Universe getting hotter.

[humility]

If the universe started out as cold and has been warming up due to an external energy source. In this model the universe isn't expanding the ambient temperature is increasing. Or another way to put it is the energy of the universe is increasing.

The cosmic background radiation is said to be equivacal to 2.7 kelvin. The age of the universe is estimated at 13.5 billion years. The dipole of the cosmic background radiaton shows a shift to the hotter part of it's spectrum. We take this shift to be due to the velocity of the earth relative to the background radiation. But what if this dipole was showing us that everthing in the universe was heating up.

If it has taken 13.5 billion years for the universe to heat up to 2.7 kelvin. For the universe to shift to the highest temperatures recorded is going to take a very long time. This would also imply that the universe is a lot larger than we have calculated.

[paultrr]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the cosmos getting hotter. In fact, based upon the study of the CMB alone its gotten a lot colder since the start. Also, several laws of thermodynamics rather forbid this.

 

The best estimate at present for the width of the cosmos is 156 Billion LY's. Taken from January Discovery.

[Tormod]

The Big Bang theory would not work the other way round (from cold to hot). Anyway, if the temperature in the cosmos was 0 kelvin at the start, absolutely nothing could have happened. Energy would never have become matter, atoms would never form, stars would never ignite...

[maddog]

I think you've got the process backwards. It would be getting hotter if time ran

backwards. The recent data of WMAP satelite that went up in 2003 showed to

high acuracy that the earliest data for the Cosmic Background Radiation about

2.7 K measured to a variance in 10^-5 K. These little variances showed to be

inhomogeneity to produce galaxies after the big bang. WMAP also showed the

Universe is accelerating outward which is even more cooling things off. So I'd

recheck your thinking.... :cup:

 

Maddog

[Aki]

if the universe is getting hotter, then that would be going against the second law of thermodynamics.

[Bo]

well he proposed an external heat source, so no laws are violated.

only experimental evidence that the universe is cooling down is violated :cup:

 

Bo

[Tormod]

The external heat source being what - the larger size of the universe? We can't know whether that is a heat source. And frankly we don't know the sixe of the universe, only the theoretical value like paultrr pointed out, which I assume is calculated from the initial inflation and subsequent expansion. The universe may well turn out to be infinite in size, so for all practical purposes we are talking about the observable universe here I think, which is only about 27 billion lightyears across.

 

I think there are other problems with a "bottom up" theory as regards heat - like I said above, a universe at zero kelvin cannot exist so it would not have a beginning. Unless of course, it floats inside another universe where the temperature is even lower...

[humility]

A) I never said the universe had an intial temperature of zero kelvin.

:cup: There could be energy in a zero kelvin enviroment.

C) I never said that the external energy was in the form of heat.

D) Atoms,stars etc could have formed in processes that occur at low temperature and give of radiation.This radiation can be seen as an increase in temperature.Or a possible shift over a very long time of the CMB from radiowave/microwave range to gammar radiation.

E) The only think to suggest the universe is cooling. Is the belief that certain processes (fusion etc) occur at high temperature and therefore the universe must have been hot in the past and the CMB is so redshifted because it has cooled as the universe expands.

 

I pesornally think that the CMB having such a low temperature value is evidence of the universe starting out cold and processes occuring that are increasing the temperature of the universe over time. I have been developing a model of how this occurs but it's to long winded to go into now. I am going to develop a website that explains the mechanism in detail. I'll post the link when I get round to doing it.

I can't see the logic in why someone thinks it is incredulous that something couldn't happen at zero kelvin but it makes sense that there was all this energy compressed into a really small space that suddenly decides to expand and form the universe in the process of cooling.

The model I am developing doesn't require the universe to be expanding or contracting into a singularity. It can explain fusion at low temperatures and gravity. Plus several quantum phenomena that are not well understood. My model isn't perfect like all models .But in my opinion it explains alot of things better than big bang theory. Of course you won't be able to judge the merits of my ideas without more details and I can understand you're probable sceptism. All I am asking at this point is that you consider very carefully the evidence that the universe was hotter in the past.

[paultrr]

If you take the process of inflation into account the actual energy compressed inside the initial state as Hawking and a few others have put it was not much more than a themble full. Our problem is we assume it had to be large since the amount of energy we can observe is large. But inflation as a process can take a small flux in vacuum energy and through heating build up a huge amount of energy. One thing often overlooked in inflation theory and with the idea out of the standard model about the Higg's field is originally all particles started as massless and gained mass at the end of inflation due to changes in the Higg's field itself. That does not discount kenetic energy which was present early on. But most of the energy out there in this universe is in the form of rest mass itself which happens as the vacuum decayed from a false state to a stable one. Basically, the original energy of creation was not actually that high.

 

Before anyone asks inflation does not violate any law of thermodynamics because its the action and effect of the inflation field from which the energy comes from and there are many examples right here on earth of inflation type fields. In fact, the process by which the soda one opens foams up is the result of one type of inflation effect. Yes, its different from the type at the start of creation. But by study of its effects and other versions one can very much predict how much energy actually was there at the start.

