Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Mike C]

And hence, are not zero-charge.

?

From what I understand, it's the energy of a photon that bumps the electrons. No mysterious charge needed.

 

Energy constitutes motion. So what is in motion? To be in motion, you need mass or as I said, 'field charges'.

 

Real physics does not involve opinions. As Craig stated a few posts back: "As has been pointed out to you many times in these forums, science is not a debate of opinions, but a process of supporting and refuting hypotheses with objective experimental data."

 

The fields surrounding the electrons are real as I said.

 

Can you tell me what Einstein based his mass/energy formula on? That is an opinion, IMO.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

My conclusion is that the light beam in question is a series of photons. So the visible photons are very short (about 5^-7 meters) that they would not be passing through a field that could/would bend them and because of their velocity.

 

Mike C

 

You're making assumptions based on an opinion. That's not science. Do the math (if you can) and then post it for discussion.

[Mike C]

The speed of light and energy of photons is precisely known, so this claim is an (moderately ;)) easy one to design and conduct an experiment to test.

 

The electron gun in a typical CRT accelerates its electrons to about 0.1 c.

The mass of an electron at this speed is about the same as its rest mass of about [math]9.11 times 10^{-31} ,mbox{kg}[/math].

The equivalent relativistic mass of a photon of a typical red laser pointer is [math]frac{h}{c cdot 650 ,mbox{nm}} = 3.4 times 10^{-36} ,mbox{kg}[/math].

 

The lateral velocity given to a one-electron charge particle passing though a constant-voltage deflection field of a CRT is directly proportional to the time it spends between the deflection coils or plates, so inversely proportional to its speed, and inversely proportional to the particles mass. The deflection distance from the center of the screen is directly proportional the its lateral speed and the time it spends reaching the screen. So the deflection amount is inversely proportional to the square of the speed of the particle and its mass ([math]d = frac{k}{v^2 m}[/math]). Using the ratio of mass and speed of a laser pointer photon and a typical CRT electron, we can find how the distance a photon would be deflected if it had the charge of an electron compared to how far a CRT’s electron is deflected without calculate [math]k[/math].

 

[math]frac{d_lambda}{d_e} = frac{v_e^2 m_e}{c^2 m_lambda} = frac{0.1^2 cdot 9.11 times 10^{-31}}{1^2 cdot 3.4 times 10^{-36}} dot= 2680[/math]

 

So we’d expect a typical photon to be deflected several thousand times the distance of a typical CRT electron.

 

Relating this to the materials I have on hand:

• A red laser pointer
  
• Some pretty strong magnet, estimated 0.001 T as closely as I can position 2 of them around the laser beam, compared to about 0.1 T for the magnetic yoke of a typical TV.
  
• Lots of available distance between the magnets and the wall – about 2 m without moving my table, compared to about 0.2 m between the yoke and the screen on a typical TV.
  

All together, I should expect to be able to deflect my laser about 30 times the width of a TV screen - completely off the wall.

 

Doing the experiment, however, I can’t detect any deflection at all, other than a slight jiggle that occurs when I lean over to adjust the laser pointer, magnets, paper and tape holding them all together, which disappears when I hold still. I’m on a plywood vs. a massive concrete slab floor, so such jiggling is common – jumping up and down in the middle of my floor can visibly shake various decorative hangings around the room, and my laser pointer on a table is much more sensitive.

 

For Mike’s “photons have charge” hypothesis to survive this simple experiment, the charge of a photon would have to be a very small fraction of that of the electron. Mike, is this the case? :QuestionM

 

There are many good sources outlining the calculations needed for this experiment, such as this one.

 

The condensed field charge of a photon could possibly have an equal charge to an electron.

 

Your formula above portrays a photon as having mass by using classical physics that cannot be applied to the photons that are 'massless'.

 

Also, I described the the 'negative field particles' as transmitting the photons by just wobbling in their local line of transmission.

In other words, they do not move through space as a 'bullet' would.

 

So I do not know how these NFP's would be influenced by any experiments.

These particles are still a mystery as far as I know regarding whether they have any mass or their strength in their charges.

However, I think I give the best description of how these photons are generated.

 

Establishment science has no solution for these photon creations.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

I described the the 'negative field particles' as transmitting the photons by just wobbling in their local line of transmission.

In other words, they do not move through space as a 'bullet' would.

 

Can you prove this? Yes or no? We expect you to support your claims and what you "think" or your "opinion" is not support.

[HydrogenBond]

The assumptions of the BB and the red shift is what gives us the size and age of the universe. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the BB, the size and age of the universe are defined by the BB theory. If we change theory both the size and age become inconclusive unless one has no problem mixing apples and oranges. We can't rid of BB theory and leave the boundaries defined by the theory. One would have to take the fence down and start from scratch if the idea is to do it properly. I am not suggesting this, but pointing out BB is what is defining the boundaries.

