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

[jackson33]

In what way does the SSU violate the 2nd Law?

 

The SSU is a closed system of both matter and energy.

 

New photons are created to replace the 'expanded' photons that eventually lose their energy as they leave the universe in a spent state.

 

Mike C

.

 

Mike, are you confusing 'closed' system, there by creating a reason for energy loss (beyond confines of the U) to being, not energy (spent or lost effect by expanding).

 

BBT, suggest a closed system, where space is created in expansion. Half the theory falls to energy results in a closed system. If energy leaves the U, as is, just not spent, it would mean nothing, unless there is a mass loss. If there are no other U or something beyond our limits for matter formation, nothing tangible to use or dispose of this energy, it would simply travel into infinity, as should space itself does.

 

Energy requires mass to form and energy requires mass to use itself, but energy is not dependent or required for existence to mass. When matter is being formed, the energy is not gathered from space, but then creating new energy to the limits of the mass being formed.

 

Maybe I have missed something, but I always figured you thought the U was limited in size, for lack of matter and positioned in space which is infinite. If you close the system or separate open space to what the U exist in, I see as many problems as I do with BBT. Personally, I don't think a finite U is required for SSU or that multiverses do/don't exist are important, but infinite space is very important....My thoughts anyway.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

A cyclic universe requires no ad hoc ideas to make it work. It can be expalined by the observations we see. Does not require the universe to expand etc.

 

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

Beyond Inflation: A Cyclic Universe Scenario

Beyond Inflation: A Cyclic Universe Scenario

Neil Turok1,3 and Paul J Steinhardt2

 

Rather than resort to anthropic arguments, we have developed an alternative cosmology, the cyclic universe, in which the universe exists in a very long-lived attractor state determined by the laws of physics. The model shares inflation's phenomenological successes without requiring an epoch of high energy inflation. Instead, the universe is made homogeneous and flat, and scale-invariant adiabatic perturbations are generated during an epoch of low energy acceleration like that seen today, but preceding the last big bang. Unlike inflation, the model requires low energy acceleration in order for a periodic attractor state to exist. The key challenge facing the scenario is that of passing through the cosmic singularity at t = 0. Substantial progress has been made at the level of linearised gravity, which is reviewed here. The challenge of extending this to nonlinear gravity and string theory remains

 

They are getting close to explaining a cyclic universe.

 

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

 

Could cyclic universe explain mystery?

Could cyclic universe explain mystery? - Space.com - MSNBC.com

 

 

One of the biggest mysteries in cosmology could be explained by a controversial theory in which the universe explodes into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.

 

Called the cyclic universe theory, it could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant," which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

 

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

 

Holographic dark energy in a cyclic universe

Jingfei Zhang,1 Xin Zhang,2 and Hongya Liu1

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.3121v2.pdf

 

Abstract

In this paper we study the cosmological evolution of the holographic dark energy in a cyclic universe,

generalizing the model of holographic dark energy proposed by Li. The holographic dark energy

with c < 1 can realize a quintom behavior; namely, it evolves from a quintessence-like component

to a phantom-like one. The holographic phantom energy density grows rapidly and dominates the

late-time expanding phase, helping realize a cyclic universe scenario in which the high energy regime

is modified by the effects of quantum gravity, causing a turnaround (and a bounce) of the universe.

The dynamical evolution of holographic dark energy in the regimes of low energy and high energy is

governed by two differential equations, respectively. It is of importance to link the two regimes for

this scenario. We propose a link condition giving rise to a complete picture of holographic evolution

of a cyclic universe.

 

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

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic

Universe

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2965v1.pdf

 

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state

cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic

model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We

discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process

first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is

shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of

galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena,

which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.

The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between

the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in

hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D,

He3 and He4). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties

of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies.

Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from

these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles

is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs)

and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.

In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved

problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme.

These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts,

and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.

 

 

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

 

The Endless Universe:

A Brief Introduction 1

PAUL J. STEINHARDT

Professor of Physics, Princeton University

 

http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1484/480406.pdf

 

The “cyclic model of the universe” is a radical alternative to standard

big bang/inflationary theory in which space and time exist indefinitely,

the rapidly accelerating inflationary phase is avoided, and the universe

undergoes periodic epochs of expansion and contraction.

