Big Bang.
Big Bang or etheric space.
So, some evidence has come to be that the nature of the missing matter is being understood. The standard model of the universe is that matter accounts for 4% (or 0.5% depends on what best guess you need to suit a mathematical model) of what is seen, (the hard stuff) dark energy 16% and dark matter 80%. Now some measures show that DM is 1000 light year across and 30 time the mass of the sun albeit it (DM) is still not identified but a possible candidate is the weak interactive massive particle (wimp) for the moment.
The Big Bang (BB) is set as the start of the universe and it is assumed before which there was nowt. The evidence for the BB rest on the background residue radiation detected at great distance to the edge of this the measurable universe and is deemed to be the ‘left over radiation’ resulting from a massive bust of energy from the BB. This radiation is of known uniform back ground strength from all points of the universe, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. It has been measured as resulting from about 380K years after the BB and shows the first sign of the black body form of space and seems to suggest that matter and energy were held in equilibrium for 150K years before matter and energy formed. This adds to the strength of the BB theory, it’s very nice to have the universe behave as expected.
The actual best guess (for that is what it is) of what caused the BB is unresolved and its solution is based on scenarios matching existing observation and measurements, it is taken as a matter of contested ‘faith’ and scientific fact that there was nothing before the BB – no time, no space, no matter.
Unfortunately there is a problem with the current model of the universe and it is that with the BB’s mathematical calculation, the indication is that with time and space (?) the expansion of the universe may be finite as the gravitational force that seem both to repel and attract and hold the solar and galactic systems together, are not enough to account for the size and scope of the galaxies or the universe, i.e. some of our ‘matter’ is missing, like 99% of it.
In physics the assumption was that gravity had very little effect on the large sacle universe. The power of gravity diminishes exponentially with distance so the effect of gravity is most pronounced at close range and was accepted as non effective at great stellar distance outside the mass range of or between bodies. But if one looks at the aggregate effect of the weak force of gravity to shape galaxies then the quantum mechanics of this weak force must have an effect. Why do galaxies seem to be moving to a regular organised shape and why are there super structure of galaxies and large voids between them? All seem to be shifting away from each other, revolving and not an even spread around the universe as might be expected with a BB. And the universe is still expanding. The solution to the way galaxies have been created and the uneven distribution is put down to the small deviation in the ‘temperature’ of the cosmic microwave background, why there should be such a change, when there is or should be ‘nothing’ to affect the energy flow resulting from the BB or if there is or was some form of interference wave to cause such a spread, is not understood.
The purported reason that the planets revolve around the sun is that an objects mass has an effect on space, it can change the fabric of space time so it is not just gravity that holds them in toe but the subsequent ‘dent’ in the fabric of space caused by their trapped mass. So it would seem, that matter is falling into the dent/dip with the largest mass causing the biggest dent and the rest following suit. This issue does raise some problem, in that in what / where is the dent caused and is this dent replicated in the larger galaxy al la Black Holes. (BH)
It has been postulated, with some evidence, that at the centre of galaxies there exist fantastic black holes creating a vortex formed by the collapse of a massive star(s) gathering material and growing to a size so dense and large that its gravity draws in immense amounts of material and from which nothing can escape. This massive draw creates an event horizon that cannot even be seen as no light can escape either. But if the black hole exists on the dent in space distorting the fabric of space and nothing can escape, why is it that in detecting the external effects of a BH’s are there energy jets streaming from the pole regions? Are the jet ‘exhaust’ a back pressure of the material being squeezed into something or is it a release of pressure (Hawking radiation)? Is the material disappearing into some where and reappearing somewhere else? Do all the BH’s pour into non existence (unlikely) or reappear in the same dimension and exist at a critical time and at some point as in a new BB? All this does leave open huge imponderables not the least of which is the question how it all stated. Might it be reasonable to assume that all BH’s simply convert mass into another form – dark energy / dark matter that fuels a universe expansion?
It does seem that it is rather inelegant to assume that there was nothing before the BB, if this was the case why did the BB happen? Or does the question even have any value if time, space nor matter existed prior it the BB; do physics support a miracle for the BB and the creation of the universe? Why did the nothingness not continue – this would one should expect be a set stable state and would require no energy to maintain this state. So it seems unlikely that there was nothing at all before the BB, something must have changed to start the process. So one should reject the idea that there was nothing before the BB.
