alternate big bang theories

[billy]

there are a few going the rounds.

this is one i like:

source;
i'm still trying to understand how a small patch of a universe has enough matter to create another universe. i like the idea that an infinite number to the power of infinity could be created. given an infinite amount of time.

[altezon]

Thanks for this. I read part of the paper, but lost interest quickly for several reasons:

The author throws infinities around with metaphysical abandon. He wants an "infinitely cyclic" model, not because the data suggests it but because he finds the idea attractive. He postulates an astronomical number of causal patches leading to an "infinite multiverse". His model universe cycles an "infinite" number of times to give "infinite parallel universes".

Physics is an observational science. There are no observed infinities. Infinity is a purely mathematical convenience, just like zero. Math isn't science, and neither is logic, in the sense that neither has any necessary connection with the real world. So a physicist who insists on invoking infinities has abandoned his craft, I think. That said, if he confined his inquiry to the last hypothetical cycle and the next one I'd be more inclined to listen.

And seeking a mathematical justification for a cyclic universe seems a fanciful indulgence, where the available data doesn't suggest a cycle and where no one knows how new data might verify the consequences of it.

BTW, I thought the "big crunch" hypothesis was recently discarded:

Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) have led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

But even evidence supporting a future "big crunch" wouldn't necessarily support a rebound. It just seems like a fairy tale buttressed with some serious mathematics because by golly he wants things to be cyclical, don't you think?

String theory isn't testable either, but at least it conceivably could be. And it has the virtue of trying to explain phenomena we can access.

[billy]

the big crunch is the or was the current theory. the hypothesis i put up isn't the big crunch theory per say

the big crunch postulates that the universe in its death creates another universe. the theory up top creates a large amount of different universe.
-------------------------
addy's: the black hole theory.
addy's source:

the reason this thread about was because of theory in addy's source;

she shown it me and so i decided to find a counter theory.
i actually like her theory better because it allows a time line to be traversed both ways without entropy.

[altezon]

the big crunch is the or was the current theory.

not the theory but a possible scenario, depending on determination of the deceleration parameter 'q', which in turn awaited an accurate determination of the mass of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleration_parameter

the hypothesis i put up isn't the big crunch theory per say

I know, but the cyclic theory depends on a crunch. If the universe keeps expanding forever, obviously the cyclic theory is out. The last I heard, new data indicated an accelerating expansion that ruled out recollapse. No collapse, no cycle. But perhaps it's not as certain as I thought.

the big crunch postulates that the universe in its death creates another universe.

Not necessarily . Just a singularity.

the theory up top creates a large amount of different universe.

I got that. An "infinite number" is a large amount. Problem is, infinity isn't a number. Whatever number you can think of, infinity is bigger than that. But no number has the property of being bigger than every other number. So an infinite anything is bullshit. If you bother to count or measure anything, numbers is all you can use. "More than" an actual number is acceptable. Otherwise you have to say, "Duh, I don't know".

In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity.

Right -- not another universe but a singularity.

-------------------------
addy's: the black hole theory.
addy's source:

the reason this thread about was because of theory in addy's source;

she shown it me and so i decided to find a counter theory.
i actually like her theory better because it allows a time line to be traversed both ways without entropy.

My brain hurts.

[billy]

yes but you're splitting infinities aren't you

we can assume assume an infinite number is one that takes too long to write down or say so we represent it by ∞ of the word infinite/infinity
so i'm sure you or anyone else would take it as a great big number

the hypothesis i put up isn't the big crunch theory per say

I know, but the cyclic theory depends on a crunch. If the universe keeps expanding forever, obviously the cyclic theory is out. The last I heard, new data indicated an accelerating expansion that ruled out recollapse. No collapse, no cycle. But perhaps it's not as certain as I thought.

why would the cyclic theory be out. if the universe stretched in to patches that couldn't be connected. and the resulting universe did the the same it would be cyclic chaos. each patch snapping back and creating a big bang.

you can add or subtract from an infinite number and it will always be an infinite number

In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity.

Right -- not another universe but a singularity.

now some are saying a black hole that doesn't create a singularity has a universe in its stead

[altezon]

yes but you're splitting infinities aren't you

I tend to rarely split infinities -- almost never.