 

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

 

 

Cyclic Universe a la string theory

 

Science Links Japan | Cyclic Universe a la string theory

 

Abstract;A model of the "cyclic universe" is constructed based on a minimal set of the properties of the string theory. The string theory predicts that the size of the universe is bounded from below, and that the energy and temperature are bounded from above. As time goes back to the era of the birth of the universe, the size of the big bang universe becomes of the string scale. As time goes further back, it reaches the era of the big crunch. There arises the cyclic universe scenario in which the big bans and big crunchs repeat. In the process of the repetition, the universe acquires entropy and attains the huge entropy at the present day.

 

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

 

The above cyclic universe have a form of logic and allows us an option to research and learn.

 

There are parts to the above that I do not agree with. I will expand later.

 

Got to go,,,,,,,,,,,,shopping

[Mike C]

A version of a steady state universe model in which the universe exists forever in nearly the same form and is also closed, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics requirement that the total entropy of an isolate system must increase. In such a system, available energy sources must eventually be exhausted, a state commonly called the heat death of the universe.

 

I have discussed this with Modest where she gave some examples of the energies in these examples eventually reach a state of equalibrium.

This then is the death of the meaning of 'entropy' where their is no more heat being transferred to a colder part of this system or universe.

 

So how can the entropy increase when the temperature of all contents in a closed system reach equalibrium? There then cannot be any more heat transfer for any entropy to exist.

 

For this reason, modern steady state theories, such as Hoyle, Gold, Bondi and others 1948 model, require both a constantly expanding universe, and a process of “continuous creation” of matter, primarily hydrogen. Although this model enjoyed moderate popularity in the 1950s and 60s, it has a dearth of supporting scientific data and few scientifically competent supporters now. However, to this day, the phrase “steady state universe” is usually assumed to refer to this model.If photons, or any measurable thing, are both escaping and being added to a system, it is not a closed system, so these two claims contradict one another.

 

As noted above, the best accepted steady state theories require that the universe not be a closed system. Some older previous “never-ending universe” theories were based on the assumption that the Sun and other stars (which, until fairly recent historic times, were believed to be a fundamentally different sort of thing than the Sun) would never cease shining.

 

My system is not based on the Hoyle et al concept because they accepted the 'expansion of space'. So theirs cannot be a SS. Their model would not qualify as a SSU.

 

My SSU is based on the Conservation Laws.

I will have to admit that the energy in this universe is not contained within the system but radiates to infinite distances and eventual death by expansion where they simply blend in with the EM fields in the outer space.

 

The matter content is limited and remains constant but does recycle with the star reproductions and deaths as neutron stars and decay back (Gamma Ray Bursters) into the basic elements such as HA's and up to the alpha helium nuclei.

 

The total mass remains the same at all times. So from this point of view, I would consider this part equal to a closed system.

The photons remain in a state of balance as old photons die and new photons are created with the regenerated new stars .

 

So this system is too complex to consider it as an entropy heat absorber since new photons are being created and spent through space at very great distances.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Mike, are you confusing 'closed' system, there by creating a reason for energy loss (beyond confines of the U) to being, not energy (spent or lost effect by expanding).

 

BBT, suggest a closed system, where space is created in expansion. Half the theory falls to energy results in a closed system. If energy leaves the U, as is, just not spent, it would mean nothing, unless there is a mass loss. If there are no other U or something beyond our limits for matter formation, nothing tangible to use or dispose of this energy, it would simply travel into infinity, as should space itself does.

 

Energy requires mass to form and energy requires mass to use itself, but energy is not dependent or required for existence to mass. When matter is being formed, the energy is not gathered from space, but then creating new energy to the limits of the mass being formed.

 

Maybe I have missed something, but I always figured you thought the U was limited in size, for lack of matter and positioned in space which is infinite. If you close the system or separate open space to what the U exist in, I see as many problems as I do with BBT. Personally, I don't think a finite U is required for SSU or that multiverses do/don't exist are important, but infinite space is very important....My thoughts anyway.

 

My SSU is based on the Conservation Laws.

 

But that applies to the total mass content only.