However assuming for the moment that the BB was a likely genesis for this universe13.7 billion years ago, the thought is that a huge amount of ‘energy’ came into being to expand and eventually coalesce into visible matter and spook material. This in my mind creates another conflict - how long does it take something like energy, as insubstantial as a cloud to form a rock? The accretion principle for the formation of planets etc has to come from somewhere and if it was the ‘leftover stuff’ from the BB’s / universe’s creation will it be a surprise when a lump of rock turns up over 15 billion years old?
Which of the two states is possible that have been regarded as being contenders for the beginning of this universe – the Steady State or the BB (and eventually collapse)? That the universe can expand forever is as imponderable as the ‘time’ before the universe began so if the law on thermodynamics holds – it could expect that as the universe expands it will get colder as all energy deteriorates with entropy to eventually reach a state of cold ‘empty’ vastness and that is that. However if gravity does have an effect even at great distances then a big collapse could occur leading to a big crunch – maybe resulting in a BB, so starting the process again. The steady state assume that the universe has always existed and that the birth and death of stars and galaxies reoccur as the matter changes from one form too another. Even this model seems unsustainable if entropy is not balanced by energetic addition.
There may not be any black hole at the centre of galaxies so goes the latest controversial theory, as yet there is no proof for this but it is an another element of the uncertainty that pervades all the models of the universe and the parameter set up with the mathematical thermodynamics models of the BB.
It dose seem to me that the one way the idea of the universe can be loosely understood is by holding a number of fluid open views along the lines of, everything I say is a lie but you can you believe it’s the truth until proven wrong.
1. The BB theory is not correct. As everything as an action / reaction (so far as is known) how can there have been nothing before the BB to propagate a BB? Scientists are extremely vague on this as it leads them into the creationist arguments so prefer to think this question as a non-sequitur.
2. The BB happened! It is only viable if it can be replicated repeatedly as in the idea of the conservation of energy, (e=Mc2) i.e. its eventual size is limited by the activity of the energy within it and it could conceivably recreate the BB by a collapse. Once the energy that binds the motion of matter together slows or ceases, expansion stops and reversal could take place.
3. The steady state theory might be feasible if the formation of each galaxy were created similar to a multitude of BB’s with BB’s being the driving force of the recreation of a new universe by matter ‘falling’ through BH space to exist at another time dimension, so this universe is a result of BB from another dimension.
4. The universe is not real. It is a creation of the whole of universal life as a method of being in existence. The assumption is that the material world was formed before life could start. Maybe they are interdependent; one cannot exist without the other. (Anthropic principle) Maybe the universe is and is expanding because the ‘fabric’ of space is existent on the knowing of existence. Without a creative will of all life to view the universe it may not exist nor would matter exist without being observed, each depends ultimately on the other, this is leaning toward a nihilist point of view yet it cannot avoid the fact that life is (we think) and can think upon the issues. All of life is the driving force of universes.
5. None of the current theories provide an answer to the problem of how it all started or where it will end and there may never be an answer for us to comprehend. We may cease to exist before we have time to conclude the questions!.
The assumption is that the universe cannot be older than 15 billion years. Currently 13.7 billion is the furthest reaches of space identified and the expectation is that due to the red shift anything further is likely to be conveniently invisible. Some evidence appears to suggested that there is at the furthers reaches of this universe, proto galaxies that we are seeing the light of as the first galaxies to be formed after the BB - if this is so it puts more weight behind the BB and the finite size limit to our universe. But will it continue to expand forever getting colder and vacant?
We have become use to the idea that we can find an explanation for most things which is one of the interesting factors of the universe, that it’s seems to be designed to be mostly understandable to us but it exist on a very narrow margin of the balance of our known physics being right. Failing understanding we postulate & invent propositions to a map out plausible scenarios until we find proof that we are right. So in the case of the universe, if the BB created everything and nothing was before and what we see seems to confirm that it is expanding, why is it expanding, where to and can it go on for ever? Is it that the universe can continue beyond a time that has no meaning and beyond the ability of anything to know of or be influenced by its existence? If so then what is the point of it all. Maybe there is no point to it all maybe it just is! Could it be that the more we learn the more uncertain the solutions - something keeps moving the boundary.
