Question BIG BANG EVIDENCE

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Apr 13, 2021
361
33
710
Smile
You cannot destroy matter you can change it into energy and vis versa.
Estimate compaction
Atomic matter 10^5
Neutron Matter 10^17
Quark matter composites from 10^18 and over
Partonic matter 10^25 an over
Axion Gluon Matter over 10^30

A classical Black hole cannot form with a singularity, but!
Condensates from extreme Quark matter to Partonic to Axion form dipolar vector fields that expel matter, but! also vector fields that prevent EMR from escaping and thus create a Mimic-Black Hole.

Droplets of compacted matter that are expelled create seeds for Stars not only one, but! clusters of stars.

We can notice these star forms in dipolar jets as in M87, millions of stars forming in the jet stream.
 
Nov 24, 2022
24
3
15
I was most fortunate enough to obtain 2 tickets for Professor Brian Cox in Birmingham earlier this year. The arena was packed, estimated13,000 attended. It started off quite good but Brian started drifting off into higher physics and mathematics. Several children in the audience were soon asleep and their parents left with them. In the second 'half' he got into black holes and everybody's eyes glazed over, more and more people left. He spent an hour or so explaining, in scientific terms, black holes. This was not what we had all come to see, it was so far over our heads it was in orbit in Andromeda!!! Eventually my wife and I left. We were under the impression in was to show us all the glories of our Universe not a higher level lecture on physics. Never again. I made the mistake of paying £15 for a show 'brochure' in the foyer. It was full of the same and I never did sit down and read through it. Are these clever, scientific people on Mars???? I already knew about the Einstein Rosen bridge and told my wife what he was talking about before he mentioned it. I am not 'clever' but watch Discovery a lot, when they are not full of repeats. When he was putting an equation on the screen, he said, I could be putting anything on here, nobody would notice. Boy was he right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 14, 2020
104
25
1,610
since matter cannot be destroyed or created.

How does natter and energy get rejuvenated?

What process or processes take place?
Harry Costas
Greetings!
Yes these can be created an destroyed by Dark Matter.
Regards
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
 
Bill,

Your link actually has a variety of answers that don't all agree that photons can gravitationally attract each other . Some argue that they exchange gravitons. others argue that they follow space curved by matter, but do not themselves curve space. Some argue that they do curve space.

So, it seems to me that there are a lot of opinions based on a lot of different theories.

But, I don't think there is any experimental proof either way. If there is, somebody please provide a link to it.

Considering that photons have this "duality" of sometimes seeming to act like particles and sometimes seeming to act like waves, it would not surprise me either way if they turned out to follow the theories that say the attract or the theories that say they don't.
 
Nov 19, 2021
791
331
1,260
When matter is converted to energy the mass does not go away. Mass is always conserved. Therefore photons have mass. The dissenters I see on that page are either referring to the rest mass as being zero which is irrelevant, they are talking other interactions than gravity or (as you mentioned) they curve in the presense of curved spacetime which has nothing to do with mass.
 
Bill, That is the point of one of the answers - mass curves space time, so photons following curved space time are only doing what matter does in following curved space time. The disagreement is whether it takes rest mass to curve space time (e.g., "matter") or if mass-equivalent energy also curves space time. It seems that people who answer the question either way are essentially assuming the answer, so they don't agree in the end if they don't agree in the beginning.

And, then there are the discussions about photons exchanging "gravitions", which are the quantum theory theoretical carriers of gravitational force. But, the folks who claim that gravity is not a force, just bent space, don't even believe in gravitons.

The real issue is that asking if photons gravitationally attract each other is a question that crosses the divide between General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory, and we have no theory that has been proven to successfully combine those two theories. So, all we are really getting is speculation when we get people giving their answers to that question.
 
Nov 19, 2021
791
331
1,260
Right, the fact that photons follow curved spacetime does not prove they have mass. Anything follows curved spacetime, mass or no mass.
Me personally, I believe mass is conserved in the energy to matter transition. That would endow any form of energy with mass. Photons have energy thus they have mass. Rest mass of a photon is irrelevant since photons are moving.
 
Bill,

I think that is an objective statement and a reasonable belief.

My only objection is when somebody claims that it is truth, even if just by leaving out the "if" when saying what the underlying theory says to logically support the conclusion.

Personally, I am agnostic about different theories for things like this. I try to understand all of them and check to see if they are internally consistent as well as whether they would require things inconsistent with other "laws of nature", which may also not be fully correct (they are just "theories" too, at some level).

The problem I have with thinking about many of these things is that I have to accept that there is a duality of characteristics for photons (waves and particles) which we can demonstrate with experiments, but cannot really understand adequately. So, I am left with the proven situation that photons sometimes fit one of our theories and not the other, while at other times not fitting the first theory and fitting the other one.

