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

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

In the due time I will be reading and re-reading on Galaxy formation and evolution and if you do not mind I would post some of these papers.

There are two points that

I'm looking for:

1) How AGN affects the formation of galaxies and their evolution.

2) If the size and activity is directly related to the form of the galaxy.

Please stay on topic and please discontinue pasting your arxiv search results here at Hypography. If you'd like to discuss an article then tell us why the article is relevant and what aspects you'd like to discuss.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

I think you missed the point of discussion.

I posted the link to support the point.

The ABS do it quite OK.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

The Hubble Tuning Fork
The Hubble Tuning Fork

I am ok with the comments clipped from this site except for the following quote [abridged]:

We now know he was mistaken in this belief. Spiral galaxies have a great deal of rotation and elliptical galaxies do not. There is no way an elliptical galaxy could spontaneously begin rotating, so elliptical galaxies cannot turn into spiral galaxies. Although Hubble was wrong about his theory of galaxy evolution, the confusing names have stuck: today, elliptical galaxies are still referred to as early galaxies and spirals as late galaxies.

I can think of one mechanism. Elliptical galaxies can attain lots of angular momentum
from having a Galactic sized Black Hole form at the center. This angular momentum would
cause said galaxy to morph into a spiral galaxy. This theory is what was reported on
Discover that Black Holes of galactic proportion are now thought to be common in the
formation of galaxies. Personally, I would think I would have to go back to read the whole
website to get the context of this quote as their may be a dependency I am not aware of.

Originally Posted by Pluto

In actual fact in my opinion the events are cyclic. We see spiral galaxies having a AGN and forming huge jets that eject matter and reform the galaxy. The size of the Nucleon determines the size of the jet and the outcome of the form.

I know you just love cyclicity. There may be processes which cycle here. The one reported
in the show on Discover was how
a the Black Holes at galactic centers would turn-on and turn-off (ergo AGN or not). This
explanation was given on that show as that said Black Hole would run out of fuel, would
then turn-off. Later when more matter would start to fall in, it would turn-on. The
magnetic flux would blow out, fuel depletes, goes out. Eventually stars move nearby,
bleed gas, gas falls in, turn-on. This is cyclical.

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

As far as galaxy evolution, in my opinion the sequence of events go through an evolution.

The basic motion in the universe is to cluster, if this was the only motion than we would end up with one cluster in time.

The property of double layer allows for the formation of matter to be ejected at speeds close to that of light.

The two process allows for a recycling of matter.

To understand the processes one needs to understand the properties of condensed matter.

The following paper is for information.

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic Degenerate Stars to Black Holes
May-07
Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic
SpringerLink - Journal Article

and
Scalar fields: at the threshold of astrophysics

Scalar fields: at the threshold of astrophysics

[enorbet2]

Greetz
Maddog I can't tell for certain if you're being serious or deceptively obsequious (wolf spider or trap door spider?) but since there ain't no flies on me, please allow me to respond to the literal and join in the fun.

Originally Posted by maddog

I know you just love cyclicity. There may be processes which cycle here. The one reported
in the show on Discover was how a the Black Holes at galactic centers would turn-on and turn-off (ergo AGN or not). This
explanation was given on that show as that said Black Hole would run out of fuel, would then turn-off. Later when more matter would start to fall in, it would turn-on. The magnetic flux would blow out, fuel depletes, goes out. Eventually stars move nearby,
bleed gas, gas falls in, turn-on. This is cyclical.

I disagree. The definition of "cyclical" is mathematical in that there is either a repeating interval in time or an intervallic progression in time following a rhythmic nature ie: not random. Because there are complex perturbations in orbit shape and velocity particularly in the dense fields of galactic nucleii between mass, motion, multiples of gravitational fields, and possibly dark matter and dark energy, the motion is necessarily random and not in the least cyclical, imho, and this is just in regards to balck holes "feeding". Below I'll tackle cyclical redistribution of matter.

Originally Posted by Pluto

The basic motion in the universe is to cluster, if this was the only motion than we would end up with one cluster in time.

