my lines will not be parallel." First, you said, "I will always end up where I started". In the next sentence, you contradict yourself by saying, "but I will often come close but not quite where I started."

Hopefully, you can fix the problems in your contribution and try again.