Bringing that realization forward to questions like photons gravitationally attracting each other slams me directly into the realization that I have no idea which theory to use to answer that question, but I know that the different theories produce differing conclusions.

The only way I can see to have an objective scientific discussion about such things is to keep the "ifs" in mind and talk about those explicitly. That properly acknowledges the uncertainty and provides for rational discussions. What troubles me most in discussions about physics and cosmology is the way most people who are proponents of specific theories speak (and post) as if those theories are the truth, and anybody who does not understand that (and believe it) is not just wrong, but inferior. That type of smugness tends to suppress potentially useful discussions (which may actually be the intent of some of those who are behaving so smugly).

So, when we go searching for links to support various conclusions, we need to be careful to not just grab somebody's too-smug website or post and think of it as surely correct. There is all sorts of misinformation on the Internet. And, looking back at some of my 50 year olld college textbooks, there is even a bit of misinfo in those, too.

My only recourse is to keep asking "How do we know that?" and trace it back to the experimental evidence. For instance, Michelson and Morley did not actually show that the is no '"ether" in which light propagates as waves - what they did show is that we cannot measure any speed through something in which light propagates. So, when quantum theorists talk about light being waves in "fields" that "permeate all of space", I don't claim that Michelson and Morely showed that such fields cannot exist.

But, I do ask questions about how such fields behave when others postulate that "space" expanded and somehow expanded the fields with it. Do photons get larger when space expands? We seem to believe that they get stretched in the direction of travel, but how about in the perpedicular directions? And what is a photon, anyway? If you take a gamma ray and stretch the space that it is in so that the gamma ray ends up with a wavelength of say, 1 meter, how wide (perpendicular to its direction of travel) is that gamma ray photon after being stretched that amount?

Too many people who can't answer questions like that try to dodge them by criticizing the question and questioner . Which is a strong indication to me that they don't understand their own theories well enough to answer it logically.

One of the things I like about this forum is that it is not dogmatic for discussions like this. The moderators seem to accept expressions of a variety of theories.

So, we can keep having discussions like this one without being shut off because of conflicts with the moderator's preferred theory.
 
Last edited:
Nov 24, 2022
24
3
15
But, if a person believes X; then surely it is up to others to PROVE that person wrong. I believe in a 'big bang' that created our universe BUT, nobody had even tried to convince me I am wrong. I very much doubt if anyone can, and please, keep a god out of it.
 
Ecky thump, You believe in a theory that depends on 95% of its constituents being completely unknown matter and forces to make its math work. It will not work with the well supported Theory of General Relativity without adding (potentially fictional) concepts like "inflation" to get past the counter-predictions from GRT, alone. It is not up to others to "prove" that wrong. It is up to the folks who think it is correct to support that it is right.

People like me are not going to try to convince you that you are "wrong", mostly because you seem to have a closed mind, so any effort to change it is a waste of our time. And, we admit that you might be right. We just don't agree that you must be right.

What we can do is pose the questions that logically arise from your beliefs, and other people with open minds can have logical discussions about how to think about those issues. And, eventually, somebody may come up with a way to falsify or further support your theory, provided that they keep asking the proper questions.

Getting intellectually lost in the "beliefs" of unproven theories is not really any different than believing that reindeer must be able to fly, because otherwise Santa would not have been able to get those presents under your Christmas tree, where you found them ("experimental proof" that presents exist, so the theory says . . . ).

Anyway, have a happy holiday, whichever version you celebrate this time of year.
 
Feb 14, 2020
104
25
1,610
Dark Matter creates quanta without mass and as these traverse through multidimensional spaces these quanta transform to become various types of massful particles, Quarks, Photons and Neutrinos that ultimately form three known stable particles n, p, e and form the outer partitions on nucleus.
More in my publication under preparation.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
 
Nov 24, 2022
24
3
15
Ecky thump, You believe in a theory that depends on 95% of its constituents being completely unknown matter and forces to make its math work. It will not work with the well supported Theory of General Relativity without adding (potentially fictional) concepts like "inflation" to get past the counter-predictions from GRT, alone. It is not up to others to "prove" that wrong. It is up to the folks who think it is correct to support that it is right.

People like me are not going to try to convince you that you are "wrong", mostly because you seem to have a closed mind, so any effort to change it is a waste of our time. And, we admit that you might be right. We just don't agree that you must be right.

What we can do is pose the questions that logically arise from your beliefs, and other people with open minds can have logical discussions about how to think about those issues. And, eventually, somebody may come up with a way to falsify or further support your theory, provided that they keep asking the proper questions.

