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

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

To be fee to think what you want goes without saying.

 

As for compact matter, as I mentioned before you can also call it and also refered to as degenerate matter, ultra dense compact matter, ultra dense plasma matter, dark matter, dark energy and there is other names.

 

 

Such as in this link

 

On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center

[astro-ph/0512211] On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center

Authors: Avery E. Broderick (1), Ramesh Narayan (1,2) ((1) Institute for Theory and Computation, (2) Harvard University)

(Submitted on 8 Dec 2005 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2006 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: We consider a model in which Sgr A*, the 3.5x10^6 M_sun supermassive black hole candidate at the Galactic Center, is a compact object with a surface. Given the very low quiescent luminosity of Sgr A* in the near infrared, the existence of a hard surface, even in the limit in which the radius approaches the horizon, places severe constraints upon the steady mass accretion rate in the source, requiring dM/dt < 10^-12 M_sun/yr. This limit is well below the minimum accretion rate needed to power the observed submillimeter luminosity of Sgr A*. We thus argue that Sgr A* does not have a surface, i.e., it must have an event horizon. The argument could be made more restrictive by an order of magnitude with microarcsecond resolution imaging, e.g., with submillimeter VLBI.

 

Maddog said

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pluto

If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole.

 

Unsupported -- not true - unfounded -- Just conjecture on your part.

 

What part do you think is unsupported and what part is general information?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pluto

Where does this matter come from? There is no magic in this.

 

Basically has been said before in the last couple of posts, including mine.

Best method I can think of would be Hawking Radiation around a fast rotating

Black Hole.

 

This is in reference to ejected jet matter being greater than infalling matter into black holes.

It has little to do with Hawking Radiation. This is a very slow process. Even though Steven Hawkings agrees that matter can escape from a black hole.

 

If the matter ejected is greater than the infalling,

Where does the matter come from?

It must come from the stored matter inside the core of the black hole.

How it does this is the issue that I'm trying to understand.

 

As for a cyclic process

 

Just look at the formation of stars and phase stages and the cyclic processes that are involved. Similar with galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation. This is general information and google can give it to you.

 

I do not issist on anybody reading the links that I put forward, I find them interesting whether I agree with them or not.

 

As for the attact on my posting, I feel sorry that I have offended some, it is not done intensionally.

 

As fr compact objects

 

This link is also interesting

 

Electromagnetic jets from compact objects

Electromagnetic jets from compact objects

[modest]

As for compact matter, as I mentioned before you can also call it and also refered to as degenerate matter, ultra dense compact matter, ultra dense plasma matter, dark matter, dark energy and there is other names.

 

The proper, scientific term which would avoid confusion is "degenerate matter". This refers to matter which has higher than normal density because it is compressed to such a degree that it is supported by degeneracy pressure rather than only being supported by normal thermal pressure.

 

Dark matter and dark energy are NOT synonymous with degenerate matter. Dark matter is unseen or 'missing' matter which has a measurable gravitational effect. Dark energy is an energy density associated with empty space which has negative pressure, also having a measurable gravitational effect.

 

While theories have been put forward claiming that quark matter/strange matter (which could also be a form of degenerate matter) may be responsible for dark matter effects, the terms "degenerate matter" and "dark matter" are certainly not equivalent.

 

Such as in this link

 

On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center

[astro-ph/0512211] On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center

 

This paper never once says "dark matter", because the term 'dark matter' is meant to refer to something different than 'degenerate matter'. It uses the term 'dark mass' interchangeably with 'compact object' which both refer in this case to a likely supermassive black hole.

 

It's also notable that you've once again posted a paper that disagrees with your position completely. It argues strongly against your idea of a compact object made of degenerate matter at the galactic core.

 

If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole.

 

Unsupported -- not true - unfounded -- Just conjecture on your part.

 

What part do you think is unsupported and what part is general information?

 

:) It's all unsupported

 

Maddog is correct. You have claimed these things as fact, but done nothing to support, explain, or validate it. That's what unsupported means. It means you said something was true, but didn't offer any corroborating argument or evidence.