I don't think this is entirely accurate, even if we apply only the simple old Newtonian concept of gravity. We know the Universe to be structured at several large scales in clusters of gravitationally bound galaxies very loosely bound to other large clusters but most separated by vast areas of empty space (admittedly some are only half-vast) and if we accept expansion it is highly likely that if no other forces appear these clusters will eventually separate from each other leaving only super vastly separated local groups that will eventually combine such as is the destiny of the Milky Way and Andromeda. Consider Einstein's concept of gravity and the bar moves a little further toward expansion. So both forces are at play, locally clustering, but on larger scales flying apart. Presently it is expected that over many eons all that will be left is super massive black holes slowly dissipating into particle soup, the end of matter as we know it. Factor in Dark Energy and this is happening more quickly and more inevitably in Cosmic Time, than previously thought, and actually tends to reduce clustering in favor of flying apart.

Originally Posted by Pluto

The property of double layer allows for the formation of matter to be ejected at speeds close to that of light.The two process allows for a recycling of matter.

I don't see how you can say this considering many Black Holes appear to be a net loss in that far less matter/energy escapes than is semi permanently captured (though others may be a net gain, so it is not pssible to generalize about "all black holes") . I say "semi permanently" since the lifespan of Black Holes is an unknown and can only be projected and in any projection it must be considered that what is ejected at relativistic speeds is not necessarily about to be reconstituted as matter any time soon even on a Cosmic scale, if ever. The LHC and Herschel/Planck projects are bound to add considerable new data to the mix soon, but it is far from clear just yet and possibly won't be clear until gravity is reconciled with Quantum Mechanics.

In conclusion, cyclical redistribution of matter through the action of black holes, even in general, is far from proven and is far more likely doubtful. You seem to be referring to the perceived Trans-Plankian problem with Bekenstein-Hawking radiation but that has been largelyly resolved of late. Quoting from Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The trans-Planckian problem is nowadays mostly considered a mathematical artifact of horizon calculations.[10][13] The same effect occurs for regular matter falling onto a white hole solution. Matter which falls on the white hole accumulates on it, but has no future region into which it can go. Tracing the future of this matter, it is compressed onto the final singular endpoint of the white hole evolution, into a trans-Planckian region. The reason for these types of divergences is that modes which end at the horizon from the point of view of outside coordinates are singular in frequency there. The only way to determine what happens classically is to extend in some other coordinates that cross the horizon.

There exist alternative physical pictures which give the Hawking radiation in which the trans-Planckian problem is addressed. The key point is that similar trans-Planckian problems occur when the modes occupied with Unruh radiation are traced back in time.[14] In the Unruh effect, the magnitude of the temperature can be calculated from ordinary Minkowski field theory, and is not controversial.

To visualize Black Holes as closed Fountains feeding the pond that feeds the fountain in some sort of cosmic eternal motion machine, seems, well , there's no other way to put it, just wrong. Even your quoted Harvard study on condensates doesn't place such on a scale that it/they "reseed(s)" the Universe.

Pluto, if I have incorrectly restated or interpreted your case, please let me know, as it is refreshing to see some of your own ideas here for a change and that considerably increases the interest in this thread, at least for me.

Maddog, you're great fun no matter what you're ultimately up to.

Cheers All

[Pluto]

G'day enorbet

I do not see a black hole as something that cannot be worked with.

I see it as a Condensed matter that is able to form vector fields that prevent EMR from escaping.

Apr-02
Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes

Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes

A new, static, spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's equations is described, that presents a very different alternative from classical black holes for the endpoint of gravitational collapse. The solution is characterized by an interior de Sitter region (p= -rho) of gravitational vacuum condensate with an exterior Schwarzschild geometry of arbitrary total mass M. These are separated by a very thin shell with a microscopic but finite proper thickness of ultracold matter with the eq. of state p= rho, replacing both the Schwarzschild and de Sitter classical horizons. These extreme eqs. of state arise naturally as the allowed phases in the effective theory of quantum gravity, and the classical event horizon is replaced by a phase boundary in the quantum theory. The new solution has no singularities, no event horizons, and a globally defined timelike Killing field. Its entropy is maximized under small fluctuations and is given by the standard hydrodynamic entropy of the thin shell, which is of order M, instead of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula (which is of order M^2). Hence unlike black holes, the new solution is thermodynamically stable and suffers from no information paradox. The formation of such a cold (1 μ K) gravitational condensate stellar remnant very likely would require a violent collapse process with an explosive output of energy. The formation and excitation of such remnants could provide more efficient central engines than classical black holes for some very high energy sources observed in the universe.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