The energy content is also in a state of balance where old photons eventually become extinct by expansion and would eventually leave the universe. But for those that leave, they are replaced with new photon creations as new stars are born.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Hello All

 

According to main stream cosmology nothing can escape a black hole.

I was reading this paper. It shows that black holes can eject matter via jets.

 

 

[astro-ph/0612354] Models for jet power in elliptical galaxies: A case for rapidly spinning black holes

Models for jet power in elliptical galaxies: A case for rapidly spinning black holes

 

There are a lot of things about black hole jets that are not known.

 

The jets do not originate from inside the black hole or inside its event horizon. The material comes from the accretion disk around the black hole. The accretion disk spins around as things get sucked in much like water spins around the drain in a sink. Accretion disks can be found around other massive objects like stars. They are not unique to black holes.

 

Jets are also found apart from black holes. A protostar with an accretion disk may have a jet - but not nearly as powerful as a black hole's jet.

 

Matter falling from the spinning accretion disk into the black hole doesn't all cross the event horizon. Some of it reaches an escape velocity before crossing the horizon and is accelerated away at the poles. This is what happens with protostars except a black hole has a much higher escape velocity so its jets are much faster and more powerful.

 

I believe there is still a whole lot that needs learned about quasar jets but this is the general thinking. It's an interesting area.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

I agree with what you say and it becomes general knowledge.

 

And you are right in that we do not know what is really happening, since we cannot see within the so called black hole.

 

But after reading the papers that I have posted, there are issues that need to be explained.

 

Knowing one option and not looking for further explanations is a mistake.

 

oops I do not see the posts.

 

Hang on!! I will try to post them.

 

It will take me about 2 months to go through the papers on Jets from compacted cores such as Neutron Stars and Nucleons (BH)

 

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

 

[0802.1507] Sheared Flow As A Stabilizing Mechanism In Astrophysical Jets

 

Sheared Flow As A Stabilizing Mechanism In Astrophysical Jets

 

Authors: Lucas Wanex, Erik Tendeland

(Submitted on 11 Feb 2008 (v1), last revised 11 Feb 2008 (this version, v2))

 

Quote:

Abstract: It has been hypothesized that the sustained narrowness observed in the asymptotic cylindrical region of bipolar outflows from Young Stellar Objects (YSO) indicates that these jets are magnetically collimated. The j cross B force observed in z-pinch plasmas is a possible explanation for these observations. However, z-pinch plasmas are subject to current driven instabilities (CDI). The interest in using z-pinches for controlled nuclear fusion has lead to an extensive theory of the stability of magnetically confined plasmas. Analytical, numerical, and experimental evidence from this field suggest that sheared flow in magnetized plasmas can reduce the growth rates of the sausage and kink instabilities. Here we propose the hypothesis that sheared helical flow can exert a similar stabilizing influence on CDI in YSO jets.

 

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

 

[astro-ph/0609344] General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Jet Formation with a Thin Keplerian Disk

 

 

General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Jet Formation with a Thin Keplerian Disk

 

Authors: Yosuke Mizuno (NSSTC/MSFC/NPP), Ken-Ichi Nishikawa (NSSTC/UAH), Shinji Koide (Kumamoto Univ.), Philip Hardee (UA), Gerald J. Fishman (MSFC)

(Submitted on 13 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 3 Nov 2006 (this version, v2))

 

Quote:

Abstract: We have performed several simulations of black hole systems (non-rotating, black hole spin parameter a=0.0 and rapidly rotating, a=0.95) with a geometrically thin Keplerian disk using the newly developed RAISHIN code. The simulation results show the formation of jets driven by the Lorentz force and the gas pressure gradient. The jets have mildly relativistic speed (sim 0.4c). The matter is continuously supplied from the accretion disk and the jet propagates outward until each applicable terminal simulation time (non-rotating: t/tau_S = 275 and rotating: t/tau_S = 200, tau_S equiv r_S/c). It appears that a rotating black hole creates an additional, faster, and more collimated matter-dominated inner outflow (sim 0.5c) formed and accelerated by the twisted magnetic field resulting from frame-dragging in the black hole ergosphere. This is the first known simulation confirming the formation of an inner magnetically-driven, matter-dominated jet by the frame-dragging effect from a black hole co-rotating with a thin Keplerian disk threaded by a vertical magnetic field. This result indicates that jet kinematic structure depends on black hole rotation and on the initial magnetic field configuration and strength.

magnetic field. This result indicates that jet kinematic structure depends on black hole rotation and on the initial magnetic field configuration and strength.