 

It's not the responsibility of everyone else to work proving your claims false. It's your responsibility to support your claims. Can you prove that supermassive black holes eject more matter than they accrete? Can you prove that galactic superclusters are incompatible with BBT? Or, is this just unfounded conjecture?

 

~Modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

 

Degenerate matter can be used, it is a matter or choice.

 

Many papers refer to it as compact matter or ultra dense plasma matter.

 

But! thats not the point.

 

As far as supporting general information that you can google, if there is a question I do not mind.

 

But! I do not like the attitude of late.

 

I will keep my responses as simple as possible.

[maddog]

This is in reference to ejected jet matter being greater than infalling matter into black holes. It has little to do with Hawking Radiation. This is a very slow process. Even though Steven Hawkings agrees that matter can escape from a black hole.

I may have been a bit flippant and I will have to rethink what I was getting at wrt

to Jet near Black Holes (i.e. Hawking Radiation, etc). Be that as it may. Jets

CATEGORICALLY CAN NOT COME from within the Event Horizon of a Black Hole ! <<<CAN NOT>>> This limitation is physics -- plane and simple.

To do so would exceed C as escape velocity.

 

So any method for "cycling" in a Black Hole requires that this process be outside of the Event Horizon. Matter falling in converts a lot of energy from

potential to kinetic. Jet are viable and may even be common around BH. I

will ponder this some more and may even look up some recent theories on the

subject.

 

If the matter ejected is greater than the infalling,

Where does the matter come from? It must come from the stored matter inside the core of the black hole. How it does this is the issue that I'm trying to understand.

It does not as already stated above. Jets are likely process outside of the Event Horizon.

 

As for a cyclic process[:]

Just look at the formation of stars and phase stages and the cyclic processes that are involved. Similar with galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation. This is general information and google can give it to you.

This is where you go unfounded. Right here.

The formation of stars plus the galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation are all processes of an evolving nature and are definitely asymmetric with time. Whereas "cyclical processes have an inherent time symmetry where like Deja' Vu you can be somewhat repeating a part of a process from before.

 

You can form new stars from old star stuff yet they form NEW stars that won't be like the OLD stars. So a galaxy will change forward one way in time.

 

So like others have said here you need to "Qualify" your assertion above in what you Mean! Especially wrt to "Cycling".

 

As for the attac[k] on my posting, I feel sorry that I have offended some, it is not done intensionally.

Any such animosity has been brought on by yourself (as Buffy has said SO Well in a previous Post). If I were you I would read her post about 10 Times so maybe you comprehend what she is really saying.

 

I have been following your posts for some time in this thread. There is some good things in what you say. It is just riddled with such stuff that is hard to swallow. This is not about agreement. It is about following logic and forming a

conclusion. You just often state things as though a conclusion has been made

when being modest might only be a conjecture or hypothesis or sometimes even a mangled thought. Now I wonder could this be just Ignorance or just Pomposity ? Every time I read where you erred on the Nightmare side of Buffy's cohen, I keep considering the latter.

 

This is not so much an "attack" as you say, it is a plea for you to get Rigorous.

 

:shrug:

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

I agree with you.

 

Like I said before a cyclic process has various descriptions.

 

I never said that a cyclic process gets you back to the same place. But! I agree with what you said.

 

We are fully awear of the processes in stars and galaxy eolution. Without a recyling process, the age of the parts would be infinite without rejuvination. Evolution brings change.

 

If I was to explain the cyclic processes with respect to the parts that make up the universe I would be taking it from general information, any book can explain.

[Little Bang]

The vast majority of the scientific community believes that the universe started with the Big Bang. That majority also includes most of the real brains, the standard model enthusiasts, and the quantum theorist. I would like to ask a rather simple question, of what was the Big Bang composed in the first 10^-43 seconds?

[maddog]

The vast majority of the scientific community believes that the universe started with the Big Bang. That majority also includes most of the real brains, the standard model enthusiasts, and the quantum theorist. I would like to ask a rather simple question, of what was the Big Bang composed in the first 10^-43 seconds?

Little Bang,

 

That is a Really Good Question !

