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

[modest]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

It's funny, Lawrence Krauss is of the same opinion. After having written that he would be “very surprised if any of these initial models [GUTs or inflation] turned out to be true” (since both were divest of quantum gravity) he promptly then introduces the nonbaryonic dark matter issue to explain the flatness problem, saying the “stuff” must be made of “something else” as opposed to ordinary matter, and that we must have “missed most of it,” then concludes in his most expansive moment; “This is a very large pill to swallow.” (Krauss, 2001, pp. 138-68)

Uhhh... Great minds think alike....?

Originally Posted by coldcreation

It's ironic, too, that the original de Sitter world model was non-expanding and non-contracting (stationary).

Recall Edwin Hubble's words: “In the de Sitter cosmology, displacements of the spectra arise from two sources, an apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter. The latter involves an acceleration and hence introduces the element of time.” (Hubble 1929, A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula).

Though Hubble had slightly misinterpreted the de Sitter effect. The slowing down of clocks with distance is the element of time.

In the same works, Hubble wrote: “The outstanding feature, however, is the possibility that the velocity-distance relation may represent the de Sitter effect, and hence that numerical data may be introduced into discussions of the general curvature of space.”

The de Sitter universe was static, yet the light emitted by objects in it appeared redshifted (the infamous de Sitter effect).

A de Sitter universe can either be interpreted as flat and expanding, or curved and stationary.

The observation is the same. The interpretation is different.

I probably shouldn't have picked that scab

De Sitter's universe is static... sure. The thing is, if you put two stars in his universe separated by some distance, they will scatter. They will physically move apart in a way that is exactly described by FLRW with de Sitter parameters (zero mass and cosmological constant).

So, the repulsion (the expansion) is real in either metric. Milton Karl Munitz explains:

Allusion has been made to the fact that the recession of the galaxies in the present theory of the expanding universe is not precisely the effect forseen by de Sitter. It may be well to explain the manner of the transition. The phenomenon that is generally called the “de Sitter effect” was a rather mysterious slowing down of time at great distances from the observer; atomic vibrations would be executed more slowly, so that their light would be shifted to the red and imitate the effect of a receding velocity. But besides discovering this, de Sitter examined the equations of motion and noticed that the real velocities of distant objects would probably be large; he did not, however, expect these real velocities to favour recession rather than approach. I am not sure when it was first recognized that the complication in the equations of motion was neither more nor less than a repulsive force proportional to the distance; but it must have been before 1922. Summarizing the theory at that date, I wrote—“De Sitter’s theory gives a double explanation of this motion of recession: first, there is the general tendency to scatter according to the equation ; second, there is the general displacement of spectral lines to the red in distant objects due to the slowing down of atomic vibrations which would be erroneously interpreted as motion of recession.” I also pointed out that it was a question of definition whether the later effect should be regarded as a spurious or a genuine velocity. During the time that its light is traveling to us, the nebula is being accelerated by the cosmcal repulsion and acquires an additional outward velocity exceeding the amount in dispute; so that the velocity, which was spurious at the time of emission of the light, has become genuine by the time of its arrival. Inferentially this meant that slowing down of time had become a very subsidiary effect compared with cosmical repulsion; but this was not so clearly realized as it might have been. The subsequent developments of Freedmann and Lemaitre were geometrical and did not allude to anything so crude as “force”; but, examining them to see what has happened, we find that slowing down of time has been swallowed up in the cosmical repulsion; it was a small portion of the whole effect (a second order term) which had been artificially detached by the earlier methods of analysis.

Theories of the Universe: From ... - Google Book Search

~modest

EDIT: **************

I'm sorry, I attributed the passage above to Milton Munitz. It comes from Munitz's book, but is written by Eddington.

In looking for a source to expand his "double explanation of this motion of recession" quote I found the following paper which I really enjoyed reading:

The Origins of the Velocity-Distance Relation JOURNAL FOR THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY V. 10, P. 133, 1979

It has a bit more of Eddington's quote:

One of the most perplexing problems of cosmogony is the great speed of the spiral nebulae. Their radial velocities average 600 km per second and there is a great preponderance of velocities of recession from the solar system. It is usually supposed that these are remote objects known (though the view is opposed by some authorities), so that here if anywhere we might look for effects due to a general curvature of the world [universe]. De Sitter’s theory gives a double explanation of this motion of recession; first, there is the general tendency to scatter... second, there is the general displacement of spectral lines to the red in distant objects due to the slowing down of atomic vibrations which... would be erroneously interpreted as the motion of recession.

-A.S. Eddington; The mathematical theory of relativity (1923)

The paper also discusses de Sitter's rejection of his own model in favor of Lemaitre's.

I also found an interesting 1929 paper by Tolman which relates de Sitter's model to astronomical findings:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1929ApJ....69..245T

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Great discussion by Modest and coldcreation.

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

Compact matter and degenerate matter.

Does matter need to become degenerate before compaction?

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

I'm reading through this topic, still on the search for the mechanism that originates all forms of jets small or large.


Tokamak
arXiv.org Search



Spherical Tokamak Plasma
arXiv.org Search

and it seems that the pinching of magnetic fields could be the trigger.

I feel that I'm years from the answer.

Unless someone here can help.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Compact matter and degenerate matter.

Does matter need to become degenerate before compaction?

I don't know the difference between the two. As far as I can tell, "degenerate matter" is what you mean. When a star collapses and forms degenerate matter (such as a neutron star) then the star is often called a "compact object". My guess is that you've combined the terms "compact object" and "degenerate matter". But, I would avoid doing that. "Compact matter" is not a term that's usually used as far as I can tell. Degenerate is more descriptive and more-often used.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Your right Modest.

I have used

Degenerate matter
Compact matter
Ultra dense matter
Ultra dense plasma matter
Compact objects

Some papers use these terms.

This is a good excuse to read up on some papers
Such as, this does not mean that you have to read them, just letting you know how I occupy my time.

arXiv.org Search

In due time I will understand the origins of jets and what triggers them.

I should have pick up tennis.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

I came across this paper, it maybe of interest.

[0803.2509] Twisted coronal loops in uniform gravity
Twisted coronal loops in uniform gravity

Authors: G.J.D. Petrie
(Submitted on 17 Mar 2008)

Abstract: Coronal loop emission profiles are often of remarkably constant width along their entire lengths, contradicting expectations based on model coronal magnetic field strengths decreasing with height. Meanwhile Paul Bellan has produced a theoretical model in which an initially empty, twisted force-free loop, on being filled with plasma via upflow at each foot point, in the absence of significant gravitational effects, forms a narrow, filamentary loop of constant cross-section. In this paper, we focus on equilibrium states that include stratification by uniform gravity while retaining the effects of magnetic field twist. Comparing these with related force-free equilibria, it is found that injection of low-$\beta $ plasma under coronal conditions is not likely to change the shape of a loop significantly. These linear equilibria apply to the interiors and boundaries of loops only, with external influences modeled by boundary total pressures. The effects of total pressure balance with surroundings and of gravitational stratification are to inhibit the pinching of a loop to a constant cross-section. Only if the plasma $\beta$ were high enough for the plasma to reconfigure the external field and the hydrostatic scale height much greater than the loop size could the final state have nearly constant cross section. We do not expect this to occur in the corona.

and

[0802.2034] Extragalactic jets with helical magnetic fields: relativistic MHD simulations
Extragalactic jets with helical magnetic fields: relativistic MHD simulations

Authors: R. Keppens, Z. Meliani, B. van der Holst, F. Casse
(Submitted on 14 Feb 2008)

Abstract: Extragalactic jets are inferred to harbor dynamically important, organized magnetic fields which presumably aid in the collimation of the relativistic jet flows. We here explore by means of grid-adaptive, high resolution numerical simulations the morphology of AGN jets pervaded by helical field and flow topologies. We concentrate on morphological features of the bow shock and the jet beam behind the Mach disk, for various jet Lorentz factors and magnetic field helicities. We investigate the influence of helical magnetic fields on jet beam propagation in overdense external medium. We use the AMRVAC code, employing a novel hybrid block-based AMR strategy, to compute ideal plasma dynamics in special relativity. The helicity of the beam magnetic field is effectively transported down the beam, with compression zones in between diagonal internal cross-shocks showing stronger toroidal field regions. In comparison with equivalent low-relativistic jets which get surrounded by cocoons with vortical backflows filled by mainly toroidal field, the high speed jets demonstrate only localized, strong toroidal field zones within the backflow vortical structures. We find evidence for a more poloidal, straight field layer, compressed between jet beam and backflows. This layer decreases the destabilizing influence of the backflow on the jet beam. In all cases, the jet beam contains rich cross-shock patterns, across which part of the kinetic energy gets transferred. For the high speed reference jet considered here, significant jet deceleration only occurs beyond distances exceeding ${\cal O}(100 R_j)$, as the axial flow can reaccelerate downstream to the internal cross-shocks. This reacceleration is magnetically aided, due to field compression across the internal shocks which pinch the flow.

