Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Zero Point Energy examples around Ball Lightning, Comets, Spritesup to Quasars
Next: Connect the 9-11 Dots to Israel
From: dlzc on 7 Apr 2010 20:59 Dear Yousuf Khan: On Apr 7, 2:57 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > dlzc wrote: > > Which again is still just an hypothesis, and only > > better researched than mine. > > > The problem with single-interface connections (just one > > black hole), is that it must have been small enough to > > shred atoms over most of its "external life", to get the > > amount of hydrogen we see. Which forbids ingesting > > galaxies essentially intact, and makes the CMBR glow > > what we think it is... recombination of protons with > > electrons into hydrogen and subsequent ionization. > > That's assuming that a universe needs to be "big". All of > those "little" blackholes we see in our own universe may > be the homes of some very fine universes for their own > inhabitants. And the inhabitants of those universes must > think that their own universe is absolutely humongous, > and can't imagine how there could be a bigger one > outside it. They probably have their own stars and galaxies > within. Agreed, this seems likely. My concern is one of how many levels are there? It would seem to me that all the holes from one Universe must link to a single lower Universe. Now whether that is true is unknowable. The next tenet is if you proceed into a massive black hole in our Universe, and on into a massive black hole in that Universe, and so on... do you end up crossing into the Big Bang of *this* Universe eventually? I think you must, because the "laws of symmetry" would then "average out" with say, four rotations (space1 -> time2... space2 -> time3... space3 -> time4... space4 -> time1). This would generate Universes where antimatter was dominant (perhaps 1 away in either "direction"), and preference for handedness was opposite (perhaps 2 away). All untestable, tantamount to just SF. > > Of course, Hawking radiation "exports" then reingests > > almost everything, many times (since not all particles > > escape until the BH has lost a lot of mass, and does > > it as small particles. So that alone might give us the > > hydrogen... > > > I don't see that a "larger" Universe is required for a > > container, nor do I see it as a necessity for this model. > > Exterior size maps to our time, and the mathemagics > > that allows this "infinite hall of mirrors" and says that > > Universe is like ours, says that it will also suffer > > expansion and cooling. So at some point it will be large, > > but our Universe might very well have been embedded in > > the container Universe when it was "grapefruit sized", or > > certainly by the time it had no more volume than the Milky > > Way now has. > > The speed of light may be slower inside the blackhole > micro-universes, therefore it would take particles longer > to travel from one point of the universe to another. Maybe. I find it likely that it will still "locally" be a constant, and that any sort of measure wil be unable to distinguish between c's in any of the Universes. This in one problem with describing the behavior of a finite set (likely) with infinite mathematics... such things "make sense" to discuss. David A. Smith
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Apr 2010 23:21 On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. > Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just > reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current > incarnation. > > Yousuf Khan No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: Brad Guth on 8 Apr 2010 20:07 On Apr 7, 2:59 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Brad Guth wrote: > > I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10 > > fold older. > > > ~ BG > > If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. > Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just > reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current > incarnation. > > Yousuf Khan Correct, as far as anyone knows we've been sucked into black holes and reincarnated dozens upon dozens of times. Perhaps our next demise and subsequent incarnation is within "The Great Attractor", along with dozens of other galaxies headed from all directions into the same dark and scary location. Matter begets photons and photons beget matter. In other words, energy in always equals energy out, and there's never anything more or less because the universe is a forever kind of thing, that as a whole stays exactly the same. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 8 Apr 2010 20:09 On Apr 7, 8:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > > > If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. > > Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just > > reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current > > incarnation. > > > Yousuf Khan > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The Great Attractor"? ~ BG
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Apr 2010 20:24
On 4/8/10 7:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > On Apr 7, 8:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> >>> If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. >>> Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just >>> reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current >>> incarnation. >> >>> Yousuf Khan >> >> No Center >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html >> >> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html >> >> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html >> >> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The Great Attractor"? > > ~ BG Slight concentration of galactic cluster mass... it happens. |