 

Sad, that the moment is less than a good answer. To effectively answer you without mostly opinions on my part or baseless conjecture would require a greater understanding of where both GR and QFT meet (Quantum Gravity). This is because you are very near Plank Time (if not already at it). Processes that were going on in that brief moment would require this knowledge / understanding.

 

It is for this reason, I do not like theorizing about what the universe was doing near that moment. Too much guesswork / conjecture / unfounded theories.

 

I start to lose confidence below 10^-6 seconds after (let alone log -43!).

 

:)

 

maddog

[maddog]

I never said that a cyclic process gets you back to the same place. But! I agree with what you said.

It doesn't ? What did you agree with. I have said a lot.

 

We are fully awear of the processes in stars and galaxy eolution. Without a recyling process, the age of the parts would be infinite without rejuvination. Evolution brings change.

???

 

If I was to explain the "cyclic processes" with respect to the parts that make up the universe I would be taking it from general information, any book can explain.

Let me get this straight -- you are saying I should take out some "general information" on "cyclic processes" and that is what you mean by it -- so that you can therefore make ANY Claim You Like and not have to explain or corroborate in some way.

 

It is this which limits your credibility. I am already Clear this general information definition of "cyclic processes" is not Yours.

 

Really ###

 

:) :) :)

 

:)

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Maddog said

 

Let me get this straight -- you are saying I should take out some "general information" on "cyclic processes" and that is what you mean by it -- so that you can therefore make ANY Claim You Like and not have to explain or corroborate in some way.

 

Cyclic processes are not as simple as they seem. In many cases you will have various mechanisms and scientist usually depending on their field choose a related solution or mechansim.

 

Your right cyclic processes are not my idea.

 

It is very hard to state and explain and corroborate when the informtion on cosmology is very limited.

 

One of the reason why I post links, is to allow scientists in the field to maybe expalin their point of view with their evidence and support.

 

I'm not that smart.

 

At this moment I have been directed to read, the formation of jets and their properties, this is one point of view than I have others to read.

 

Why am I do this? Because I want to understand what the hell is going on.

 

Relativistic poynting jets

arXiv.org Search

 

 

==========================

 

I have posted this link before, it is down to earth reading.

 

Practical cosmology and cosmological physics

 

Authors: Yu. Baryshev (1), I. Taganov (2), P. Teerikorpi (3) ((1)Astron. Inst. St.-Petersburg Univ., (2)Russ. Geograph. Soc., (3)Tuorla Obs. Turku Univ.)

 

(Submitted on 5 Sep 2008)

 

 

Abstract: We present a summary of the International conference "Problems of practical cosmology", held at Russian Geographical Society, 23-27 June 2008, St.-Petersburg, Russia, where original reports were offered for discussion of new developments in modern cosmological physics, including the large scale structure of the Universe, the evolution of galaxies, cosmological effects in the local stellar systems, gravity physics for cosmology, cosmological models, and crucial observational tests of rival world models. The term "Practical Cosmology" was introduced by Allan Sandage in 1995 when he formulated "23 astronomical problems for the next three decades" at the conference on "Key Problems in Astronomy and Astrophysics" held at Canary Islands. Now when the first decade has passed, we can summarise the present situation in cosmological physics emphasizing interesting hot problems that have arisen during the last decade. Full texts of all reports are available at the website of the conference.

[Little Bang]

Ok maddog, let's say what was the BB composed of in the first second. I think it was just radiation with a frequency equal to the total energy of the universe (f = E/h). This should be one of the most important questions in physics. So far I have not seen any of the standard model or QM people give a direct answer. I think one of the reasons is that it is dangerous ground for both theories. If it is radiation they have the problem of explaining how to get matter from that radiation.

[CraigD]

… let's say what was the BB composed of in the first second[?] …

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe 1 second after the big bang was a ordinary – other than being very hot, and having an extraordinary number of anti-leptons - hot plasma gas. All of the common particles behaved as we usually observe them behaving today: quarks and gluons are confined in hadrons, there are lots of strongly interacting leptons, neutrinos don’t interact strongly with anything, and photons do.