Could this process be part of a recycling of matter from degenerate to normal matter?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Pluto

[0803.2509] Twisted coronal loops in uniform gravity
Twisted coronal loops in uniform gravity

Authors: G.J.D. Petrie
(Submitted on 17 Mar 2008)

and

[0802.2034] Extragalactic jets with helical magnetic fields: relativistic MHD simulations
Extragalactic jets with helical magnetic fields: relativistic MHD simulations

Authors: R. Keppens, Z. Meliani, B. van der Holst, F. Casse
(Submitted on 14 Feb 2008)

Could this process be part of a recycling of matter from degenerate to normal matter?

In short, based on the quoted text, no.

No reference is made in the quoted text to degenerate mater. All the reference and research literature of which I’m familiar, including all that quoted in this thread, explicitly or implicitly states that the jets and disks of various astronomical consist only of normal matter at densities much less than those of stellar cores, which are insufficiently compacted to undergo any form of degeneracy. Objects such as neutron stars, and possibly black holes, are strongly hypothesized to contain degenerate matter, but have no mechanism that can eject this matter.

Pluto, if you have any references contradicting this, please post them. Don’t continue posting quotes that don’t support your claim, then repeating the same claim in the form of a question. You can’t make sources that don’t support, and in many cases contradict, your claims, support them by providing many such sources.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

CraigD said:

In short, based on the quoted text, no.

Which quoted text?

We know that the progressive evolution of a stella black hole is via the formation of a Neutron core Star. This would imply that the matter found in the so called black hole is in some form of degenaracy.

We also know that by general information that the form that a galaxy takes is directly related to the size and activity of the central black hole. This also implies that the Black hole mass changes by some mechanism meaning that black holes can in release or lose mass.

After reading hundreds of papers from NASA ADS and arXiv there is seems to be no evidence either way to say that black holes cannot eject matter from the core. There is a question mark on the mechanism of how the jets form either from the core or from the disc or a combination of both.

Weak jets tend to form in turbulent areas while stable jets a formed by a strong stable origin possibly near or in the core of a black hole. If we treat the core as compact matter than we can apply physics to the area.

[0801.0617] The Trails of Superluminal Jet Components in 3C111
The Trails of Superluminal Jet Components in 3C111

Authors: M. Kadler (NASA GSFC and MPIfR), E. Ros (MPIfR), M. Perucho (MPIfR), Y. Y. Kovalev (MPIfR and ASC Lebedev), D. C. Homan (Denison U.), I. Agudo (CSIC and MPIfR), K. I. Kellermann (NRAO), M. F. Aller (U. Michigan), H. D. Aller (U. Michigan), M. L. Lister (Purdue U.), J. A. Zensus (MPIfR)
(Submitted on 4 Jan 2008 (v1), last revised 7 Jan 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: In 1996, a major radio flux-density outburst occured in the broad-line radio galaxy 3C111. It was followed by a particularly bright plasma ejection associated with a superluminal jet component, which has shaped the parsec-scale structure of 3C111 for almost a decade. Here, we present results from 18 epochs of Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observations conducted since 1995 as part of the VLBA 2 cm Survey and MOJAVE monitoring programs. This major event allows us to study a variety of processes associated with outbursts of radio-loud AGN in much greater detail than has been possible in other cases: the primary perturbation gives rise to the formation of a leading and a following component, which are interpreted as a forward and a backward-shock. Both components evolve in characteristically different ways and allow us to draw conclusions about the work flow of jet-production events; the expansion, acceleration and recollimation of the ejected jet plasma in an environment with steep pressure and density gradients are revealed; trailing components are formed in the wake of the primary perturbation possibly as a result of coupling to Kelvin-Helmholtz instability pinching modes from the interaction of the jet with the external medium. The interaction of the jet with its ambient medium is further described by the linear-polarization signature of jet components traveling along the jet and passing a region of steep pressure/density gradients.

and

[0710.1326] Magnetar Driven Bubbles and the Origin of Collimated Outflows from GRBs
Magnetar Driven Bubbles and the Origin of Collimated Outflows from GRBs

Authors: N. Bucciantini (1), E. Quataert (1), J. Arons (1), B.D. Metzger (1), Todd A. Thompson (2) ((1)Astronomy Department, UC Berkeley, (2)Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton)
(Submitted on 5 Oct 2007)