As far as galaxy evolution, in my opinion the sequence of events go through an evolution. The basic motion in the universe is to cluster, if this was the only motion than we would end up with one cluster in time. The property of double layer allows for the formation of matter to be ejected at speeds close to that of light.
The two process allows for a recycling of matter. To understand the processes one needs to understand the properties of condensed matter.

I am not aware of a process double layer.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic Degenerate Stars to Black Holes May-07
Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic
SpringerLink - Journal Article

It is annoying to bait someone with a link to a paper whereupon they find that to view the
paper they must pay for it. I want to view more than the abstract. So I gather you didn't
read this paper either. Please don't in the future post a link to paper that has to be purchased, unless you are willing to foot the bill. You could have warned me also.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Maddog I can't tell for certain if you're being serious or deceptively obsequious (wolf spider or trap door spider?) but since there ain't no flies on me, please allow me to respond to the literal and join in the fun.

Enorbet2, you have me a bit befuddled. My "Cyclicity" comment was directed squarely at
Pluto who is a known Cyclic Hound. I meant no mischief. I was throwing him a bone that
the process of massive Black Holes as AGN have a process to turn-on, turn-off in a cyclical
manner.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

I disagree. The definition of "cyclical" is mathematical in that there is either a repeating interval in time or an intervallic progression in time following a rhythmic nature ie: not random. Because there are complex perturbations in orbit shape and velocity particularly in the dense fields of galactic nucleii between mass, motion, multiples of gravitational fields, and possibly dark matter and dark energy, the motion is necessarily random and not in the least cyclical, imho, and this is just in regards to balck holes "feeding". Below I'll tackle cyclical redistribution of matter.

Excuse me. How "cyclical" being mathematical in any way prevent what I said ?
What I was referring to was an AGN to be an effective light switch. On-Off.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Maddog, you're great fun no matter what you're ultimately up to.

As Harry Potter says, "I am up to no good".

"Mischief managed".

maddog

[enorbet2]

Originally Posted by maddog

Enorbet2, you have me a bit befuddled. My "Cyclicity" comment was directed squarely at Pluto who is a known Cyclic Hound. I meant no mischief. I was throwing him a bone that the process of massive Black Holes as AGN have a process to turn-on, turn-off in a cyclical manner.
<snip>
Excuse me. How "cyclical" being mathematical in any way prevent what I said ?
What I was referring to was an AGN to be an effective light switch. On-Off.

Sorry, maddog, I knew it was a bone but couldn't tell if you were waiting in the bushes holding a string attached to it. Confusier and confusier, eh? The confusion may be on my part because I may be missing something here, but it is my understanding that black holes, even those at galactic centers, don't contain "a switch". Much as spiders don't dine in a pattern they define but rather one of chance when a victim wanders too close, I'm aware of no pattern or cyclic behaviour, just a relatively constant appetite awaiting passersby. Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similarly, while not likely of design, Pluto has thrown me a bone because, like you, maddog, I was intrigued by the quote from the abstract on gravitational vacuum condensate (there has been serious discussion since before 2002 and I don't know how I've missed it heretofore), so I didn't give up there but googled "gvc" and found several interesting sites, after gasping at the $109 US list price on a new book "Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman Approach" by Herbert Hamber, but thankfully a comprehensive preview is the tinyurl below. See page 302 if you can as Google Books seems to generate search term based previews so it might take a few turns to see the appropriate pages w/o buying the book (though it seems really excellent) and this might still work at least once or twice before you limit out

Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman ... - Google Books

if no go....

