Origins and Big Bang

[Jzaz17 CPA]

I recently saw the blog about a star that is likely older than the Universe. I thought the article was about HD 140283 being older than the universe was going to put forth what I have always thought about the big bang.

That is why is it that the explosion point of a grouping of merged blackholes has to be the sum of all matter in the universe? It would seem more rational to assume that it is a high number, but that much matter (stars predominantly) may have escaped the grouping of black holes that created the big bang. Similarly there could be other black holes that did not merge before the big bang occurred and share these ancient ages.

I would very much like to hear other takes on this.

Thanks,
Jzaz17

 

[rod]

Jzaz17 CPA, yes the star is considered perhaps as old as 14 billion years or so. This is not the first time in astronomy where an object is found and the age appears to be older than the Hubble time (globular clusters in the past had this issue too along with some other stars). We are discussing origins and you use a group of black holes *that created the big bang*. My question, in your model of origins, where did the black holes come from?

 

[Jzaz17 CPA]

Rod, you're right, I didn't provide that. I am of the opinion that black holes grow in size and their attraction eventually involves merging. As the universe stops expanding (a long time from now) eventually they would start travelling in the same direction. As this happens they would continue to grow and merge increasing in size and power until they meet the 'bang threshold'.

 

[rod]

Okay, I see an assumption you are making about the black holes. Basically it seems we are back to this problem in the origin of the universe. "There are only 3 options for the origin of this universe: 1) it has always existed 2) it suddenly appeared from nothing 3) it was created supernaturally - “It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.” - Guth & Stienhardt, May 1984, Scientific American

It appears you are assuming option 1) to explain the existence of the black holes that created the big bang. Thanks for the answer--Rod

 

[rod]

We have some new information on the origin of the Big Bang event. "The postinflation reheating period sets up the conditions for the Big Bang, and in some sense puts the 'bang' in the Big Bang," says David Kaiser,..", see Physicists simulate critical 'reheating' period that kickstarted the Big Bang My thinking - where did the physics come from before the Big Bang? I think we will find the new cosmology teachers are falling back to option 1) cited above so we have the universe, always existing in some form, thus just a flavor of the steady-state cosmology. Great efforts are underway to show we never have an unknown, distinct beginning for the origin of the universe and there is no single, distinct beginning now in cosmology.

 

[wingedhippo]

I recently saw the blog about a star that is likely older than the Universe. I thought the article was about HD 140283 being older than the universe was going to put forth what I have always thought about the big bang.

The big bang concept is irrational. The universe has no time point of its origin. What happened some 14 billion years ago (if properly calculated - I think it may be more), was an accidental change of the finite, primordial universe consisting of ether (one can call it pre-matter as well) to ether (pre-matter) part of which turned into matter (which is a complex form of ether). And it was not from a compressed tiny mite, but from primordial looseness, ie accidental concentration of ether that gave rise to a spinning motion of thickening matter (hydrogen first). At the same time, the transformation created a gravitational counterbalance of the ether to matter. The universe does not expand.
Anyway, ether should be reintroduced. Its structure is identical to the magnetic field. the difference lies in the bipolar motion of the magnetic field and ether has a resultant one.
This is obviously my idea and I do not exclude that someone else cannot have better.

That is why is it that the explosion point of a grouping of merged blackholes has to be the sum of all matter in the universe?

I doubt if BHs exist. Scientists gave four different types of them and never point which of them they mean.

 

[wingedhippo]

Something from Nothing

Something from nothing The concept of something from nothing is easy to explain using current physics, and not even complex physics at that.

Nope. It's irrational.
NOTHING cannot create SOMETHING and SOMETHING cannot turn into NOTHING.

Now, consider that energy fields are rather easy to alter or disrupt by interaction with another field.

In science/physics, we deal with objects. There is no physics without objects. We define the notions we use. We explain phenomena, mechanisms of interactions between objects and distinguish objects from concepts. For example, energy, force, wave are concepts.