Getting intellectually lost in the "beliefs" of unproven theories is not really any different than believing that reindeer must be able to fly, because otherwise Santa would not have been able to get those presents under your Christmas tree, where you found them ("experimental proof" that presents exist, so the theory says . . . ).

Anyway, have a happy holiday, whichever version you celebrate this time of year.
My mind is actually quite open on all universal subjects. Maybe I have not explained it properly. I think the main problem is 'experts'. Discovery Channel is full of them but many contradict others. An eminent astronomer told us the late heavy bombardment was due to Thera chopping off the top of Mars and showing billions of tons of rocks into space. We are still getting hit by martian rocks even today. He then showed us,on tv, that the top of Mars is indeed flattened compared with the south pole. But other scientists etc then say the late heavy bombardment was due to Jupiter chewing up the asteroid belt!! And you wonder why I develop my own theories, none of which as Conspiratal.
 
Feb 14, 2020
104
25
1,610
Define dark matter
Define dark energy

I try not to use either.
Harry Costas
Greetings! especially at this festive season!

In the other threads we both have discussed DM.
DE is more complex for me although I believe it might turn out to be the effect of matter-energy reverting back to DM.

I am quite impressed with your enumeration of many elementary particles including Axions and Higgs.

I wanted to know if this was for the whole universe or only for the supermassive black hole?

If these types of estimates are for this physical universe, you were asking then what is the need for DM.

If you can explain all physical forces and these do not require hidden gravitational sources especially observations in astrophysics, then the community would not need 95% of so called missing (gravitational) matter?

I am saying number of particles without description of several observed processes, events etc. are not a reasonable description of universe! I am assuming that most known forces are also accounted for by you?

Requesting your views! especially on DM?
Thanks
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Chair, Ontology Summit 2022
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
 
Apr 13, 2021
361
33
710
Hello Dr Rav

Sorry I have been away,,, slow response

To understand Condensates and their Transients may lead you away from Dark Matter and Dark energy.
 
Apr 13, 2021
361
33
710
Always on the move to find and explain.
We are still sometime away from understanding and therefore drawing conclusions is far-far way.



[Submitted on 28 Dec 2022]
Tunneling wavefunction proposal with loop quantum geometry effects
Meysam Motaharfar, Parampreet Singh
In Vilenkin's tunneling wavefunction proposal our expanding universe is born via a tunneling through a barrier from nothing at the zero scale factor. We explore the viability of this proposal for the spatially closed FLRW model with a positive cosmological constant including quantum gravity modifications in the Planck regime. Our setting is the effective spacetime description of loop quantum cosmology (LQC) which is known to replace the big bang singularity with a bounce due to the holonomy modifications. Due to the bounce, the barrier potential of the Wheeler-DeWitt theory is replaced by a step like potential which makes the tunneling proposal incompatible. But for a complete picture of singularity resolution, inverse scale factor modifications from quantum geometry must be included which play an important role at very small scale factors in the spatially closed models. We show that with inclusion of inverse scale factor modifications the resulting potential is again a barrier potential. The universe at the vanishing scale factor is dynamically non-singular and in an Einstein static like phase. We show that quantum geometric effects in LQC provide a non-singular completion of Vilenkin's tunneling proposal. We also find that quantum geometric effects result in a possibility of a tunneling to a quantum cyclic universe albeit for a very large value of cosmological constant determined by the quantum geometry.
 
Apr 13, 2021
361
33
710
I'm very sorry for posting papers. These scientists are at the forefront of and need all the credit they can get.
And so the journey is on-going , to go where no man has gone before.

[Submitted on 27 Dec 2022]
First statistical measurement of the Hubble constant using unlocalized fast radio bursts
Ze-Wei Zhao, Ji-Guo Zhang, Yichao Li, Jia-Ming Zou, Jing-Fei Zhang, Xin Zhang
Fast radio bursts (FRBs) can be used to measure the Hubble constant by employing the Macquart relation. However, at present, only a small number of FRB events are localized to their host galaxies with known redshifts. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian method to statistically measure the Hubble constant using unlocalized FRBs and galaxy catalog data, which makes it possible to constrain cosmological parameters by using a large number of FRB data without known redshift information. Using the six FRB events observed by ASKAP combined with the big bang nucleosynthesis result, we obtain H0=71.7+8.8−7.4 km s−1 Mpc−1 in the simulation-based case and H0=71.5+10.0−8.1 km s−1 Mpc−1 in the observation-based case (68% highest-density interval), assuming different host galaxy population parameters. We also estimate that in the next few years, using thousands of FRBs could achieve a 3% precision on the random error of the Hubble constant.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY