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

[Moadib]

What if the other side of a black hole was a white hole? The black hole sucking in matter and spewing it out at another point, would cause a quick expansion, a slowing then a reacceleration as matter is spewed from the white hole and drawn back to the black. The result a donut space universe....mmmmmm donuts

[pamela]

posted by moadib
What if the other side of a black hole was a white hole? The black hole sucking in matter and spewing it out at another point, would cause a quick expansion, a slowing then a reacceleration as matter is spewed from the white hole and drawn back to the black. The result a donut space universe....mmmmmm donuts

from Wiki
Schwarzschild wormholes

Embedded diagram of a Schwarzschild wormhole.Lorentzian wormholes known as Schwarzschild wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges are bridges between areas of space that can be modeled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations by combining models of a black hole and a white hole. This solution was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off instantly as soon as it forms, preventing even light from making it through.

Before the stability problems of Schwarzschild wormholes were apparent, it was proposed that quasars were white holes forming the ends of wormholes of this type.

While Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the 'throat' of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy).

Wormhole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moadib]

At the point in time of the big bang all matter/energy would have been moving very fast does anyone know of a study or 2 on the effect that Einstiens theory of relitivity would have on the time aspect during the 1st few days after the big bang?
And thanx Pamela exactly what i was looking for.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Moadib

At the point in time of the big bang all matter/energy would have been moving very fast does anyone know of a study or 2 on the effect that Einstiens theory of relitivity would have on the time aspect during the 1st few days after the big bang?

According to the latest Big Bang Theory, by about 3 minutes, the moment fundamental forces appeared and matter – mostly baryons, the stuff of present day atoms – became recognizable enough for Relativity to be applied in a sensible way, matter was on average not moving significantly faster that it does in many places (eg: within stars) now. So Special Relativity, with its various relative speed-related transformations, wasn’t have been unusually significant. “Energy”, a synonym in this context for bosons, mostly photons, are predicted by most theories to have traveled at the same speed – c=299792458 m/s – from the instant they existed, about seconds, though today, and forever.

According to BBT, the period of greatest cosmic inflation, when the universe expanded at effectively many times the speed of light, occurs much earlier than this, between and seconds, but continues at a much smaller, but increasing, rate up to the present. However, cosmic inflation is due to the expansion of space, not the velocity of matter through it, so isn’t applicable to SR.

The early universe is postdicted BBT to have been much more uniform than the present one, without dense concentrations of matter (eg: stars and black holes), so it would have been gravitationally much more flat than nowadays. So General Relativity, with its gravitational field strength-related transformations, wasn’t as significant as it is now.

An important bit of background to understand about Relativity is that, although it’s been applied to and incorporated into theories like Quantum Particle Physics, it’s at heart a classical theory, making no assumptions about what matter is actually made of. So it’s very good at describing the behavior of big things like planets, stars, and galaxies, but not small things, like the very early history of the universe. At the time it was written, physicist were strongly biased toward the assumption that the visible universe was much older than a dozen or so billion years, and fairly, with stars and galaxies more-or-less maintaining their present-day distances and velocities. His efforts to support this assumption rigorously – that is, to get the mathematical physics to predict something other than an endlessly expanding or collapsing universe - lead the theory’s inventor, Einstein, and a minority of other physicists to work on theories related to the “cosmological constant”, an effort Einstein eventually described as his “biggest blunder”, and one he and most others abandoned when astronomic observation and new physics showed it to be unworkable. To get a good grasp of what I’m hinting at here, I recommend at least a couple of the many excellent books on the subject: Thorn’s “Black Holes and Time Warps” and Kaku’s “Hyperspace”. Though 15 years old and with SF-ish titles, both give wonderful overviews of the whole of modern physics.

[enorbet2]

One of the problems facing the so-called general public in a time where for the better part of a decade Science has been assailed by religious groups who have home schooled their children to avoid exposure to Science other than filtered through the religious agenda or even entirely made up to support that agenda and then provided colleges such as Patrick Henry where these students are essentially guaranteed positions in government. This is a part of a longer term resurgence of evangelism and an insidious agenda of FUD to get legislation passed favoring fundamentalists such as the overthrow of Roe V Wade and the undermining and discrediting of the Theory of Natural Selection (or Evolution) as if that were possible among real scientists, but it might be in some backward communities. The point is that there is a big push going on in the religous communities to appear scientific while at the same time discrediting real Science.

Pseudo scientists and religious fanatics like to point to adjustments and even supercesion such as Einstein over Newton as a sign of weakness and confusion in order to discredit Science. The turth is that the main body of legitimate theories rarely is thrown out. Only details or arenas are refined and "adjusted". For example Newton's theories and mathematics still are true and still work when dealing with "planetside" Earth and simple orbiting bodies. It's only at higher energy states or on the atomic scale that Newton begins to break down. There one must look to Einstein and at higher velocities, energies, or smaller scales Quantum Mechanics becomes increasingly important.