However, as the energy field becomes smaller and more compact, it is easier for them to maintain their integrity. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the basic building blocks of matter are not "matter" at all, but rather very small, very compact energy fields which close in upon themselves. Once created, these energy fields are self-sustaining, and due to their compact size and energy density, resist disruption by outside forces to the point of being virtually indestructible.

As I said earlier, energy, force (also field) are concepts.

If a positive electrical charge is brought together with a negative electrical charge of equal intensity, they will cancel each other out, leaving nothing behind. The reverse should also be true, that equal and opposite charges can be created FROM nothing.

Charges are also concepts. NOTHING cannot give birth to SOMETHING.

If the basic building blocks of matter are nothing more than very compact energy fields, it is possible that unlimited numbers of equal and opposite pairs of those fields could be created from nothing, using a catalyst. At the point of creation (BB), all of the energy fields of one "flavor" were thrust into being in this universe, and all the energy fields of the other "flavor" were thrust into being in another universe. OR, all of the energy fields still exist, but due to an inherent property of their configuration, they coexist without destructive interaction as different subatomic "particles".

BB is an irrational idea. The author still tries to explain phenomena with concepts. BTW, there is only one universe.

Something from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question; What was the catalyst? But it may also answer the question of how matter can be converted to energy so easily. It could also explain the origin of the Universe.

Author: David B Kuzara

No SOMETHING from NOTHING ((!)) It's irrational

 

[wingedhippo]

Isaac Asimov once described what he referred to as the Observable Universe. Consider that the Universe as we know it is expanding. Also consider that the further away a give point is, the faster it is moving relative to the observer.

Disagree. The universe is not expanding.

And easy way to demonstrate this is to imagine three points, A, B, and C., in a straight line, equidistant apart. From A to B is 1 billion miles, from B to C is 1 billion miles. Then, from A to C is 2 billion miles. If A is moving away from B at 1000m/s, and B is moving away from C at 1000m/s, then C is moving away from B at 1000m/s,, but moving away from A at 2000m/s. The further away a give point is, the faster it is moving relative to the observer.
At some point distant from the observer, objects are moving at c relative to the observer, and objects more distant are moving at faster than c relative to the observer. Therefore, any object moving at more than c relative to the observer can no longer be seen by the observer because that light can never travel faster than the velocity of that object relative to the observer.

Since the distance between objects in an expanding Universe is proportional to time, due to the speed of light, the further an object is from an observer, the older it is compared to the light that the observer sees from it.

Summing up, disagree.
Some galaxies are approaching us, some of them are moving away. It obviously doesn't mean that the universe expands. If it would, it meant it's infinite (like onion layers) but infinities are in mathematics that has nothing to do with physics. As such universe is unimaginable, then cannot exist.
According to messier.seds.org/more/virgo_gal.html, radial velocities of galaxies in Virgo Cluster with respect to Galactic Centre of Milky Way are as below:
1. Toward us:
IC 3258 -517 km/s
M86 (NGC 4406) -419
M90 (NGC 4569) -383
NGC 4419 -342
NGC 4318 -300
M98 (NGC 4192) -220

2. Away from us:
NGC 4388 +2535 km/s
IC 3453 +2489
NGC 4607 +2367
NGC 4168 +2342
M99 (NGC 4254) +2324
NGC 4354 +2305
In the centre is M87.

+ 1300 km/s is calculated to M87. If we assume that M87 stands still, the 1300 km makes alleged expansion of space. Space obviously cannot expand.

The most distant object we can see will be at the very edge of the Observable Universe. Therefore, since there is no way to tell what is past the edge of the Observable Universe
Author: David B Kuzara

Of course, we cannot see it, but my inference is that "beyond" the universe "is" nothing, in other words, lack of space.