I know, but the cyclic theory depends on a crunch. If the universe keeps expanding forever, obviously the cyclic theory is out. The last I heard, new data indicated an accelerating expansion that ruled out recollapse. No collapse, no cycle. But perhaps it's not as certain as I thought.

why would the cyclic theory be out. if the universe stretched in to patches that couldn't be connected. and the resulting universe did the the same it would be cyclic chaos. each patch snapping back and creating a big bang.

er, there's that of course

you can add or subtract from an infinite number and it will always be an infinite number

nope, because there is no infinite number. arithmetic operations are only defined for numbers.

In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity.

Right -- not another universe but a singularity.

now some are saying a black hole that doesn't create a singularity has a universe in its stead

I hadn't heard those rumors, but the "Big Crunch" nic is already taken.

[billy]

seriously. what is a singularity ???

[altezon]

seriously. what is a singularity ???

beats me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

[billy]

how big would a black hole have to be to start a singularity. and is the inside of a black hole different. is it like doctor who's tardis i wonder, larger on the inside. if so then it could account for the forming of a universe.

[altezon]

how big would a black hole have to be to start a singularity. and could it account for the forming of a universe?

FYI, all black holes are singularities.

In 1971 physicist Stephen Hawking suggested that there might be "mini" black holes all around us that were created by the Big Bang. The violence of the rapid expansion following the beginning of the Universe could have squeezed concentrations of matter to form miniscule black holes, so small they can't even be seen in a regular microscope.

In 1974 he argued that due to quantum effects, black holes "evaporate" by a process now referred to as Hawking Radiation in which elementary particles (photons, electrons, quarks, gluons, etc.) are emitted. His calculations show that the smaller the size of the black hole, the faster the evaporation rate, resulting in a sudden burst of particles as the micro black hole suddenly explodes.

Some theories involving additional space dimensions predict that micro black holes could be formed at an energy as low as the TeV (trillion electron-volt) range, which are now available in the Large Hadron Collider built underground near Geneva. On 30 March 2010, the first planned collisions took place between two 3.5 TeV beams, which set a new world record for the highest-energy man-made particle collisions.

Popular concerns have been raised over end-of-the-world scenarios, but any quantum black holes created by the LHC are expected to instantly evaporate, either totally or leaving only a very weakly interacting residue.

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/14/...ack-holes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

[billy]

yes but that's only true if hawkins is correct

to quote yourself "it's just a theory"
the black holes we can accept exist but thats really all we know apart from the fact the warp gravity. and the light stuff etc :0

another theory (addy's source in a previous post) states;

Under normal circumstances, this is just an interesting bit of math, and torsion doesn't really affect anything. However, if densities are increased tremendously, then torsion has some very significant effects. Most intriguingly, torsion makes it impossible for black holes to form singularities. And if singularities are impossible, then what's at the center of black holes?

if indeed black holes are the birthing place of new universe (in addy's source again) the mr hawkins could have gotten it wrong and Hawkins radiation isn't as widespread as he suggested. maybe the black holes disappearing (evaporating) is a by process of creating a new universe. something which can't exists in our own universe. (it has to evaporate or disappear.)

[altezon]

yes but that's only true if hawking is correct

to quote yourself "it's just a theory"
the black holes we can accept exist but thats really all we know apart from the fact the warp gravity. and the light stuff etc :0

another theory (addy's source in a previous post) states;

Under normal circumstances, this is just an interesting bit of math, and torsion doesn't really affect anything. However, if densities are increased tremendously, then torsion has some very significant effects. Most intriguingly, torsion makes it impossible for black holes to form singularities. And if singularities are impossible, then what's at the center of black holes?

if indeed black holes are the birthing place of new universe (in addy's source again) the mr hawking could have gotten it wrong and Hawkins radiation isn't as widespread as he suggested. maybe the black holes disappearing (evaporating) is a by process of creating a new universe. something which can't exists in our own universe. (it has to evaporate or disappear.)

OK, I'm not clear on the torsion thing and black holes that are defined as singularities somehow being prevented from "forming" singularities. Also, I think it's the event horizon that's black, and the singularity inside is a one-dimensional point somehow. Of course if you want there to be more universes you can simply accept all the unverifiable hypotheses that allow them. I threw in the LHC reference because I thought the potential source of other universes would make you happy. The Hawking reference is to calm you down if you're frightened instead.

[billy]

lmao.

no i'm not frightened :p
i am curious as to how they (the likes of hawkins etc) reconcile
opposing theories. i somehow feel people will gravitate much
more to a hawkins theory than someone lesser known.

i do like the way addys source allows for time travel in more than one direction.