 

If we keep the BB boundaries of universe age and size, every tiny change we make to the red shift makes the universe smaller and younger. I am not saying these extra affects are real or not, but if any are proven real, it subtracts speeds of expansion. If you extrapolate this all the way to eliminate all the expansion (hypothetically) or cancel doppler shift, you don't get the same size-age but without an expansion. Bigger is better so there is some resistance to this.

 

There is also another consideration. If we assume an accelerated expansion doesn't this also shrink the size? The original doppler shift worked under the assumption of constant velocity or even deceleration to calculate size and age for the universe. What appears to have happened is we left those old fences in place and add from there. Does this mean the original fences were biased high, since the opposite of acceleration means the velocity had been slower than originally assumed? I never saw any age-size revision. Does this mean we are still in, the wait and see mode, about acceleration?

 

An additional conceptual problem is assuming 15B year old events are happening today. That light took 15B years to reach us and only tells what was happening at that time in history 15B years ago. In other words, if we find an artifact from the pyramids from 2000 years ago we don't assume it was manufactured the day we find it. Is it possible when we start from the perimeter this is the first chapter in the book of universe history? In the beginning the universe was the most red shifted as it hurled through space. By the middle ages (8B light years ago) the red shift declined. As we look deeper and deeper we just add chapters to the beginning. If instead we add the latest data at the end of the book we get an acceleration.

 

Another conceptual problem has to due with the expansion of space-time. If space-time is still expanding does than imply we are not at zero reference? In other words, as long as it keeps expanding, zero reference keeps changing no matter what point in time we decide to call zero reference. What is significant about this is if we define our time and place on earth as zero, then if the universe is continuing to expand the bulk universe is moving into negative reference relative to the zero point chosen. The only way to avoid expansion into negative relative reference is for space-time to be fixed with only matter is moving. But if the zero point is changing does that mean the solar system began with slightly more time dilation? And does relativity decreasing with time explain dark energy?

[modest]

The assumptions of the BB and the red shift is what gives us the size and age of the universe. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the BB, the size and age of the universe are defined by the BB theory.

 

The size of the visible universe?

 

If we change theory both the size and age become inconclusive unless one has no problem mixing apples and oranges.

 

You can use this java applet:

Ned Wright's Javascript Cosmology Calculator

 

To input different values for cosmic parameters and see what happens. It's not really apples and oranges, it's something cosmologists work with every day.

 

We can't rid of BB theory and leave the boundaries defined by the theory. One would have to take the fence down and start from scratch if the idea is to do it properly. I am not suggesting this, but pointing out BB is what is defining the boundaries.

 

The "big bang theory" just means expanding universe that works with general relativity. Any model that keeps those conditions is a 'big bang theory'. The current version of the big bang theory that works best with all data is the LCDM or Lambda-CDM theory. The particulars of LCDM can be changed and yet keep with BBT - no need to "take down the fence".

 

If we keep the BB boundaries of universe age and size, every tiny change we make to the red shift makes the universe smaller and younger.

 

The redshift of what?

 

I am not saying these extra affects are real or not, but if any are proven real, it subtracts speeds of expansion.

 

What extra effects?

 

If you extrapolate this all the way to eliminate all the expansion (hypothetically) or cancel doppler shift, you don't get the same size-age but without an expansion. Bigger is better so there is some resistance to this.

 

If you extrapolate what? What do you mean you can get the same age universe without expansion? None of this is making any sense.

 

There is also another consideration. If we assume an accelerated expansion doesn't this also shrink the size?

 

The size of what? The visible universe? No. Just how big do you think the visible universe is? How do you think it is measured? Why is it at issue here?

 

If you're curious if acceleration makes for a younger universe, the answer is no.

 

 

The original doppler shift worked under the assumption of constant velocity or even deceleration to calculate size and age for the universe. What appears to have happened is we left those old fences in place and add from there. Does this mean the original fences were biased high, since the opposite of acceleration means the velocity had been slower than originally assumed? I never saw any age-size revision. Does this mean we are still in, the wait and see mode, about acceleration?

 

The original estimate for the age of the universe was 2 billion years. I believe we've made some revisions since then. In the 70's and 80's the estimate was 15-20 billion. You should try google before saying something like this:

 

I never saw any age-size revision.

 

Because honestly, it's easier to glance at a webpage like this:

Age of the Universe

than it is to take the time making an incorrect claim about it here.

 

An additional conceptual problem is assuming 15B year old events are happening today.

 

What event is 15 billion years old?