The universe is likely to be more perverse than we can anticipate, what is wildly dreamt of as impossible is possible; it’s just that we do not have the descriptive mechanism to understand how it works. If in the whole universe humans are the only creatures to be cognisant and ask questions and the whole universe is ours, what a huge waste of space. Are humans like their lab rats forever to see the boundary of their prison and never realise the position it occupies?
For the moment matter is imbedded in a construct of the universe and is expanding and not slowing down as the BB model would suggest it should be, but why? Might it be that the universe we experience is much bigger by an order of magnitude than we cannot detect. The BB (ours) might be just one of a number of BB’s that have occurred and still be occurring in an immense dimension and that the laws of physics (ours) are not fundament laws at all but merely convenient condition that are temporary. After all on a micro cosmic scale, the physics of quantum mechanics indicates that cause and effect are not stable conditions, why should physics be? What would happen if one of the laws of physics was not entirely correct, for example the speed of light – nothing can exceed c 186K+ mps. If the missing material of the universe was a energy wave / particle that was moving faster than light it would be perhaps undetectable other than its effect on the sub light material, it would not travel through ‘space’ but could appear to pop in and out of perception, perhaps it is this that is responsible for the expansion and shape of the universe, the missing substance. Of course it is impossible that there could be an energy wave / particle that has no mass, no kinetic or measurable energy, such a form would be outside the limits of known physics and even strain quantum mechanics to define just what such a form could be. It would be having a ghost in the machine that is when not seen and is not when looked for (Schrödinger's Cat) but will this stop such a ghost from being useful.
The problem of understanding the how and why of everything still remains and theories abound, this is not to mention the idea of multiple universes and dimensions created by super string and m-brane ideas, all as a way of getting out of the conundrum – a lot of our matter is missing. But then what do I know about all this stuff I am just a visitor.
P8.9.06.
© Renot 2005-2006
So, some evidence has come to be that the nature of the missing matter is being understood. The standard model of the universe is that matter accounts for 4% (or 0.5% depends on what best guess you need to suit a mathematical model) of what is seen, (the hard stuff) dark energy 16% and dark matter 80%. Now some measures show that DM is 1000 light year across and 30 time the mass of the sun albeit it (DM) is still not identified but a possible candidate is the weak interactive massive particle (wimp) for the moment.
The Big Bang (BB) is set as the start of the universe and it is assumed before which there was nowt. The evidence for the BB rest on the background residue radiation detected at great distance to the edge of this the measurable universe and is deemed to be the ‘left over radiation’ resulting from a massive bust of energy from the BB. This radiation is of known uniform back ground strength from all points of the universe, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. It has been measured as resulting from about 380K years after the BB and shows the first sign of the black body form of space and seems to suggest that matter and energy were held in equilibrium for 150K years before matter and energy formed. This adds to the strength of the BB theory, it’s very nice to have the universe behave as expected.
The actual best guess (for that is what it is) of what caused the BB is unresolved and its solution is based on scenarios matching existing observation and measurements, it is taken as a matter of contested ‘faith’ and scientific fact that there was nothing before the BB – no time, no space, no matter.
Unfortunately there is a problem with the current model of the universe and it is that with the BB’s mathematical calculation, the indication is that with time and space (?) the expansion of the universe may be finite as the gravitational force that seem both to repel and attract and hold the solar and galactic systems together, are not enough to account for the size and scope of the galaxies or the universe, i.e. some of our ‘matter’ is missing, like 99% of it.
In physics the assumption was that gravity had very little effect on the large sacle universe. The power of gravity diminishes exponentially with distance so the effect of gravity is most pronounced at close range and was accepted as non effective at great stellar distance outside the mass range of or between bodies. But if one looks at the aggregate effect of the weak force of gravity to shape galaxies then the quantum mechanics of this weak force must have an effect. Why do galaxies seem to be moving to a regular organised shape and why are there super structure of galaxies and large voids between them? All seem to be shifting away from each other, revolving and not an even spread around the universe as might be expected with a BB. And the universe is still expanding. The solution to the way galaxies have been created and the uneven distribution is put down to the small deviation in the ‘temperature’ of the cosmic microwave background, why there should be such a change, when there is or should be ‘nothing’ to affect the energy flow resulting from the BB or if there is or was some form of interference wave to cause such a spread, is not understood.