 

 

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

 

 

[astro-ph/0505027] Magnetic Tower Outflows from a Radial Wire Array Z-pinch

 

Magnetic Tower Outflows from a Radial Wire Array Z-pinch

 

Authors: S. .V. Lebedev, A. Ciardi, D. Ampleford, S.N. Bland, S.C. Bott, J.P. Chittenden, G. Hall, J. Rapley, A. Frank, E. G. Blackman, T. Lery

(Submitted on 2 May 2005)

 

Quote:

We present the first results of high energy density laboratory astrophysics experiments which explore the evolution of collimated outflows and jets driven by a toroidal magnetic field. The experiments are scalable to astrophysical flows in that critical dimensionless numbers such as the Mach number, the plasma beta and the magnetic Reynolds number are all in the astrophysically appropriate ranges. Our experiments use the MAGPIE pulsed power machine and allow us to explore the role of magnetic pressure in creating and collimating the outflow as well as showing the creation of a central jet within the broader outflow cavity. We show that currents flow along this jet and we observe its collimation to be enhanced by the additional hoop stresses associated with the generated toroidal field. Although at later times the jet column is observed to go unstable, the jet retains its collimation. We also present simulations of the magnetic jet evolution using our two-dimensional resistive magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) laboratory code. We conclude with a discussion of the astrophysical relevance of the experiments and of the stability properties of the jet.

 

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

[astro-ph/0409441] Relativistic Jets from Accretion Disks

 

Relativistic Jets from Accretion Disks

 

Authors: R.V.E. Lovelace, P.R. Gandhi, M.M. Romanova

(Submitted on 17 Sep 2004 (v1), last revised 17 Sep 2004 (this version, v2))

 

Quote:

Abstract: The jets observed to emanate from many compact accreting objects may arise from the twisting of a magnetic field threading a differentially rotating accretion disk which acts to magnetically extract angular momentum and energy from the disk. Two main regimes have been discussed, hydromagnetic jets, which have a significant mass flux and have energy and angular momentum carried by both matter and electromagnetic field and, Poynting jets, where the mass flux is small and energy and angular momentum are carried predominantly by the electromagnetic field. Here, we describe recent theoretical work on the formation of relativistic Poynting jets from magnetized accretion disks. Further, we describe new relativistic, fully-electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations of the formation of jets from accretion disks. Analog Z-pinch experiments may help to understand the origin of astrophysical jets.

 

 

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

 

[astro-ph/0108067] Laboratory Astrophysics and Collimated Stellar Outflows: The Production of Radiatively Cooled Hypersonic Plasma Jets

 

Laboratory Astrophysics and Collimated Stellar Outflows: The Production of Radiatively Cooled Hypersonic Plasma Jets

 

Authors: S.V. Lebedev, J.P. Chittenden, F.N. Beg, S.N. Bland, A. Ciardi, D. Ampleford, S. Hughes, M.G. Haines (Imperial College), A. Frank, E.G. Blackman, T. Gardiner (Univ. of Rochester)

(Submitted on 3 Aug 2001)

 

Quote:

Abstract: We present first results of astrophysically relevant experiments where highly supersonic plasma jets are generated via conically convergent flows. The convergent flows are created by electrodynamic acceleration of plasma in a conical array of fine metallic wires (a modification of the wire array Z-pinch). Stagnation of plasma flow on the axis of symmetry forms a standing conical shock effectively collimating the flow in the axial direction. This scenario is essentially similar to that discussed by Canto' ~and collaborators as a purely hydrodynamic mechanism for jet formation in astrophysical systems. Experiments using different materials (Al, Fe and W) show that a highly supersonic (sim 20$), well-collimated jet is generated when the radiative cooling rate of the plasma is significant. We discuss scaling issues for the experiments and their potential use for numerical code verification. The experiments also may allow direct exploration of astrophysically relevant issues such as collimation, stability and jet-cloud interactions.