Abstract: We model the interaction between the wind from a newly formed rapidly rotating magnetar and the surrounding progenitor. In the first few seconds after core collapse the magnetar inflates a bubble of plasma and magnetic fields behind the supernova shock, which expands asymmetrically because of the pinching effect of the toroidal magnetic field, as in PWNe, even if the host star is spherically symmetric. The degree of asymmetry depends on the ratio of the magnetic energy to the total energy in the bubble. We assume that the wind by newly formed magnetars inflating these bubbles is more magnetized than for PWNe. We show that for a magnetic to total power supplied by the central magnetar $\sim 0.1$ the bubble expands relatively spherically while for values greater than 0.3, most of the pressure in the bubble is exerted close to the rotation axis, driving a collimated outflow out through the host star. This can account for the collimation inferred from observations of long-duration gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). Given that the wind magnetization increases in time, we thus suggest that the magnetar-driven bubble initially expands relatively spherically (enhancing the energy of the associated supernova) while at late times it becomes progressivelymore collimated (producing the GRB). Similar processes may operate in more modestly rotating neutron stars to produce asymmetric supernovae and lower energy transients such as X-ray flashes.

This pinching effect of the magnetic fields maybe the key to extracting the degenerate matter that is found in compact objects.
The ejection of degenrate matter changes back to normal matter very quickly. We cannot see the process in action.

I'm well awear of the properties of jets. As to their overall density and properties I'll come back to that later.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Pluto

We also know that by general information that the form that a galaxy takes is directly related to the size and activity of the central black hole. This also implies that the Black hole mass changes by some mechanism meaning that black holes can in release or lose mass.

This is unsupported conjecture. How does the variable size and activity of a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy *imply* that its mass is changing such that it can release or lose mass. Black holes are either actively consuming matter and increasing mass or stable. I am unaware of any evidence that black holes are capable of releasing or losing mass. If a black hole could release matter, and thus mass, it would not fit the definition of a black hole, which is identified as an object so massive and dense that its gravitation force does not allow even light to escape, much less any form of matter.

This shouldn't have to be continually restated in this thread, pluto.

Originally Posted by Pluto

After reading hundreds of papers from NASA ADS and arXiv there is seems to be no evidence either way to say that black holes cannot eject matter from the core. There is a question mark on the mechanism of how the jets form either from the core or from the disc or a combination of both.

This question mark you refer to is only proffered by you and your ilk. Astrophysicists are comfortable in their reasoning that these reletivistic jets do not emanate from the core of black holes.

You want these jets to emanate from the core to fit your theory that matter is recycled in black holes. But there is no evidence in support of your theory, even among all of the documents you've linked to. You know why? Because the properties of black holes are such that matter and energy cannot escape. That's why they are called black holes.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Weak jets tend to form in turbulent areas while stable jets a formed by a strong stable origin possibly near or in the core of a black hole. If we treat the core as compact matter than we can apply physics to the area.

This is unsupported conjecture. Saying it over and over wil not make it a reality.

Originally Posted by Pluto

I'm well awear of the properties of jets. As to their overall density and properties I'll come back to that later.

Apparently you are not because you keep saying that they emanate from within black holes. If light cannot escape, neither can jets.

Sorry, pluto, but you're barking up a tree with this one.

[freeztar]

Great response Reason!

I'd only like to point out that Hawking Radiation is a theoretical mechanism whereby particles can be expelled from the event horizon. Of course, this is for infalling matter, so it's not like the black hole is losing mass it already had.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'd only like to point out that Hawking Radiation is a theoretical mechanism whereby particles can be expelled from the event horizon. Of course, this is for infalling matter, so it's not like the black hole is losing mass it already had.

That a black hole is losing mass it already had is exactly what Hawking radiation predicts. Unlike the more common kinds of radiation associated with black holes, which are produced mainly by thermal glowing of their disks of infalling matter, Hawking radiation is predicted to occur even if the black hole is surrounded by no matter or light at all.

The problem with Hawking radiation being significant over short periods around star-mass and greater black holes is that its power varies inversely with the square of the mass of the black hole, so the larger the black hole, the less it emits. So, even if the universe had no matter outside of black holes, and was dark at all frequencies of EM radiation, even the smallest stellar black holes would take mind-bogglingly long to “evaporate” – something like years, or, in other units lifetimes of the Sun, a duration that for all practical purposes can be considered infinite. As the universe will be full of matter and light for a long time, present day black holes increase their mass from infalling matter and radiation many times more quickly than they lose it via Hawking radiation.

While I can find no theoretical or observational support for Pluto’s idea that neutron stars or black holes just spit degenerate matter out in their disks and jets, I find the question of what would happen if you could remove degenerate matter from a super-dense object like a neutron star an interesting one. Once it is no longer part of a large mass, a lump of matter like neutronium is essentially the enormous nucleus of a nameless unstable element, and should fission like mad. Would it emit free neutrons, which would each beta decay in about 1 minute to produce an atom of hydrogen, or would it do something more exotic? The question is way over my head.