[altezon]

i am curious as to how they (the likes of hawkins etc) reconcile
opposing theories.

Like what?

i somehow feel people will gravitate much
more to a hawkins theory than someone lesser known.

He did hold Newton's chair at Cambridge until a year ago. leepy:

i do like the way addys source allows for time travel in more than one direction.

Picking unverifiable theories on the basis of attractiveness is the province of science fiction writers.
Nothing wrong with it. I used to love science fiction.

OK, I'm not clear on the torsion thing and black holes that are defined as singularities somehow being prevented from "forming" singularities.

?

[billy]

like the patch theory or the multi black hole universe theory.

holding newtons chair just shows his stupidity, most would have sat in it

isn't hawkins theory unverifiable as well ????isn't that why it's a theory ???

your ? about singularities not forming; i wish i could explain it but i'm not a physicist.
all i know is that the people proposing theory are hoping to prove it. one of the sticking points in physics is that time can only flow one way. it should be able to flow all ways and with this theory it's allowed to. or is that the patch theory ? anyway. if we look or go back in time all we see is entropy. with the theory in question we can go back and forward without seeing entropy.

[altezon]

like the patch theory or the multi black hole universe theory.

Aren't those part of the same theory? Obviously conflicting theories can't be resolved without evidence for either, unless one or the other depends on bad math.

holding newtons chair just shows his stupidity, most would have sat in it

Aagh!

isn't hawkins theory unverifiable as well ????isn't that why it's a theory ???

Apparently, the existence of Hawking radiation near a black hole hasn't been verified, since I can't google it. But that doesn't mean it's unverifiable. The existence of black holes has been verified, and radiation is a detectable phenomenon (unlike "causal patches").

your ? about singularities not forming; i wish i could explain it but i'm not a physicist.

Well, neither one of us is, but you've misunderstood my question. If black holes are defined as singularities, then it makes no sense to say that a black hole "forms" a singularity. If it weren't a singularity already, then it wouldn't be called a black hole. You don't need to be a physicist to see the problem here.

all i know is that the people proposing theory are hoping to prove it.

Are you sure about that? It is possible to pose a theory while recognizing that it presents no opportunity for real-world verification of its consequences. For instance, if I knew enough about math and physics I could hypothesize events leading up to what we call the Big Bang that could make sense to other physicists. But I couldn't show that it actually happened the way I've postulated because none of the pre-Bang information has survived the event to be detectable now. The same is true of "causal patches" forming in the distant future, isn't it? Of course I'd be aware of that and therefore would recognize that my hypothesis is unverifiable and unprovable. So I'd write a science fiction story to entertain the people who don't have time to be physicists.

one of the sticking points in physics is that time can only flow one way. it should be able to flow all ways and with this theory it's allowed to. or is that the patch theory ? anyway. if we look or go back in time all we see is entropy. with the theory in question we can go back and forward without seeing entropy.

Time "should" do only what the real world allows it to do, and my demands have little effect on the nature of reality. It's an interesting subject, more philosophical than physical. As for entropy, I'm not sure it's really any more of a law than the "conservation of matter" used to be before the discovery of nuclear processes. I've seen some discussion whether entropy is an outmoded concept, but it's been a while since I've read about it.

[billy]

the black hole isn't the singularity. the event horizon denotes that (the point of no return)

the patch people hope to show their theory is good the same way people showed that light can bend due to gravity. and just because radiation exists it doesn't mean that hawkins is right.

as for our demands on how time should work. it isn't a demand but a deduction. as it stand physicists
have a problem with time only belling allowed through the laws of physics to travel one way. it doesn't seem to fit the current model. deduction is how many laws of physics were discovered. gravity, a vacuum , gravity to name 3.

[altezon]

the black hole isn't the singularity. the event horizon denotes that (the point of no return)

The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). These singularities are also known as curvature singularities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

You seem to be saying that the event horizon is the black hole, and inside the black hole there may or may not be a singularity, depending on whether the black hole forms one? I'm not saying this is wrong, but my understanding is that the event horizon is the result of there being an underlying singularity, and that the singularity itself is the black hole regardless of whether it has an event horizon or is a "naked singularity". Want to nail down these concepts?

the patch people hope to show their theory is good the same way people showed that light can bend due to gravity.