 

 

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

 

[astro-ph/9708142] Instability of toroidal magnetic field in jets and plerions

 

 

Instability of toroidal magnetic field in jets and plerions

 

Authors: Mitchell C. Begelman (JILA, Boulder, USA)

(Submitted on 15 Aug 1997)

 

Quote:

Abstract: Jets and pulsar-fed supernova remnants (plerions) tend to develop highly organized toroidal magnetic field. Such a field structure could explain the polarization properties of some jets, and contribute to their lateral confinement. A toroidal field geometry is also central to models for the Crab Nebula - the archetypal plerion - and leads to the deduction that the Crab pulsar's wind must have a weak magnetic field. Yet this `Z-pinch' field configuration is well known to be locally unstable, even when the magnetic field is weak and/or boundary conditions slow or suppress global modes. Thus, the magnetic field structures imputed to the interiors of jets and plerions are unlikely to persist.

To demonstrate this, I present a local analysis of Z-pinch instabilities for relativistic fluids in the ideal MHD limit. Kink instabilities dominate, destroying the concentric field structure and probably driving the system toward a more chaotic state in which the mean field strength is independent of radius (and in which resistive dissipation of the field may be enhanced). I estimate the timescales over which the field structure is likely to be rearranged and relate these to distances along relativistic jets and radii from the central pulsar in a plerion.

I conclude that a concentric toroidal field is unlikely to exist well outside the Crab pulsar's wind termination shock. There is thus no dynamical reason to conclude that the magnetic energy flux carried by the pulsar wind is much weaker than the kinetic energy flux. Abandoning this inference would resolve a long-standing puzzle in pulsar wind theory.

 

 

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

 

There is a trend to find what is actually driving the jets and ejecting matter from compact cores such as the so called black holes.

 

Black holes with singularity I do not think they exist. But! black holes that have a compacted core that acts like a Nucleon and having a mass about 3 or greater than our sun may create electromagnetic fields that may prevent EMR from escaping.

 

I could be wrong, but! the papers above are not my opinion.

 

What does this mean to cosmology?

 

They will have to re-write the standard theory.

 

A recyclic process may explain all these issues.

[modest]

My system is not based on the Hoyle et al concept because they accepted the 'expansion of space'. So theirs cannot be a SS. Their model would not qualify as a SSU.

 

Hoyle invented the steady-state universe. Not only does it qualify as an SSU - it was the first and only SSU for decades. It expands. The steady-state model was originally thought up as an expanding model. The important thing to Hoyle was that it didn't have a beginning. It wouldn't have been possible to say it didn't expand in the 1940's. At that time expansion had already been observed.

 

While having no argument with the Lemaître theory, (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argued that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator (see kalam cosmological argument).[4] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in World War II), argued for the universe as being in a "steady state". The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a "steady state" in the same manner that a flowing river is - the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.

-wikipedia on Fred_Hoyle

 

"Steady State" in physics refers to something with inflow and outflow resulting in some consistent properties. This does not imply static as it would appear you believe it does. Static spacetime was not the intention of the theory.

 

I tell you this with the best intentions: It may confuse people that you call your idea "steady state". A SS system implies strongly that there is some flow. A river or an electric wire with electricity flowing through it are examples of SS. Your idea doesn't have the one thing that SS implies and that may confuse people. The main component of Hoyle's SSU is the creation of new matter and expansion which is why he called it steady state. It has inflow and outflow.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

Hoyle invented the steady-state universe. Not only does it qualify as an SSU - it was the first and only SSU for decades. It expands. The steady-state model was originally thought up as an expanding model. The important thing to Hoyle was that it didn't have a beginning. It wouldn't have been possible to say it didn't expand in the 1940's. At that time expansion had already been observed.

-modest

 

A couple of quick points:

 

The idea that the universe was expanding in the late 1920's and 1930's was by no means confirmed (nor is it today :)). There were several (see below) astronomers, including Hubble himself, that doubted the redshift/Doppler interpretation (even into the 1950's). Hubble used Doppler for convenience. So it was still possible to say the universe was not expanding in the late 1940's. There are many that still do not accept that interpretation.

 

Steady State Theory evolved from world models that relate strongly to the aesthetic of the late 1900s through the early 1920s, those drafted by Millikan, MacMillan and Nernst. They were the precursors.