 

That light took 15B years to reach us and only tells what was happening at that time in history 15B years ago.

 

If we see a quasar that has a redshift of 6 then by current estimates:

• It's light traveled for 12.7 billion years to reach us.
  
• The 'current' comoving radial distance to the quasar is 27 billion light years
  

Now, what is the conceptual problem exactly?

 

In other words, if we find an artifact from the pyramids from 2000 years ago we don't assume it was manufactured the day we find it.

 

We do NOT assume a supernova arriving at earth today happened today. We've known simultaneity is relative ever since Einstein developed relativity a hundred years ago.

 

Is it possible when we start from the perimeter this is the first chapter in the book of universe history?

 

The perimeter of what? I always have the hardest time understanding you.

 

In the beginning the universe was the most red shifted as it hurled through space.

 

It is not useful to talk about how redshifted "the universe" is. Redshift is relative. Something at some distance is redshifted some amount and something else at another distance is redshifted differently. Andromeda is blueshifted to us but is redshifted to someone else. It's relative. It depends on the position and speed of two reference frames. This makes no sense: "In the beginning the universe was the most red shifted as it hurled through space." None at all.

 

Another conceptual problem has to due with the expansion of space-time. If space-time is still expanding does than imply we are not at zero reference? In other words, as long as it keeps expanding, zero reference keeps changing no matter what point in time we decide to call zero reference. What is significant about this is if we define our time and place on earth as zero, then if the universe is continuing to expand the bulk universe is moving into negative reference relative to the zero point chosen. The only way to avoid expansion into negative relative reference is for space-time to be fixed with only matter is moving. But if the zero point is changing does that mean the solar system began with slightly more time dilation? And does relativity decreasing with time explain dark energy?

 

No.

 

-modest

[Jay-qu]

It is not useful to talk about how redshifted "the universe" is. Redshift is relative. Something at some distance is redshifted some amount and something else at another distance is redshifted differently. Andromeda is blueshifted to us but is redshifted to someone else. It's relative. It depends on the position and speed of two reference frames. This makes no sense: "In the beginning the universe was the most red shifted as it hurled through space." None at all.

 

-modest

 

Yes it is relative but the interesting consequence of the universe been homogeneous and isotropic means that everywhere is the centre of the universe and thus everyone will see the majority of the rest of the universe redshifted (especially things far away).

 

An example from the very early universe is the CMBR which shows the surface of last scattering before the universe became transparent to EM radiation. It is this radiation that has being redshifted the most. From its very hot ~3000K down to its now 2.7K

[modest]

Yes it is relative but the interesting consequence of the universe been homogeneous and isotropic means that everywhere is the centre of the universe and thus everyone will see the majority of the rest of the universe redshifted (especially things far away).

 

An example from the very early universe is the CMBR which shows the surface of last scattering before the universe became transparent to EM radiation. It is this radiation that has being redshifted the most. From its very hot ~3000K down to its now 2.7K

 

This is true for anyone at T=13.7 Gyrs. Their CMBR would be 2.7 K, their Hubble constant and scale factor would be the same as ours. If this is what HB meant or not, I cannot discern.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Can you prove this? Yes or no? We expect you to support your claims and what you "think" or your "opinion" is not support.

 

I introduce a lot of 'new science' to fill the gaps (questions) in our current teachings of the astronomy and cosmology sectors.

I also make corrections in some aspects of todays teachings.

 

The 'creation of photons' has no establishment scientific explanation for this.

 

The Bohr atomic model is the source of my CoPh's theory. Couple this with the 'electric' fields that surround the electrons, are 'real'.

So these fields can be explained by these 'real field particles' rather than as they are currently portrayed as 'virtual'.

This to me, is credible for the nature of the universe model that deals with hydrogen alone and does not need the Schroedinger model of the HA.

 

This is my evidence that I consider as real science.

 

Thank you for understanding.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

I introduce a lot of 'new science' to fill the gaps (questions) in our current teachings of the astronomy and cosmology sectors.

I also make corrections in some aspects of todays teachings.

 

Stating your "opinion" is NOT introducing new science. Stating a new hypothesis and your supporting evidence would be introducing new science. Now, support your claims here, that's the rule. If you don't like our rules then go start your own forum and make your own rules there!

[Zythryn]

...These particles are still a mystery as far as I know regarding whether they have any mass or their strength in their charges.

However, I think I give the best description of how these photons are generated.

 

Mike, this is a thought experiment and nothing more. It doesn't even reach the level of a hypothesis.

If you have no experimental evidence for this, can you even suggest WHAT experiments could test your ideas?

[Pluto]

G'day

 

I lke Mike C to keep on explaining his ideas.

 

And if possible support them.

 

I do not think he can do that in one or two post.