Discoveries are commonly made in two distinct ways. One either explores generally and discovers what they will by serendipity (and careful observation) or one is looking for something specific at the start and either finds it or something unexpected. Expansion was discovered in the 2nd manner while Hubble was seeking ways to measure how far away cosmic objects are. Please remember that at that time "The Universe" was thought to be The Milky Way galaxy. Until telescopes of suffcient strength, such as Hubbles, were used what are now known to be other galaxies were thought to be gas clouds or nebulae. So it was something of an accident to discover that the Universe is by many orders of magnitude larger than previously realized. When it was realized that everything was red-shifted it was theroized that the Universe is expanding. This was so startling that it has undergone unprecedented scrutiny and every test continues to support expansion. This ecidence took a quantum leap when a few scientists decided to measure how much the expamsion is slowing down only to be shocked to discover it is speeding up. They were convinced this had to be wrong so they checked and triple checked, announced their findings and of course the scrutiny was even greater since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE has contradicted these findings. The Big Bang is secure as is The Standard Model that includes it. There are always details to be worked out but the basics are highy unlikely to change. For example scientists (Magueio, Smolin, Greene, etc) may argue over some early expansion rate problems and what that implies but nobody is seriously thinking of throwing out the Big Bang. It may get refined in some novel ways but bever happened? Not Likely!

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

CraigD said

According to the latest Big Bang Theory, by about 3 minutes, the moment fundamental forces appeared and matter – mostly baryons, the stuff of present day atoms – became recognizable enough for Relativity to be applied in a sensible way, matter was on average not moving significantly faster that it does in many places (eg: within stars) now. So Special Relativity, with its various relative speed-related transformations, wasn’t have been unusually significant. “Energy”, a synonym in this context for bosons, mostly photons, are predicted by most theories to have traveled at the same speed – c=299792458 m/s – from the instant they existed, about seconds, though today, and forever.

According to BBT, the period of greatest cosmic inflation, when the universe expanded at effectively many times the speed of light, occurs much earlier than this, between and seconds, but continues at a much smaller, but increasing, rate up to the present. However, cosmic inflation is due to the expansion of space, not the velocity of matter through it, so isn’t applicable to SR.

The early universe is postdicted BBT to have been much more uniform than the present one, without dense concentrations of matter (eg: stars and black holes), so it would have been gravitationally much more flat than nowadays. So General Relativity, with its gravitational field strength-related transformations, wasn’t as significant as it is now.

Each point needs to be proven.

Just because its according to the BB "THEORY" does not make it so.

In the last few weeks I have been reading these papers.

Vector Inflation
arXiv.org Search


and

Chaotic Inflation Theory
arXiv.org Search

After reading most of these papers, I even question more, how on earth the BBT became the standard model.

I went back and read BBT papers and I must say the huge amounts of papers supporting the the BBT. Than I tried to look at the evidence supporting the BBT. Not one evidence could stand up without an ad hoc idea supporting it. In my opinion the BBT is on weak foundation.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

One of the problems facing the so-called general public in a time where for the better part of a decade Science has been assailed by religious groups ...

Let's not forget the long drawn out citation (1952) by Pope Pius XII in which he unequivocally accepted the big bang picture of creation as a rational support for the [irrational] doctrines of the Bible. The pope embraced science (i.e., the big bang theory) for having definitively proved the Church’s long-standing doctrine—let there be light—confirmation of what many had suspected from the start, serving only as fuel to the fire in a controversy between cosmology and spirituality, between big bang believers and its adversary.

Note too, many who disagree with the big bang scenario are atheists, brights even.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE has contradicted these findings. The Big Bang is secure as is The Standard Model that includes it. There are always details to be worked out but the basics are highy unlikely to change. For example scientists (Magueio, Smolin, Greene, etc) may argue over some early expansion rate problems and what that implies but nobody is seriously thinking of throwing out the Big Bang. It may get refined in some novel ways but bever happened? Not Likely!

The idea that no credible evidence exists contradicting the big bang is to some extent subjective, if not false.

Here are some examples of observational data which indeed pose a problem for the BB theory:

SOURCE: What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg...



Coldcreation

[enorbet2]

We seem to be living at a unique time where the sciences are growing at a vastly accelerated rate compared to ay time in history and even relative to the whole "future shock" effect in which change occurs at a logarithmic rate. Probably the main reason that the sciences are going through such expansion is that there is a confluence or at least unprecedented interaction between diverse fields and especially those of the very large with those of the very small. Also we cannot overestimate the cumulative effect of cheap powerful computers. It is worthy of considerable note that recently eight Sony PS3 gaming consoles were combined creating a super computer capable of calculating and modeling gravity waves around black holes! What would have cost in excess of $30,000 US only a few years prior was acquired for under $4000. Moore's Law assures this will become even more ubiquitous in just a few years, So concurrent with the unprecedented growth of data is the means to process it.