 

Secondly, the SS theory (Hoyle et al) and its later version (QSSC) are both oscillating universe models (periods of expansion followed by periods of contraction). The need for a physical mechanism that would generate enough energy to force large-scale oscillations of regions of space that extend 20, 40 or 100 billion light years, is a structural flaw that unfortunately has done irreparable damage to the QSSC framework. I would have loved to ask Sir Hoyle how something infinite in size or extent becomes larger then smaller, then larger again.

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

Hoyle invented the steady-state universe. Not only does it qualify as an SSU - it was the first and only SSU for decades. It expands. The steady-state model was originally thought up as an expanding model. The important thing to Hoyle was that it didn't have a beginning. It wouldn't have been possible to say it didn't expand in the 1940's. At that time expansion had already been observed.

 

 

 

"Steady State" in physics refers to something with inflow and outflow resulting in some consistent properties. This does not imply static as it would appear you believe it does. Static spacetime was not the intention of the theory.

 

I tell you this with the best intentions: It may confuse people that you call your idea "steady state". A SS system implies strongly that there is some flow. A river or an electric wire with electricity flowing through it are examples of SS. Your idea doesn't have the one thing that SS implies and that may confuse people. The main component of Hoyle's SSU is the creation of new matter and expansion which is why he called it steady state. It has inflow and outflow.

 

-modest

 

Looks like we have a 'semantics' problem here again.

 

If Hoyle has a copyright on the SS model, than it looks like I will have to change my model to a FS model for a 'Flat Space' model.

 

Hoyles SS cannot be a SS model because his space is expanding and his matter content is increasing. So the only thing his SS represents is the

'density' of the content.

 

My model has a SS space, so it could be called a SSS model as well.

But more, it also has a fixed total mass content for a SS matter content and the energy also remains in a steady balance to remain uniform.

 

So with my compliance to the Conseervation Laws, all systems are at a fixed value for a totally SS compliance to be a FS model. OK, so it is a FS model.

 

Mike C

[Moontanman]

Ok, If someone else had already thought of this please feel free to stomp on my post but.... When I think of a steady state but still expanding universe I have always thought of it like this. As matter expands out from the center of the universe it slowly become less and less likely to generate more energy i.e. matter contains less and less hydrogen and become more and packed into black holes, slowly these black holes evaporate and the resulting photons expand outward as well. The edge of the universe would be many mulitple trillions of light years away. (or in the next room depending on how seriously you take higher dimensions) At this point all spacetime, energy and any remaning matter would reach the edge and dissapear by a process like quantum tunneling and reappear as hydrogen and new space time near the center only to begin the journey back towards the edge. Please don't think I am trying to actually discribe any real world process but this is the only way I can see a universe that appears to be expanding but is really in a steady state. Almost certinly nothing but speculation but it would work I think. At the very least it would allow for the universe to be finite but still expanding. This would necesitate the edge of the universe be twisted through a higher dimension back on it's self and the act of traveling through this twist would cause the change to hydrogen of all the enegry flowing outward. Possibly by the act of concentration as it was twisted back through a higher dimension into a smaller space.:doh:now I have a headache:hyper:

[modest]

A couple of quick points:

 

The idea that the universe was expanding in the late 1920's and 1930's was by no means confirmed (nor is it today :shrug:). There were several (see below) astronomers, including Hubble himself, that doubted the redshift/Doppler interpretation (even into the 1950's). Hubble used Doppler for convenience. So it was still possible to say the universe was not expanding in the late 1940's. There are many that still do not accept that interpretation.

 

I shouldn't have implied otherwise. I mean to say the observations that imply expansion were already there in the 40's. The absolute Newtonian and static view had drastically changed by then. I agree that did not immediately change everyone's mind instantly. Beliefs held for hundreds of years don't just change overnight and on one type of observation.

 

Secondly, the SS theory (Hoyle et al) and its later version (QSSC) are both oscillating universe models (periods of expansion followed by periods of contraction).