[Mike C]

Mike, this is a thought experiment and nothing more. It doesn't even reach the level of a hypothesis.

If you have no experimental evidence for this, can you even suggest WHAT experiments could test your ideas?

 

Various experiments have been done to show the nature of these electric charges and the magnetic fields. This is high school physics.

The simplest instrument proving their existence is the 'electroscope'.

 

The characteristics of the electric fields have been proven by the mathematical nature of them that their strength falls off inversally in relation to their distance from the sources.

 

Their action at a distance is common knowledge.

My physics book has 20 pages devoted to these electric fields.

Title: Introductory Physics by Mashuri l Warren.

 

Since these fields fill the space around the charges, it does not take much of an imagination to consider what they are conposed of.

So the term 'virtual' particles is used to describe these fields and their composition.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

Mike, I apologize for not being clear enough. I am not talking about the well established and researched behavior of electric fields.

What I am talking about is summed up by your words here:

Originally Posted by Mike C

...These particles are still a mystery as far as I know regarding whether they have any mass or their strength in their charges.

However, I think I give the best description of how these photons are generated.

 

Where you have NO experimental evidence or even suggested experiments that could offer data is how photons are affected by electric fields.

In a lab, we have been able to show support for e=mc^2, yet you say that doesn't work.

Yet, you show no experimental data to back up your speculations that photons are affected by electric fields.:shrug:

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

I like the opinion on these links: Just reading through many papers to understand compacted objects and the formation of jets. It will take me years to understand their workings.

 

*[astro-ph/0005216] Magnetic fields around black holes

 

Magnetic fields around black holes

 

Authors: Z. Budinova, M. Dovciak, V. Karas, A. Lanza

(Submitted on 10 May 2000)

 

Abstract: The electromagnetic field near a rotating black hole is being explored in educational style here. By employing analytic solutions for electrovacuum fields, we plot the surfaces of constant flux and we show how the field is dragged around the black hole by purely geometrical effects of the strong gravitational field. We visualize the structure of magnetic lines and we also propose possible astrophysical applications of more realistic situations involving the presence of plasma: The entangled and twisted field lines result in reconnection processes which accelerate the particles injected into the vicinity of the black hole. Such acceleration mechanisms of the electromagnetic origin are considered as a possible source of high-speed outflows emerging from numerous nuclei of galaxies where black holes reside.

 

*[astro-ph/0006101] Collimated outflows of rapidly rotating young stellar objects

 

Collimated outflows of rapidly rotating young stellar objects

 

Authors: E. Breitmoser, M. Camenzind

(Submitted on 7 Jun 2000)

 

Abstract: We present an analytical model for the magnetic flux surfaces for rapidly rotating magnetized young stellar objects which is based on ideal, stationary, axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamics. The resulting cold wind solutions reproduce observed wind velocities of a few hundred kms$ $ and the outer jet radi us for a collimated jet of several thousand stellar radii. The theory of axisymmetric magnetospheres around rapidly rotating stellar sources is outlined including electric fields due to the rapid rotation. Gravity of the central object is consistently built into this theory. A consistent wind theory is developed which contains the Newtonian theory as a classical limit. Current--carrying plasma flows will lead to a collimation of the magnetospheric structure into a cylindrical shape. We show that the asymptotic structure is essentially determined by electric forces in the pinch equation, and not by centrifugal and pressure forces.

[Mike C]

Mike, I apologize for not being clear enough. I am not talking about the well established and researched behavior of electric fields.

What I am talking about is summed up by your words here:

 

 

Where you have NO experimental evidence or even suggested experiments that could offer data is how photons are affected by electric fields.

In a lab, we have been able to show support for e=mc^2, yet you say that doesn't work.

Yet, you show no experimental data to back up your speculations that photons are affected by electric fields.:shrug:

 

I did not say photons are affected by electric fields.

I did say that photons are transmitted through the electric fields.

 

Can you supply the data of the experiment that supports the Einstein M/E formula?

 

I would be curious to know what it is based on?

 

Energy as applied to light was introduced by the DeBroglei formula that is stated as:

 

E = hv......................Plancks Constant x frequency of light

This is a lot simpler formula and more realistic.

 

Mike C

 

.

[Mike C]

Stating your "opinion" is NOT introducing new science. Stating a new hypothesis and your supporting evidence would be introducing new science. Now, support your claims here, that's the rule. If you don't like our rules then go start your own forum and make your own rules there!

 

Well, I think that new science would be welcome to any science forum.

I mean the Copernicus's, Galileos and etc that were proven right after further

solutions for these new introductions.

 

The power science establishment (Roman Church) eventually failed miserably

after the Heliocentric theory was widely accepted.

 

Mike C