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

[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]

Originally Posted by Modest

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]

Originally Posted by Mike C

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

I hope we can investigate it a bit deeper.

Originally Posted by Mike C

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.

Originally Posted by Mike C

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?

Originally Posted by Mike C

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]

Originally Posted by modest

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.

[Little Bang]

Rather interesting how everyone has their own view of the universe as either steady state or a Big Bang among others and yet no one every uses their own ideas to explain how matter got here in the first.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Rather interesting how everyone has their own view of the universe as either steady state or a Big Bang among others and yet no one every uses their own ideas to explain how matter got here in the first.

Actually there is another theory and it explains the matter quite nicely. Brane theory is not a red headed step child, it is every bit as substantiated as SS and BB more so in my view and the view of many others much more informed than me. BB and SS are the past, Brane theory is the future.

[Pluto]

G'day All

Matter has always being here or there in one state or another state or phase.

The question is how does it recycle?

The key areas to look would be compacted matter such a Neutron Cores and so called black holes (not the one with a singularity) that have a finite compact core and a so called event horizon.

The compact cores take in normal matter, that degenerates and than ejected via jets.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Doesn't the fact that a strong gravitational field causes time to approach zero imply that there was a beginning?

It does not.

The fundamental problem with models of this sort – which we might term “gravitational time dilation frozen egg at the beginning of time” models – is that General Relativity does not predict that a clock in a strong gravitational field appears to an observer near it to run slower, but appears that way only to an observer far from it, in a weaker gravitational field. If the model has such a distant observer, he’s merely observing the egg to be a gravitationally time dilated object (eg: a black hole). If it doesn’t, no time dilation, or any subsequent decrease in time dilation when the egg “hatches”, is predicted.

Originally Posted by Little Bang

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.

A cursory playing around with the simple gravitational time dilation equation

(where is the duration of an event as measured by an observer distance from a central body, is the duration for an observer infinitely (or, practically, very far away), and is the central body’s Schwarzschild Radius)
leads me to think this model can’t be made to predict observed data.

The basic problem is that, for objects other than superdense ones like black holes, is much smaller than the physical size of the central body - a star, ordinary or super-large galaxy, or some unnamed primordial object. For example, for a star like our 700000000 m radius Sun, is about 15000 m. The model requires that the early universe emitted EM radiation in a fairly ordinary way, but that most source of it (stars, etc.) have time dilations that were once close to 0, increasing to near the 1 presently observed smoothly (linearly). Otherwise, the observed Hubble redshift would reveal only very and effectively not-at-all redshifted objects, rather than the smooth distribution actually observed. However, gravitational time “gets close to one” quickly for small increases in , which just doesn’t match what we observe. Here are a few examples

        r0/r     t'/t
        1        0
        1.000001 .000999999500000375
        1.00001  .003162261848898664496
        1.0001   .00999950003749687478
        1.001    .03160697706205069843
        1.01     .0995037190209989136
        1.1      .3015113445777636225
        2        .7071067811865475245
       10        .9486832980505138
      100        .994987437106619955
     1000        .99949987493746091

The model also has a “find tuning” problem – how do you get the early universe to have most of its light emitters time dilated to near 0, when just a slight increase in density (decrease in ) results in a black hole, a slight decrease in density (increase in ), in a dilation much too far from 0?

I’d be curious to see if you can get the model to work better than I can, LB, but suspect you’ll run into the same difficulties, and be forced, as I’ve been, to give it up as unworkable and wrong.