 

The main difference between the 1 second-old universe and the everyday plasmas we see today in the sun, florescent lights, etc, is that it was much hotter, so hot that protons and neutrons aren’t bound into atomic nuclei, and photons interacting with them to produce such an extraordinary number of lepton/antilepton (mostly electron/positron) pairs that photons and lepton/antilepton pairs are effectively different momentary expressions of the same thing. Like photons in the interior of present-day stars, photons can’t travel more than a short distance without interacting with something, so light in any ordinary sense doesn’t yet exist.

 

This state of the universe lasts for about 2 seconds, followed by one much like it that last for about 3 minutes.

 

There are a lot of excellent descriptions of this period, know as the “lepton epoch” because most of the mass of the universe was then in the form of leptons and antileptons. A good summary, with links to others, is the wikipedia article “timeline of the big bang”

So far I have not seen any of the standard model or QM people give a direct answer.

I’m surprised to hear this, as brief descriptions like mine above are common in popular science books and TV documentaries.

 

Upon reading this post, I hope that you consider yourself to have seen a direct answer to the question “according to the Big Bang theory, what was the universe composed of 1 second after the Big Bang?”

[Little Bang]

Ok you have given your answer. I must make the assumption that gravity did not exist for the next several months or even years since the entire mass of the universe is contained within this expanding sphere one would think that like a black hole nothing could escape.

[modest]

I must make the assumption that gravity did not exist for the next several months or even years

 

The link CragD gave (wikipedia article “timeline of the big bang”) is very good. It answers your question saying that during the Planck epoch (first [math]10^{-43}[/math] seconds of the universe) gravity was most-likely unified with the other 3 forces of the universe. After the Plank epoch gravity separates from the other forces. By the quark epoch ([math]10^{-12} \ - \ 10^{-6}[/math] seconds), "The fundamental interactions of gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong interaction and the weak interaction have now taken their present forms"

 

since the entire mass of the universe is contained within this expanding sphere one would think that like a black hole nothing could escape.

 

As far as I know, nothing has escaped the universe.

 

~modest

[Little Bang]

After the first second the universe should be a sphere with a diameter of two light seconds that contains all the matter of our present universe. Then according to wiki gravity should now exist. If that is true why wouldn't the enormous gravitational well prevent any further expansion?

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

Thinking out aloud!!!!

 

If matter cannot be create or distroyed than we can assume that the matter existed in some form of compact degenerate matter throughout the universe in various points until the TIME came to eject this matter forming the so called Big Bang throughout the universe at the same time. Big Bang nucleosynthesis describes the event.

[modest]

After the first second the universe should be a sphere with a diameter of two light seconds that contains all the matter of our present universe. Then according to wiki gravity should now exist. If that is true why wouldn't the enormous gravitational well prevent any further expansion?

 

First, there's no reason to think the universe had a diameter of two light seconds after 2 seconds. If you look at the link that Craig gave, you'll see inflation is suspected to have happened well before 2 seconds. According to inflation, the universe expanded faster (perhaps much, much faster) than the speed of light.

 

Nevertheless, your point is—why didn't it immediately collapse back in on itself like a black hole.

 

The best answer (I think) is that general relativity doesn't demand it do that.

 

A black hole is a variation in gravitational potential due to a variation in mass density. Inside the black hole there is a lot of mass in a small volume. Outside the black hole there is no mass. This difference in density from one area to the next is what made the black hole. The early universe had the same density everywhere. No matter what area of the early universe you look at, it has the same density as the area next to it. So, nowhere does a black hole want to form.

 

In fact, black holes and the universe are two entirely different things that are described entirely differently (as they should be) by general relativity. The Schwarzschild solution to GR describes (among other things) black holes and the Friedmann solution describes an homogeneous and isotropic universe. These are both exact solutions to GR, but they are fundamentally different. A black hole (as described by Schwarzschild) is a static and vacuum solution. Spacetime is not moving and it is empty.

 

In the Friedmann universe, spacetime is moving and it is filled homogeneously. These differences are set out here:

 

Why did the universe not collapse and form a black hole at the beginning?

 

Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the big bang is not a black hole. After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve space-time strongly. At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass. Nevertheless, the big bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly. How can this be?