 

While I know this is true of quasi-steady-state, I don't believe Hoyle's original theory had any contraction. You are the expert on his work around here so I should defer to your knowledge, but I just read his 1948 paper "A New Model for the Expanding Universe" and don't see what you're saying. It is, however, not important to my point which I will make again in case it has been lost:

 

MikeC believes Hoyle's model is not a steady-state model because it expands. This shows a misunderstanding about what "steady-state" is in physics. SS has a consistent property while the system has something flowing in and out. Hoyle's model satisfies this because of his C-field creating matter while older matter leaves the observable universe. The density is the consistent property. This is truly a steady-state idea which is no doubt why he named it that.

 

The need for a physical mechanism that would generate enough energy to force large-scale oscillations of regions of space that extend 20, 40 or 100 billion light years, is a structural flaw that unfortunately has done irreparable damage to the QSSC framework. I would have loved to ask Sir Hoyle how something infinite in size or extent becomes larger then smaller, then larger again.

 

It seems like A New Model for the Expanding Universe is something you would like very much. It is based on de Sitter's vacuum solution and it has no beginning of time. It solves the problem of why we don't see really really old stars and it works with redshift.

 

 

MikeC,

The paper linked above has a quote that echoes what people here are saying:

A further interesting feature is that the total “entropy” within the observable universe does not increase with time. Although entropy increases in a localized region, the total entropy remains approximately constant because local condensations carry entropy out of the observable universe. Thus thermodynamics has only localized application.

 

Hoyle is saying his SS model doesn't have an entropy problem that a static universe (like yours) would have. It is a valid criticism of your idea that people are voicing.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

G'day

 

FRED HOYLE

 

Stephen Hawking's Universe - Cosmological Stars

 

He was one of the developers of the steady-state theory, which holds that the universe has always existed and has always looked the same. To keep the density of the universe from falling, the theory requires that matter must be created continually. Ironically, he coined the term ìBig Bangî to describe the competing theory, while looking for a snappy, memorable phrase for a radio audience.

 

The cyclic process can explain the matter inflow and outflow. At the time they were locked into the so called expansion theory and not enough info to explain many issues.

 

Today is a different story. Within the next two years the ideas and issues in cosmology will change.

 

One very important point is that:

 

His ideas on how the elements formed proved more long-lasting. With his colleague William Fowler, he suggested that all the elements from helium to iron could be built up by nuclear reactions in the interiors of stars. They also hypothesized that the elements heavier than iron could form in supernova explosions triggered by the collapse of a starís core when it had exhausted its nuclear fuel. Almost every scientist today embraces this scenario of how the atoms in our bodies and in our planet form.

 

Although his idea is a bit cloudy. He is quite accurate in the formation of the elements.

[Mike C]

Hoyle is saying his SS model doesn't have an entropy problem that a static universe (like yours) would have. It is a valid criticism of your idea that people are voicing.

 

I thought I resolved this problem in one of my privious replies.

 

In my SSU, the buildup of heat because of the 'new star creations' are normalized by the expanded and 'spent' photons that leave the universe.

My version of the SSU is patterned after an Elliptical galaxy that has a limit to its mass content (border).

But space and the EM force fields extend to infinity.

So the photons do eventually expand to infinite widths and leave the universe as spent photons.

So this extra heat generation is balanced by the termination of photons.

Therefore, no heat buildup is present.

 

So how does the 'entropy' problem apply to the SSU?

 

I do not see a problem here.

 

Mike C

[modest]

I thought I resolved this problem in one of my privious replies.

 

I hope we can investigate it a bit deeper.

 

In my SSU, the buildup of heat because of the 'new star creations' are normalized by the expanded and 'spent' photons that leave the universe.

 

This here and the rest of your post seems to equate "heat buildup" with entropy. You then propose a solution of bleeding off photons or energy as a solution. The problem is that entropy is not heat buildup. It is the evening out of temperature. Eventually, as entropy reaches a maximum, nothing will be able to give heat to anything else because everything will have the same temperature. This is the problem Hoyle is avoiding and he only does so because mass is lost behind his cosmological horizon and new matter is created via his C-field.

 

My version of the SSU is patterned after an Elliptical galaxy that has a limit to its mass content (border).

But space and the EM force fields extend to infinity.

So the photons do eventually expand to infinite widths and leave the universe as spent photons.

So this extra heat generation is balanced by the termination of photons.

Therefore, no heat buildup is present.