They're going to photograph Mercury during a solar eclipse?
Seriously, what evidence of causal patches are they proposing we look for? Has someone invented a cause-o-meter?
What are they, exactly?

... and just because radiation exists it doesn't mean that hawkins is right.

BTW, the world's most prominent theoretical physicist is Hawking, old sod, not Hawkins. It's not a question of his being right -- I'm not a cheerleader for evaporating holes. The point is the distinction between "verified" and "verifiable" hypotheses. A theory is verifiable if some reasonable means can be envisioned to test it in the real world. Black holes are known, and radiation is detectable. It's just a matter of working out the details.

as for our demands on how time should work. it isn't a demand but a deduction. as it stand physicists have a problem with time only belling allowed through the laws of physics to travel one way. it doesn't seem to fit the current model.

I wasn't aware of that problem. Can you enlighten me? It seems that the whole concept of entropy is tied to time moving only in one direction, isn't it?

deduction is how many laws of physics were discovered. gravity, a vacuum , gravity to name 3.

You forgot vacuum -- that's four.

[billy]

i know he's called hawking but tell that to my keyboard

as it stands. time begins at the point of the singularity (big bang)
some, specially the patch workers don't agree;

This potentially means that many of the black holes in our own universe are the incubators of entirely new universes, each separated by the infinite time gap of the event horizon. That said, some properties of the mother universe could trickle through to its daughters, and detecting some of these properties could actually provide experimental proof of the theory. In fact Poplawski speculates this inheritance of properties could solve another great mystery of cosmology.;

The so-called arrow of time, in which time flows in one direction but not another, is a fundamental aspect of our experience. This isn't accounted for at all by physics, as all of its laws are apparently time-symmetric in that they work just as well whether time flows forwards or backwards. However, the passage of matter through the event horizon would provide a time asymmetry in the new universe, giving it a forward arrow to time. In that way, time itself is a gift of our mother universe on the other side of the black hole.

like HAWKING's radiation that seeps from a black hole. the patchwork theorist think some particles from the mother universe could trickle through into the singularity (the new big bang). if these could be seen the same as HAWKING's radiation, it would show how time moves forward after a big bang

i'm really out of my depth here so i would take what i say with more than a pinch of salt.

[altezon]

i know he's called hawking but tell that to my keyboard

as it stands. time begins at the point of the singularity (big bang)
some, specially the patch workers don't agree;

This potentially means that many of the black holes in our own universe are the incubators of entirely new universes, each separated by the infinite time gap of the event horizon. That said, some properties of the mother universe could trickle through to its daughters, and detecting some of these properties could actually provide experimental proof of the theory. In fact Poplawski speculates this inheritance of properties could solve another great mystery of cosmology.;

The so-called arrow of time, in which time flows in one direction but not another, is a fundamental aspect of our experience. This isn't accounted for at all by physics, as all of its laws are apparently time-symmetric in that they work just as well whether time flows forwards or backwards. However, the passage of matter through the event horizon would provide a time asymmetry in the new universe, giving it a forward arrow to time. In that way, time itself is a gift of our mother universe on the other side of the black hole.

like HAWKING's radiation that seeps from a black hole. the patchwork theorist think some particles from the mother universe could trickle through into the singularity (the new big bang). if these could be seen the same as HAWKING's radiation, it would show how time moves forward after a big bang

i'm really out of my depth here so i would take what i say with more than a pinch of salt.

Phooey. Looks like yer boy "Pop" Poplawski has been in the news recently http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news...etail.html Seems a bit young to be talking about causal patches, but I'll research whatcher on about to get a better handle on it.

EDIT:

addy's source in a previous post states;

Under normal circumstances, this is just an interesting bit of math, and torsion doesn't really affect anything. However, if densities are increased tremendously, then torsion has some very significant effects. Most intriguingly, torsion makes it impossible for black holes to form singularities. And if singularities are impossible, then what's at the center of black holes?

I'd like to see as much detail of the theories you're citing as you can provide me, but the links don't show much. Apparently I have to buy the articles if I want to read them.

if indeed black holes are the birthing place of new universe (in addy's source again) the mr hawkins could have gotten it wrong and Hawkins radiation isn't as widespread as he suggested. maybe the black holes disappearing (evaporating) is a by process of creating a new universe. something which can't exists in our own universe. (it has to evaporate or disappear.)

Hawking radiation apparently hasn't been detected yet, so proposing another reason for it is premature.