Interesting powerpoint slideshow here:
http://server.physics.miami.edu/~cgc.../Burdyuzha.ppt

HUGE, very worthwhile abstract here
Gravitational vacuum condensate stars — PNAS

big preview here
Gravitational vacuum condensate stars

While I am glad to see Pluto actually injecting something from his own mind, he does still seem to fall back on some links that don't seem (at least to me) to support his contentions. Unless I am missing some major fundamental process, once again I see no cyclical action here reseeding an infinite universe. In fact the latest stuff on GVC seems to fit right in with Standard Model very nicely, simplifying while removing paradox, eliminating the need for the singularity, and likely pleasing Stephen Hawking even if his monikered radiation is shown not to exist. Even on Mt Olympus there are hierarchies and "druthers".

So "Thanks, Pluto" but it still doesn't make your case and is more speculative than some things you fault for being too speculative since it depends on "Quark-Gluon Plasma" (BBT component) and Higgs Bosons and IIRC the LHC is not even up and running yet and Fermilab has yet to step up in that regard if they even can. Man! I can't wait for Herschel-Plank and other experiments so close to fruition to add new data!

[maddog]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Sorry, maddog, I knew it was a bone but couldn't tell if you were waiting in the bushes holding a string attached to it. Confusier and confusier, eh? The confusion may be on my part because I may be missing something here, but it is my understanding that black holes, even those at galactic centers, don't contain "a switch". Much as spiders don't dine in a pattern they define but rather one of chance when a victim wanders too close, I'm aware of no pattern or cyclic behaviour, just a relatively constant appetite awaiting passersby. Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't mean to imply it too exactly like a light switch. The notion of a super massive
Black Hole as explanation for AGN is not my idea. I learned of it from a show on Discover
(maybe 3 weeks ago), on a now thought conventional theory as to the explanation of
AGN. When a Black Hole runs thin of fuel to swallow, its accretion disk would thin out.
This show demonstrated how the Blandford-Znajek Mechanism (creation of jets) would
blow out the gas from the disk because of the magnetic flux potential. Professors from
UCLA and others hosted the show.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Similarly, while not likely of design, Pluto has thrown me a bone because, like you, maddog, I was intrigued by the quote from the abstract on gravitational vacuum condensate (there has been serious discussion since before 2002 and I don't know how I've missed it heretofore), so I didn't give up there but googled "gvc" and found several interesting sites, after gasping at the $109 US list price on a new book "Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman Approach" by Herbert Hamber, but thankfully a comprehensive preview is the tinyurl below. See page 302 if you can as Google Books seems to generate search term based previews so it might take a few turns to see the appropriate pages w/o buying the book (though it seems really excellent) and this might still work at least once or twice before you limit out
Quantum Gravitation: The Feynman ... - Google Books

I added this book to my Google Library (sad to say it is incomplete -- guess they want you
to shell out the $$ for it).

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Interesting powerpoint slideshow here:
http://server.physics.miami.edu/~cgc/Miami2007/Burdyuzha.ppt
HUGE, very worthwhile abstract here
Gravitational vacuum condensate stars — PNAS
big preview here
Gravitational vacuum condensate stars

I will read through these. Thanks.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

While I am glad to see Pluto actually injecting something from his own mind, he does still seem to fall back on some links that don't seem (at least to me) to support his contentions. Unless I am missing some major fundamental process, once again I see no cyclical action here reseeding an infinite universe. In fact the latest stuff on GVC seems to fit right in with Standard Model very nicely, simplifying while removing paradox, eliminating the need for the singularity, and likely pleasing Stephen Hawking even if his monikered radiation is shown not to exist. Even on Mt Olympus there are hierarchies and "druthers".

I wouldn't go that far either.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

So "Thanks, Pluto" but it still doesn't make your case and is more speculative than some things you fault for being too speculative since it depends on "Quark-Gluon Plasma" (BBT component) and Higgs Bosons and IIRC the LHC is not even up and running yet and Fermilab has yet to step up in that regard if they even can. Man! I can't wait for Herschel-Plank and other experiments so close to fruition to add new data!

Yep. I concur.

maddog