 

[Brad Watson - Miami]

I recently saw the blog about a star that is likely older than the Universe. I thought the article was about HD 140283 being older than the universe was going to put forth what I have always thought about the big bang.

What's the blog/link? A star being older than the Universe makes as much sense as one of my fingers is older than my body.

That is why is it that the explosion point of a grouping of merged blackholes has to be the sum of all matter in the universe?

Uh, no.

It would seem more rational to assume that it is a high number, but that much matter (stars predominantly) may have escaped the grouping of black holes that created the big bang.

Who told you about that explanation of the BIG Bang-Bit Bang? Where did those merged black holes come from?

Similarly there could be other black holes that did not merge before the big bang occurred and share these ancient ages.

Check out my The Conglomerate - Universe Creation Theory...

The BIG Bang-Bit Bang was a supermassive white hole – inflation expansion of energy/matter & information 13.8 billion years ago - spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our parent universe. This duality combines general relativity’s singularities of infinite density in a ‘Cosmic Egg’ birth of this & all universes within The Conglomerate: multiverse without random bubble universes & parallel worlds. Our Universe exists inside the Planck density of that SBH & shares the same boundary/event horizon. That SBH-SWH phase transition was a quantum tunneling umbilical wormhole with energy/matter & info transformed/transferred, though scrambled & encoded. This Universe is 1-in-2 trillion+ offspring each with similar inherited physical constants. This 'simple' cause-and-effect cycle/circle of life – birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth - explains both infinite space and eternity. Reproduction is the simplest plan of continued existence for everything from cells to universes.

 

[Truthseeker007]

All this talk about black holes just gives me this thought and I am not sure if anybody has ever thought of this before but I am sure I am not the first one to say this. I will probably be told that I am wrong. So if at the end the death of a sun it becomes a black hole. What if that black hole it becomes is the creation of another universe inside that black hole? So the creation of this universe was a sun dying in another universe?

Also all the matter that new universe needs can be sucked in from this present universe.

 

[Excalibur]

The inflation part of the origin of our universe has always been a hard thing to explain. The concept that a small point suddenly increased to a huge size in very very little time is hard to understand. Perhaps it was not a point expanding into our empty space but a whole universe sized amount of space time and energy. All at once. Like a truck bursting through the wall of your empty house . Not nose first but sideways on . The truck being another universe full of energy in a multiverse full of bubble universes randomly colliding.

 

[Truthseeker007]

The inflation part of the origin of our universe has always been a hard thing to explain. The concept that a small point suddenly increased to a huge size in very very little time is hard to understand. Perhaps it was not a point expanding into our empty space but a whole universe sized amount of space time and energy. All at once. Like a truck bursting through the wall of your empty house . Not nose first but sideways on . The truck being another universe full of energy in a multiverse full of bubble universes randomly colliding.

Well even 1 billion years is so long I can't imagine it. I am sure a lot can happen in one let alone the total age of this universe.

 

[Dr Soumendra]

All this talk about black holes just gives me this thought and I am not sure if anybody has ever thought of this before but I am sure I am not the first one to say this. I will probably be told that I am wrong. So if at the end the death of a sun it becomes a black hole. What if that black hole it becomes is the creation of another universe inside that black hole? So the creation of this universe was a sun dying in another universe?

Also all the matter that new universe needs can be sucked in from this present universe.

I like your point. If we take the situation from Death of a Neutron Star, Black Hole emerges and singularity is there in every Black Hole. Then why can't a Big Bang start in the opposite side. We know Big Bang came from Singularity. So either the whole concept of Singularity is wrong or else Parallel Universe must be forming relentlessly from each Black Hole. There is a lot of unknown fact till now.

 

[rod]

I like your point. If we take the situation from Death of a Neutron Star, Black Hole emerges and singularity is there in every Black Hole. Then why can't a Big Bang start in the opposite side. We know Big Bang came from Singularity. So either the whole concept of Singularity is wrong or else Parallel Universe must be forming relentlessly from each Black Hole. There is a lot of unknown fact till now.

What demonstrates that black holes over time do not evaporate and the universe will never die heat death from entropy? Good to see you here Dr. Soumendar--Rod

 

[Vaz]

What most people fail to understand, is that a black hole is not literally a hole, it's the super sold nose remnant of a star's core, which is so powerful, it draws in everything near it with its intense gravity. This, dust, gas, c n light, does not get "sucked down" into a hole, because there is no hole. It continues to get pulled around the black hole or star's core, until it is annihilated by the sheer intense gravity. As there's
As a black hole is merely a star core, there is no hole, and thus no "other side" of a black hole. Sorry folks, no white hole is wwaiting to slit you back out, no wormhole, nothing. Just forever trapped encircling a a dead core, like a moon orbits a planet, except your atoms forever getting torn apart.

I could probably explain this better...

 

[rod]

What most people fail to understand, is that a black hole is not literally a hole, it's the super sold nose remnant of a star's core, which is so powerful, it draws in everything near it with its intense gravity. This, dust, gas, c n light, does not get "sucked down" into a hole, because there is no hole. It continues to get pulled around the black hole or star's core, until it is annihilated by the sheer intense gravity. As there's
As a black hole is merely a star core, there is no hole, and thus no "other side" of a black hole. Sorry folks, no white hole is wwaiting to slit you back out, no wormhole, nothing. Just forever trapped encircling a a dead core, like a moon orbits a planet, except your atoms forever getting torn apart.

I could probably explain this better...

Einstein General Relativity and quantum mechanics are currently not married to each other so quantum gravity was developed in an effort to avoid a singularity at the bottom as GR demonstrates. Hawking and Kip S. Thorne and others argued very much about if information is destroyed at the bottom of a black hole and if black holes evaporate and dissipate over immense time spans. Some in this thread discuss neutron stars evolving into black holes but there are mass limits here that define if a neutron star could ever evolve into a black hole, otherwise it remains a dead, neutron star cooling like white dwarf stars in stellar evolution theory. From what I read, neutron stars that evolved into black holes, are not identified in astronomy yet because the masses measured for black holes do not fit the neutron star black hole model. It seems that the current population of observable white dwarfs and neutron stars in the universe - points to a recent *beginning* and not infinite age.

 

[Truthseeker007]

I like your point. If we take the situation from Death of a Neutron Star, Black Hole emerges and singularity is there in every Black Hole. Then why can't a Big Bang start in the opposite side. We know Big Bang came from Singularity. So either the whole concept of Singularity is wrong or else Parallel Universe must be forming relentlessly from each Black Hole. There is a lot of unknown fact till now.

Thanks Dr. Soumendra! I am very glad that makes sense to you. Do you know of any Quantum Physics scientists who have thought of this before? I am sure I am not the first one.lol! And I am no expert scientist. I think it would make a lot of sense. But then my question would be would it be possible for say a human to travel through this Black Hole to another universe? I know from reading a few things that the gravity may be so strong it would just crush a living being. That would be pretty interesting though if we could travel through these black holes to another universe.

 

[Truthseeker007]

What most people fail to understand, is that a black hole is not literally a hole, it's the super sold nose remnant of a star's core, which is so powerful, it draws in everything near it with its intense gravity. This, dust, gas, c n light, does not get "sucked down" into a hole, because there is no hole. It continues to get pulled around the black hole or star's core, until it is annihilated by the sheer intense gravity. As there's
As a black hole is merely a star core, there is no hole, and thus no "other side" of a black hole. Sorry folks, no white hole is wwaiting to slit you back out, no wormhole, nothing. Just forever trapped encircling a a dead core, like a moon orbits a planet, except your atoms forever getting torn apart.

I could probably explain this better...

How is it known that is the case? Is there some kind of mathematics to figure that out? Then maybe a question would be how is the core of a star-sun created? I don't think a sun just automatically appears.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Einstein General Relativity and quantum mechanics are currently not married to each other so quantum gravity was developed in an effort to avoid a singularity at the bottom as GR demonstrates. Hawking and Kip S. Thorne and others argued very much about if information is destroyed at the bottom of a black hole and if black holes evaporate and dissipate over immense time spans. Some in this thread discuss neutron stars evolving into black holes but there are mass limits here that define if a neutron star could ever evolve into a black hole, otherwise it remains a dead, neutron star cooling like white dwarf stars in stellar evolution theory. From what I read, neutron stars that evolved into black holes, are not identified in astronomy yet because the masses measured for black holes do not fit the neutron star black hole model. It seems that the current population of observable white dwarfs and neutron stars in the universe - points to a recent *beginning* and not infinite age.

So in other words what your saying Rod is it is all just theories and really nobody knows but they can make some logical guesses through trial and error? Aren't black holes even a theory?

 

[mara jade]

Disagree. The universe is not expanding.

Summing up, disagree.
Some galaxies are approaching us, some of them are moving away. It obviously doesn't mean that the universe expands. If it would, it meant it's infinite (like onion layers) but infinities are in mathematics that has nothing to do with physics. As such universe is unimaginable, then cannot exist.
According to messier.seds.org/more/virgo_gal.html, radial velocities of galaxies in Virgo Cluster with respect to Galactic Centre of Milky Way are as below:
1. Toward us:
IC 3258 -517 km/s
M86 (NGC 4406) -419
M90 (NGC 4569) -383
NGC 4419 -342
NGC 4318 -300
M98 (NGC 4192) -220

2. Away from us:
NGC 4388 +2535 km/s
IC 3453 +2489
NGC 4607 +2367
NGC 4168 +2342
M99 (NGC 4254) +2324
NGC 4354 +2305
In the centre is M87.

+ 1300 km/s is calculated to M87. If we assume that M87 stands still, the 1300 km makes alleged expansion of space. Space obviously cannot expand.

Of course, we cannot see it, but my inference is that "beyond" the universe "is" nothing, in other words, lack of space.

 

[mara jade]

Correction. Objects very very far away appear to move slowly if at all. When we gaze at stars they appear in fixed positions in the sky yet they are moving & of course we are moving in our orbit & our solar system is rotating in our greater galaxy which is also moving. When we say the universe is expanding what we mean is the fabric of space is stretching out. These concepts are not necessarily easy to picture & this is where some great concepts in pure mathematics comes in handy meaning differential geometry, quarternions, higher geometries.

 

[sgtnos]

Okay http://problemswithrelativity.com/
Now there should not be much argument. Prove any one of these and you win a real prize, most likely Nobel.

 

[Mental Avenger]

When we say the universe is expanding what we mean is the fabric of space is stretching out.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. There is nothing which contradicts the view that stars, galaxies, and other massive objects are merely moving outward through space. In fact, that is the rational explanation based upon what we know with as much certainty as is possible. Using our usual method of describing the sub-micro using macro analogies, the “fabric” of space stretching would result in it becoming thinner and less (for want of a better term) substantial. AFAIK, that is not observed. In fact, the “fabric” of space cannot be observed.

Bottom line, the expansion of massive object through space is the most logical, reasonable, and rational description.

 

[Phaedrus]

Nope. It's irrational.
NOTHING cannot create SOMETHING and SOMETHING cannot turn into NOTHING.

Actually, declaring such universal truths without any good evidence is what is irrational.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IMO the question is the answer.
What causes a big bang, a big bang somewhere else or at least the FTL wave of another big bang impacting a universe size black hole.

And yes to an earlier question you can create something from nothing.
Our universe does that all the time called quantum fluctuation.
Right now it's balanced quantum fluctuation, but before it was balanced particle from nothing probably didn't self annihilate.

Only difficult thing to create is nothing.