Usually when such upheaval and massive growth occurs it signals a breakthrough is about to occur. While this could be so, we also face a stone wall. All of the sciences and especially Physics faces the situation where increasingly our predictive mathematics outstrips our ability to test, confirm or even observe the phenomena of the questions we can ask. First our instruments are reaching a state of impasse where it is going to be a *very* long time before we can build machines capable of exploring the microcosm. We are many orders of magnitude away from even imagining by what means we can approach the Planck Scale. So much is riding on the results of the Large Hadron collider and as terrific as it is the next step is both puny in terms of results and gargantuan in our ability to finance and build anything substantially improved, a next step. Imagine the problems of creating a collider circling Asia or the Equator and each of those falls far short of what is needed to gather real data on questions we have been asking for years. There was less than 50 years delay between mathematically predicting black holes and direct evidence It is important to remember that the math was right but the time lag between prediction and evidence is likely to increase as the energy levels required increase and the sizes we need to study decrease.

Combine with that the effect on Science, even the scientific method itself, when, as with String and M Theory all we have or can have for a very long time is elegant mathematics and that dealing with Planck Scale sizes even while we are already without frame of reference at orders of magnitude larger scales where Quantum Mechanics rules. No wonder Einstein despised Quantum Mechanics since it opens the door to the slippery slope between science and philosophy, mechanics and mysticism. Alice in Wonderland indeed! It's easy to see why sci-fi and fantasy so love it as a blank check for any crackpot idea or plot device. We are likely missing something fundamentally important but it is also likely it's going to be awhile before we can even imagine what that is.

One major obstacle to wrapping one's head around these things is that they look different and act differently at different scales. Most BB proponents agree that it's likely that the four observable forces now, were successively combined the further back, the higher energy levels, ago so that at some early point there was only one. It seems to me that as space expanded, as energy became matter and amti-matter, as the great annihilation of matter vs/ antimatter occured, as the Universe as we know it was being created by the evolution following the BB, the Laws of Physics of this Universe were also evolving. Similarly near black holes, past the event horizon, the laws including Time, begin to break down at these high energies and relativistic speeds, If events common at atomic levels occured at the scale at which we are familiar, nothing would make sense, we're back to that Alice in Wonderland place where things can be at two different places at the same time. Likewise at cosmological scales things don't make sense in an ordinary context. Here's a quote feom wikipedia:

" The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly to a repulsive force of unknown nature, which may be a cosmological constant. Inertia dominated the expansion in the early universe, and according to the ΛCDM model the cosmological constant will dominate in the future. In the present era they contribute in roughly equal proportions.

The metric expansion leads naturally to recession speeds which exceed the "speed of light" c and to distances which exceed c times the age of the universe, which is a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1] The speed c has no special significance at cosmological scales. "

This quote applies to superclusters as well as voids and my point remains the same since all credible squabbles with BBT deal with recent details, largely since expansion was found to be accelerating (Dark Energy) and sinced observed speeds and distribution in glaxies required more gravity than matter could account for (Dark Matter) or very early details so far possibly explained by Inflation. Others propose changing values of the speed of light or changing, even quantum, gravity. Only those way out on the fringe claim that expansion is not occurring. This is as it should be since Expansion gas been around longer which implies it is detectable by lower orders of technology and has had more time for scrutiny and for subsequent observation to either confirm or deny. It is unlikely that the Big Bang did not occur. It is highly unlikely that Expansion is not occurring. It is exrtremely unlikely that Eric J. Lerner, the guy whom coldcreation quoted, has inroads to the truth. He is not taken seriously by even casual but serious students let alone post docs and professionals. His book contains many basic factual errors and since he continues to promote those same errors without counter refutation he apparently thinks he is above peer review and that automatically disqualifies him as a scientist, at least in this area, but just like the story about distrusting the husband who claims he is boss in his own home, he is likely to lie about other things as well.

The basics of The Standard Model are as safe as the likelihood that details will be changed andrefined as new technologies and new data improve our grasp.

PS It's a no-brainer that the pope prefers BBT since it implies a beginning and an end. It doesn't hurt that LeMaitre was Catholic. It may not be what convinced that nazi, Pius XII, but it also doesn't hurt that Hubble was an excellent and thorough scientist who questioned his own conclusions.

[Pluto]

G'day enobert2

The problem that I see is that the BBT for what ever reason is the so called standard model. This in itself is a trap, since many scientists assume it to be "Standard" most papers assume it to be the way to go and fit the data to suit.