The purported reason that the planets revolve around the sun is that an objects mass has an effect on space, it can change the fabric of space time so it is not just gravity that holds them in toe but the subsequent ‘dent’ in the fabric of space caused by their trapped mass. So it would seem, that matter is falling into the dent/dip with the largest mass causing the biggest dent and the rest following suit. This issue does raise some problem, in that in what / where is the dent caused and is this dent replicated in the larger galaxy al la Black Holes. (BH)
It has been postulated, with some evidence, that at the centre of galaxies there exist fantastic black holes creating a vortex formed by the collapse of a massive star(s) gathering material and growing to a size so dense and large that its gravity draws in immense amounts of material and from which nothing can escape. This massive draw creates an event horizon that cannot even be seen as no light can escape either. But if the black hole exists on the dent in space distorting the fabric of space and nothing can escape, why is it that in detecting the external effects of a BH’s are there energy jets streaming from the pole regions? Are the jet ‘exhaust’ a back pressure of the material being squeezed into something or is it a release of pressure (Hawking radiation)? Is the material disappearing into some where and reappearing somewhere else? Do all the BH’s pour into non existence (unlikely) or reappear in the same dimension and exist at a critical time and at some point as in a new BB? All this does leave open huge imponderables not the least of which is the question how it all stated. Might it be reasonable to assume that all BH’s simply convert mass into another form – dark energy / dark matter that fuels a universe expansion?
It does seem that it is rather inelegant to assume that there was nothing before the BB, if this was the case why did the BB happen? Or does the question even have any value if time, space nor matter existed prior it the BB; do physics support a miracle for the BB and the creation of the universe? Why did the nothingness not continue – this would one should expect be a set stable state and would require no energy to maintain this state. So it seems unlikely that there was nothing at all before the BB, something must have changed to start the process. So one should reject the idea that there was nothing before the BB.
However assuming for the moment that the BB was a likely genesis for this universe13.7 billion years ago, the thought is that a huge amount of ‘energy’ came into being to expand and eventually coalesce into visible matter and spook material. This in my mind creates another conflict - how long does it take something like energy, as insubstantial as a cloud to form a rock? The accretion principle for the formation of planets etc has to come from somewhere and if it was the ‘leftover stuff’ from the BB’s / universe’s creation will it be a surprise when a lump of rock turns up over 15 billion years old?
Which of the two states is possible that have been regarded as being contenders for the beginning of this universe – the Steady State or the BB (and eventually collapse)? That the universe can expand forever is as imponderable as the ‘time’ before the universe began so if the law on thermodynamics holds – it could expect that as the universe expands it will get colder as all energy deteriorates with entropy to eventually reach a state of cold ‘empty’ vastness and that is that. However if gravity does have an effect even at great distances then a big collapse could occur leading to a big crunch – maybe resulting in a BB, so starting the process again. The steady state assume that the universe has always existed and that the birth and death of stars and galaxies reoccur as the matter changes from one form too another. Even this model seems unsustainable if entropy is not balanced by energetic addition.
There may not be any black hole at the centre of galaxies so goes the latest controversial theory, as yet there is no proof for this but it is an another element of the uncertainty that pervades all the models of the universe and the parameter set up with the mathematical thermodynamics models of the BB.
It dose seem to me that the one way the idea of the universe can be loosely understood is by holding a number of fluid open views along the lines of, everything I say is a lie but you can you believe it’s the truth until proven wrong.
1. The BB theory is not correct. As everything as an action / reaction (so far as is known) how can there have been nothing before the BB to propagate a BB? Scientists are extremely vague on this as it leads them into the creationist arguments so prefer to think this question as a non-sequitur.