[Tormod]

I can't see the logic in why someone thinks it is incredulous that something couldn't happen at zero kelvin but it makes sense that there was all this energy compressed into a really small space that suddenly decides to expand and form the universe in the process of cooling.

 

I do not accept the singularity model at the beginning. Recent theories like string theory avoid singularities of that kind and have other ways to explain the beginning.

 

That doesn't mean I have to accept a completely unrelated theory that says the universe started out cold.

 

I welcome your ideas but you seem to dislike that we actually try to discuss them.

 

The model I am developing doesn't require the universe to be expanding or contracting into a singularity. It can explain fusion at low temperatures and gravity. Plus several quantum phenomena that are not well understood. My model isn't perfect like all models.

 

No models are perfect...the big bang model is just one way to explain things. There are many varieties of it.

 

But in my opinion it explains alot of things better than big bang theory. Of course you won't be able to judge the merits of my ideas without more details and I can understand you're probable sceptism. All I am asking at this point is that you consider very carefully the evidence that the universe was hotter in the past.

 

I look forward to your findings. In the meantime, for those interested, here is the report from European Southern Observatory about the first confirmation of a hotter past:

 

Observations Confirm that the Universe Was Hotter in the Past

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3414

 

And...there is no reason to take this so personally.

[humility]

Thanks for the article Tormod. I have some quotes from the article I wish to present.

 

"Since the universe is expanding, it must have been denser in the past. A particular prediction of the Big Bang theory is also that the temperature of the CMBR must have been higher at earlier times. However, although quite a few attempts have been made, no clear observational confirmation of this has been possible so far. In fact, the best observations until now have only been able to establish upper limits to the cosmic temperature at earlier epochs."

 

So there was no conclusive evidence for the universe starting out hot until this one observational result reported her in this article. Is this observation conclusive evidence, here's another quote.

 

"An additional source of excitation must thus be present and this can only be the heating by the CMBR."

 

So all they have observed is an additional source of excitation. And then made the decision that this can only be due to heating by the CMBR. If this source of excitation was something different as I suggested. Then we still have no evidence of the universe being hotter in the past.

As I said I have a model for the reason for this excitation and it predicts that the universe was colder in the past . I wasn't asking anyone to believe in my model especially seen as I haven't presented it to anyone. I just mentioned it as the reason why I believe the universe was colder in the past.

This prompted me to start a discussion about the evidence of the universe being hotter in the past. Not a battle of universe creation beliefs . I was trying to be concise in my last post. I apologise if this came over as an aggresive response to people's contributions to the discussion. All opinions are obviously welcome and I wouldn't take personal offense I promise. But I will respond with pedantic authortarian anti-establishment zeal if the mood so takes me, hehe. B)

[maddog]

Humility,

 

From you last post, you seem to be ignoring fundamentals of physics just to make a

case for some theory you wish to present. This does not give you the privledge to

ignore Thermodynamics. Were you to have the frequency of the Microwave signal

been found (isotropic, fairly homogenous) be radiated as though from a Black Body,

it would exhibit a Temperature (this is the 2.7 K). That is damn cold!!! You rund

time backwards. The time would be naturally hotter. Or you are claiming this

Microwave radiation is Not a Black Body form of radiation. Neither make any

sense. Just kind of makes the whole discussion worthless if you don't follow logic. B)

 

Somehow maybe this is an attempt to dupe people to somehow believe in ID

form of Creation somehow. I am not buying !!! B)

 

Maddog

[Tormod]

Humility: The article stated that observations supported the theory that the universe was hotter in the past, which is one of the common predictions of the Big Bang model. It was tested and verified, and before you laugh your *** off remember to check the date of that article. Then go check out the WMAP project at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html to see how they study the CMBE and how they have so far confirmed a lot of these predictions. It was this research team that pinpointed the age of the universe to 13,7 billion years a while back.

 

But I will respond with pedantic authortarian anti-establishment zeal if the mood so takes me, hehe.

 

Fine. Run with your ideas and do what you can with them. But it might be a wise idea to start acting up to your nickname...

[humility]

I wasn't ignoring thermodynamics. Thermodynamics doesn't make the prediction that the universe had to be hotter in the past from this monment in time. But since the issue of thermodynamics was raised I have found this article which maybe of interest.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2572

[Tormod]

Yes, interesting article but it concerns nanoparticles and microscopic sizes...not the universe. B)

 

It would be interesting if we could find any studies which actually studied temperature changes from the early universe and had data to show a cooler era than today.

[C1ay]

But since the issue of thermodynamics was raised I have found this article which maybe of interest.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2572

 

Are you really suggesting that known exceptions on the atomic level would apply at the scale of the universe? That seems like a mighty big leap to me.

[justforfun]

I have been wondering if there are multiple universes; a multiverse, I guess, would these universes interact and what would do to our 'laws' based on a one-universe scenario?