 

The short answer is that the big bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down. Space can be flat while space-time is not. The curvature can come from the temporal parts of the space-time metric which measures the deceleration of the expansion of the universe. So the total curvature of space-time is related to the density of matter but there is a contribution to curvature from the expansion as well as from any curvature of space. The Schwarzschild solution of the gravitational equations is static and demonstrates the limits placed on a static spherical body before it must collapse to a black hole. The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter.

 

Is the big bang a black hole?

 

Your question is also answered by some qualified people here:

 

According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?: Scientific American

 

and a snippet from that link:

 

Second of all, the concept of a black hole is only one type of solution to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, our best current theory of gravity. This reading of general relativity--known as the Schwarzschild solution--is thought to give an accurate description of the gravity near an isolated, nonrotating black hole, as well as the 'normal' gravity near the earth and throughout our solar system.

 

But other solutions to general relativity are known to exist, including ones that apply to a whole universe. These alternative solutions typically assume that the early universe was perfectly uniform so that there were no places for black holes to form, even if the density were so great that particles were "cheek by jowl." The most popular class of general relativity solutions applying to the entire cosmos are known as Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions. These formulations appear to describe correctly our expanding universe; that is, they demonstrate how objects not held together by local forces (such as the electromagnetism that bonds atoms in molecules or the gravity that keeps the earth intact) stream away from one another in a predictable manner.

 

In other words, an area in our universe that has really high density and wants to collapse into a black hole is a different thing than the whole universe having really high density. In the former, spacetime is most certainly curved. In the latter, spacetime can be flat. As GR goes, that makes all the difference.

 

~modest

[CraigD]

I must make the assumption that gravity did not exist for the next several months or even years since the entire mass of the universe is contained within this expanding sphere one would think that like a black hole nothing could escape.

After the first second the universe should be a sphere with a diameter of two light seconds that contains all the matter of our present universe. Then according to wiki gravity should now exist. If that is true why wouldn't the enormous gravitational well prevent any further expansion?

It’s a significant misunderstanding of the theory to assume that the Big Bang Theory describes the universe gradually expanded for several months after the Big Bang, or that it’s diameter was 2 light seconds 2 seconds after the big bang.

 

According to the theory, the universe expanded to a few orders of magnitude (roughtly a factor of 1000 of its present size, about [math]10^8[/math] lightyears) or its present diameter between [math]10^{-36}[/math] and [math]10^{-32}[/math] seconds after the Big Bang, a period known as the inflationary epoch, a “long time” (about 1 second) before the lepton epoch.

 

It should be noted that, like all of the very early universe described by the Big Bang theory, the detailed mechanics of the inflationary epoch are described only by very speculative theories and experimental evidence. Best present-day theory is very good at predicting and experimentally testing the behavior of chemical elements and high-speed particle collisions, but much less at detailed descriptions of the very early universe as described by the Big Bang theory. Directly experimentally testing theory in this domain – that is, recreating conditions similar to the described early universe – is very difficult, the realm of giant, very expensive particle colliders, whereas indirect confirmation of its predictions, which have been very successful and instrumental in creating and refining features of the Big Bang theory, particularly cosmic inflation are in the realm of astronomy.

If matter cannot be create or distroyed than we can assume that the matter existed in some form of compact degenerate matter throughout the universe in various points until the TIME came to eject this matter forming the so called Big Bang throughout the universe at the same time.

That matter cannot be created or destroyed is not an assumption of the Big Bang theory or modern physics in general.

 

That “matter” – more precisely hadrons and leptons such as protons, neutrons, and electrons – can be destroyed, producing energy – typically in the form of photons – is well predicted by theory and confirmed by experiment. More, that mass/energy can appear “from nothing” is a key prediction of quantum mechanics, and one of the leading candidates to answer the question “what was the Big Bang?” This proposed mechanism, quantum fluctuation, is experimentally shown to exist as a very small effect. In using it as an explanation for the Big Bang, proponent suggesting that it can, with very low probability, be a very, very large one.

 

For the probability of such a very low probability event occurring to become likely, a long time is needed. Edward Tryon summarized this in the famous (at least among cosmology enthusiasts) quote "Our Universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time". We’ve discussed this a few times at hypography: searching the forums for “Tryon” will find these discussions.