 

It isn't "heat buildup and "extra heat generation" that people are objecting to. If the entire universe was an elliptical galaxy eventually (as entropy approached a maximum) everything would be the same temperature. The stars and planets and comets and moons - everything finds an equilibrium of average energy. We aren't there in our universe. Entropy increases, but isn't at a maximum.

 

Whatever model of the universe we use should describe increasing entropy, but not maximum entropy. If the universe has always existed then this immediately becomes a problem. How can a property that is always going up not be at a maximum?

 

 

So how does the 'entropy' problem apply to the SSU?

 

I do not see a problem here.

 

Hoyle's SSU doesn't have the entropy problem because new matter is continuously being created. The drawback being his model breaks the first law of thermodynamics which says energy/matter can't be created.

 

But your SSU doesn't create new matter/energy. As long as this is the case and there is no beginning of time there will be an entropy problem. Entropy is a fundamental property of matter. It always goes up and it isn't something you can bleed off. Unless you are introducing new matter to a system you can expect entropy to rise. Is there perhaps some way you can introduce new energy to your system. It can't be old photons from some other part of the universe. It would have to be really new - as in the universe hasn't seen it before.

 

-modest

[Little Bang]

Doesn't the fact that a strong gravitational field causes time to approach zero imply that there was a beginning? If we assume for the sake of this discussion that there was a beginning and look back twelve billion years when the total mass and waveforms would have bee much more compact with the resulting slower clock. As the universe expands to our present size the clock we use to measure frequency is faster than the earlier clock giving us a red shifted view of the early universe. I can't prove that there was a beginning but the preponderance of evidence does support one without having to rely on some unknown process that continually creates matter.

[Mike C]

I hope we can investigate it a bit deeper.

This here and the rest of your post seems to equate "heat buildup" with entropy. You then propose a solution of bleeding off photons or energy as a solution. The problem is that entropy is not heat buildup. It is the evening out of temperature. Eventually, as entropy reaches a maximum, nothing will be able to give heat to anything else because everything will have the same temperature.

 

What you are saying above, you are quoting the '2nd Law of Thermodynamics that implies the final result of an equalibrium temperature.

In this case, there is no more energy to do work.

 

My idea from the many definitions of entropy is to 'determine the amount of energy to do work'.

So when a system is equalized, there is no more energy to do work.

This applies to the whole system and that would be the space itself, not its internal parts.

So in my FS universe, the space temperature remains in a state of balance.

 

It isn't "heat buildup and "extra heat generation" that people are objecting to. If the entire universe was an elliptical galaxy eventually (as entropy approached a maximum) everything would be the same temperature. The stars and planets and comets and moons - everything finds an equilibrium of average energy. We aren't there in our universe. Entropy increases, but isn't at a maximum.

 

See above.

 

Whatever model of the universe we use should describe increasing entropy, but not maximum entropy. If the universe has always existed then this immediately becomes a problem. How can a property that is always going up not be at a maximum?

 

See the 1st reply again.

 

Hoyle's SSU doesn't have the entropy problem because new matter is continuously being created. The drawback being his model breaks the first law of thermodynamics which says energy/matter can't be created.

 

My universe is not similar to Hoyles.

It is a 'Flat Space FS' universe.

 

But your SSU doesn't create new matter/energy. As long as this is the case and there is no beginning of time there will be an entropy problem. Entropy is a fundamental property of matter. It always goes up and it isn't something you can bleed off. Unless you are introducing new matter to a system you can expect entropy to rise. Is there perhaps some way you can introduce new energy to your system. It can't be old photons from some other part of the universe. It would have to be really new - as in the universe hasn't seen it before.

 

-modest

 

In my FS universe, I have already said that there is 'no' new matter created. Only new photons to replace the outward spent photons that leave the universe.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

This applies to the whole system and that would be the space itself, not its internal parts.

 

Mike, this is very interesting. Are you saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to parts contained in the whole?

How do you get that conclusion? Typically 'laws' such as this or the conservation of mass and energy apply equally to internal parts of any system.

 

Hmmm, that may not be the best way to put it, let me try this:

Any system follows these laws (conservation of mass/energy, 2ndLOT, etc). The individual components that comprise the closed system will also follow these laws IF you consider them all. If not, you are no longer looking at a closed system.