2. The BB happened! It is only viable if it can be replicated repeatedly as in the idea of the conservation of energy, (e=Mc2) i.e. its eventual size is limited by the activity of the energy within it and it could conceivably recreate the BB by a collapse. Once the energy that binds the motion of matter together slows or ceases, expansion stops and reversal could take place.
3. The steady state theory might be feasible if the formation of each galaxy were created similar to a multitude of BB’s with BB’s being the driving force of the recreation of a new universe by matter ‘falling’ through BH space to exist at another time dimension, so this universe is a result of BB from another dimension.
4. The universe is not real. It is a creation of the whole of universal life as a method of being in existence. The assumption is that the material world was formed before life could start. Maybe they are interdependent; one cannot exist without the other. (Anthropic principle) Maybe the universe is and is expanding because the ‘fabric’ of space is existent on the knowing of existence. Without a creative will of all life to view the universe it may not exist nor would matter exist without being observed, each depends ultimately on the other, this is leaning toward a nihilist point of view yet it cannot avoid the fact that life is (we think) and can think upon the issues. All of life is the driving force of universes.
5. None of the current theories provide an answer to the problem of how it all started or where it will end and there may never be an answer for us to comprehend. We may cease to exist before we have time to conclude the questions!.
The assumption is that the universe cannot be older than 15 billion years. Currently 13.7 billion is the furthest reaches of space identified and the expectation is that due to the red shift anything further is likely to be conveniently invisible. Some evidence appears to suggested that there is at the furthers reaches of this universe, proto galaxies that we are seeing the light of as the first galaxies to be formed after the BB - if this is so it puts more weight behind the BB and the finite size limit to our universe. But will it continue to expand forever getting colder and vacant?
We have become use to the idea that we can find an explanation for most things which is one of the interesting factors of the universe, that it’s seems to be designed to be mostly understandable to us but it exist on a very narrow margin of the balance of our known physics being right. Failing understanding we postulate & invent propositions to a map out plausible scenarios until we find proof that we are right. So in the case of the universe, if the BB created everything and nothing was before and what we see seems to confirm that it is expanding, why is it expanding, where to and can it go on for ever? Is it that the universe can continue beyond a time that has no meaning and beyond the ability of anything to know of or be influenced by its existence? If so then what is the point of it all. Maybe there is no point to it all maybe it just is! Could it be that the more we learn the more uncertain the solutions - something keeps moving the boundary.
The universe is likely to be more perverse than we can anticipate, what is wildly dreamt of as impossible is possible; it’s just that we do not have the descriptive mechanism to understand how it works. If in the whole universe humans are the only creatures to be cognisant and ask questions and the whole universe is ours, what a huge waste of space. Are humans like their lab rats forever to see the boundary of their prison and never realise the position it occupies?
For the moment matter is imbedded in a construct of the universe and is expanding and not slowing down as the BB model would suggest it should be, but why? Might it be that the universe we experience is much bigger by an order of magnitude than we cannot detect. The BB (ours) might be just one of a number of BB’s that have occurred and still be occurring in an immense dimension and that the laws of physics (ours) are not fundament laws at all but merely convenient condition that are temporary. After all on a micro cosmic scale, the physics of quantum mechanics indicates that cause and effect are not stable conditions, why should physics be? What would happen if one of the laws of physics was not entirely correct, for example the speed of light – nothing can exceed c 186K+ mps. If the missing material of the universe was a energy wave / particle that was moving faster than light it would be perhaps undetectable other than its effect on the sub light material, it would not travel through ‘space’ but could appear to pop in and out of perception, perhaps it is this that is responsible for the expansion and shape of the universe, the missing substance. Of course it is impossible that there could be an energy wave / particle that has no mass, no kinetic or measurable energy, such a form would be outside the limits of known physics and even strain quantum mechanics to define just what such a form could be. It would be having a ghost in the machine that is when not seen and is not when looked for (Schrödinger's Cat) but will this stop such a ghost from being useful.
The problem of understanding the how and why of everything still remains and theories abound, this is not to mention the idea of multiple universes and dimensions created by super string and m-brane ideas, all as a way of getting out of the conundrum – a lot of our matter is missing. But then what do I know about all this stuff I am just a visitor.
P8.9.06.
© Renot 2005-2006
posted by Renot at 5:37 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home