Any person who has studied cosmology and understands the complexity and the enormity of just the observable universe would question the age of the universe being 13.7 GYrs as per the BBT without taking into consideration the cyclic processes that is of general info to all.

A prime example is the 100 billion galaxies that we see in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs and we are lead to understand that they were formed by magic in just 500 million years.

Read this
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.01.pdf

and

ACG Newsletter

[enorbet2]

Greetz Pluto

You've certainly nailed one of the processes that can act as pitfalls in any body of knowledge involved in exploration where.by the very nature of the endeavor, continually finding new things, too ready acceptance can poison the effort, working against itself. The problem is even greater than that when one considers how up and coming scientists, as students, are funded and advanced by the old guard who may tend to eschew those who don't conform adding to the likelihood of stagnation. Fortunately though the scientific method especially during times like these where not only is new data coming in faster than ever before within a field, but add to that the somewhat new effect of folding in on itself where disparate fields are encouraged to act together, to share data and perspectives and the checks and balances acting against the forces acting to settle into dogma are more than sufficient to keep it fresh and inquisitive.

There certainly has been no shortage of rebellious physicists or renegade mathematicians willing to have a go at the old guard. IMHO the field of string theory is in far more danger of becoming staid and dogmatic than the Standard Model and let's remember that BBT is only part of the Standard Model and each step of it has had to fight hard for many years to achieve that lauded term "Standard". I don't think we are in much danger of settling too soon on a wrong path when the arguments began roughly 100 years ago, leading step by step to the model as we now know it.

Since everything is connected and builds on the past the exploration of cosmology is much like any other exploration such as say finding a safe path over an ocean icefield, tenuous at first. The few on the fringe finally convince a small crowd that the ice is safe and as it proves to support more and more people the evidence grows that it is indeed a safe path. It seems to me that though there have been some fairly long-lived false paths in the past (the "ether"between the spheres, phlogiston) as science and technology has progressed and as the sheer number of people considering a problem has greatly increased, most of such dead ends are considerably in the past. Newtons model lasted 250 years before there were any serious challenges and even though it was adopted fairly easily compared to most, as always at the beginning it is natural that there are more doubters than adopters. So if we graph out acceptance on a time scale it seems that initially new ideas, especially fundamental ones, are met with extreme skepticism which slowly slopes off until there is near universal acceptance and then as time advances and new phenomena begin to pile up skepticism begins anew. Einsteins work isn't even 100 years old yet and he faced extreme doubt right on the heels of his acceptance. You can see the consternation on his face in the famous photograph taken in Copenhagen where Quantum Theory clearly beat up the old guard who were made old before their time compared to the period of grace allowed such fundamental soothsayers of the past. The point is that things change much faster now than they did and will likely do so more in the future.

Specific to your concern over the age of the Universe and "magic" galactic formation, let's tackle age first. Immediately after Hubble's revelation that the Universe was by many orders of magnitude larger than previously thought and was not in infinite progression but actually had a beginning, the question was begged "How old is it then?" Fairly quickly evidence was very solid as to the lower limits. It is the upper limits that are at all controversial. In the 1950s that upper limit was supposed to be 20 G years and as new and different methods were developed year by year that number was shaved. Now there are numerous models used to not only directly result in the age but to test the degree of accuracy. Not only that but whole other fields that work on reconciling the various methods has been very successful. It is my understanding that since WMAP and the application of statistical algorithms the number 13.68 G Years contains only one percent margin of error. That's pretty damned accurate!

If this number seems a problem for some processes and if processes are not well understood are in effect "magic" then I suppose it is magic even though I dislike the term because it implies it is beyond understanding and I don't think that is at all so. It has only been within the past decade that it has been seriously proposed, based on observation, that perhaps "all" galaxies have at their centers, black holes. It is also within the past decade that rotational speeds of stars have been linked to black holes but still present problems. However we still know so little as to be stuck with the "chicken and egg" problem of whether black holes begat galaxies or galaxies begat black holes. Whichever turns out to be true doesn't seem to pose any serious problem for the 13.68 G year number so what's the problem? Previous conflicts that seemed possibly catastrophic such as stars that appeared older than the Universe resolved just fine. I don't see that galaxy formation problems, if there is one, is sufficiently fundamental to throw out the baby with yadayada.

The Standard Model is standard exactly because sufficient agreement with ever new observations has resulted in deserved confidence. Yes there are details to work out as there always will be, but none seriously threaten the whole. The most outrageous renegades promoting Quantum Loop Gravity, Variable Light Speed, etc. still don't stand BBT on it's head. MOND has fallen by the wayside and it's successor Tensor Vector Scalar Gravity fortunately will likeluy be resolved by the LHC. Even if it proves true, while it would utterly change the Standard Model (no dark matter) it would not kill it nor in any way contradict Big Bang.