The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Insight Welcome

[derekmcd]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that supermassive black holes are the "source" of the rotation. Most definitely not. My point is all about the consveration of angular momentum of the original cloud of matter that formed the galaxy. You would be hard pressed to explain how a massive object that is some 10 million solar masses in the center of any closed system similar to our galaxy to be spinning retrograde to the rest of the system.

However, I do reserve the right to be wrong.

No, I'm not saying the galactic center is the source of the rotation, however I am saying that perhaps it is the galactic center that keeps the momentum of the galaxies rotation going in the same direct as it did during the time of the original cloud. Then again, as the cloud condensed, it "could" have formed the supermassive black hole at it's center during the same time frame as the stars surrounding it. Kind of the same concept as when stars form, then the surrounding gases condense to form planets, asteroids, etc... (awaits for this theory to be beheaded by MeteorWayne) lol.

I'm not even going so far as to say the supermassive black holes (SMBH) drives the momentum of the rotation of the galaxy. The SMBH is not nearly massive enough to significantly effect the majority of the galaxy. My point is all about the original formation of the galaxy and the conservation of angular momentum.

MeteorWayne,

I'll concede to your challenge to provide something 'definitive'. I gave a brief effort, but am short on time and came up with nothing. My statement has more to do with an intuitive notion based on the conservation of angular momentum. I just can't conceptualize a physical reality where the center of a system has a retrograde rotation (not counting the occasional capture event).

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

I'm not even going so far as to say the supermassive black holes (SMBH) drives the momentum of the rotation of the galaxy. The SMBH is not nearly massive enough to significantly effect the majority of the galaxy. My point is all about the original formation of the galaxy and the conservation of angular momentum.

I know what your getting at, however wouldn't the cloud's rotation have begun by a central "SMBH"? (Some predictions have been made with this theory, and others without a core SMBH in the center of the cloud.) I mean a central gravitational body works for a star and it's surrounding matter. Though a star has a gravitation strong enough to sustain it's planets, and any other matter that is later introduced within it's gravitational reach.
It would have been much easier for the rotational momenta in a galaxy to have formed around a SMBH when it was still in it's cloud form, and perhaps this same momentum would not be present if perhaps a SMBH was plopped in the middle of a well formed galaxy. I think maybe the SMBH formed along with the cloud as it condensed, affecting it's rotation at that point. The clouds center would have condensed a lot quicker as a gas then what the remainder would take to form into stars. Though you would think as the gases condensed into stars, etc... you would predict a slowing of momentum... but not necessarily. Without friction, the addition of dark matter & dark energy (among other things) may assist with the galaxy maintaining it's momentum somehow. (Awaits someone to ask for "proof", though at this time I am fresh out.)

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

So, before the singularity that led to the expansion of space, matter and energy there was nothing? Hmmm...Can we define 'nothing'? If there was nothing, then where did the 'super atom' singularity come from? I agree with many out there who suspect that what we know as the 'big bang' 14 or so billion years ago is simply the latest incarnation of the matter and energy and space of our Universe.
I think the whole thing will forever be a great cosmic riddle. Hawking once said that "asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole, it is a meaningless question." Yes, it's a meaningless question within the framework of modern physics and cosmology. And they see it as a meaningless inquiry because they know that they are no where near an answer.
I believe that one day we will discover what happened before the singularity and subsequent expansion. But then we will have to find out what happened before that, and so on, to infinity.
Who in the hell, btw, is saying that black holes don't exist? They are profligate, our physical Universe as we understand it could not exist without them. Super-massive black holes are the anchors that hold the galaxies together in their 'whirlpools'.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Please keep discussions in this thread on topic...it is discussing the Big Bang.

There is now a separate "No Black Holes" thread.

Meteor Wayne

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Didn't Einstein predict the existence of black holes in General Relativity in 1915? I know he also claimed at the same time they didn't exist, but that almost doesn't make any sense from a man of his brain capacity. It was Karl Schwarzschild who later released the equation which proved that the existence of black holes.

No. Einstein did not predict black holes. Another misconception is that Einstein predicted the expansion of the universe. He was a pretty bright individual, but he didn't realize all the implications of his field equations. It took other mathematicians and astronomers to put his field equations to work and make these predictions. Another is frame dragging.

Actually, Einstein saw that his equations indicated that the Universe was expanding, but he could not and would not accept it. Men of his time-even really bright physicists and others- believed the Universe to be static and eternal. A few years later, Hubble's observations confirmed what Einstien's equations implied but what Einstien refused to initially accept. Chalk one up for the collaboration of theoretical and observational science!

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

I was quite certain this is what happened. Einstein was a brilliant man for his time.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Hey fellas, how's it go'in? Sorry about disappearing for a while, I have been quite sick the last couple of days. I was reading the finale to noblackhole's thread and I got thinking about the universal expansion. It is widely believed that either the universe began everywhere at the same time, or we are at the center of it (which or course would be ridiculous to believe, lol) But what if each galaxy equally repelled each other seperate from space-time expansion? I mean the red-shift could be a cause-and-affect of this to give the appearance it does. Is it possible that we could have an expanding universe from a single point via these means? As the universe expanded and galaxies formed and repel, the origin point would of course be lost to our visibility. Remember, I am no physicist, lol.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

Hi again!

I'm afraid it doesn't matter how you make it expand, if you are expanding it metrically. If everything started in the same place, then when anyone anywhere tracks things backwards in time, they find they are at that place, because they were at that place at the beginning of time. They haven't moved away from anything, everything else has moved away from them. Galaxies that repel each other equally are no different, at least in this respect. In this model there is no point of reference where the rest of the universe does not move directly away from it.

If the clusters of galaxies are repelling each other equally, you are simply stating that the distance between those clusters is increasing equally at any given time and this is similar to the current model. The distant galaxies cannot all actually be moving away through space from a point in space, unless we are at that point. If you imagine looking at a line of dots, where each is moving away from its neighbour at the same speed, it is moving away from the next one along at double that speed. The ends are moving away from each other very fast in comparison to the rate between two neighbouring points, the effect on recession speed over distance is cumulative. I am afraid the idea of galaxies repelling each other equally doesn't really help with the idea of a centre, or with increasing speed over distance, unfortunately.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Re: The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Ins

That is what I'm kind of getting at. Why would we be required to be at the starting point. If all galaxies are repelling each other, this would force the outer most galaxies to be repelled at an increased rate from both a point and each other. I know what you mean with the dotted lines example. Same concept is what I'm describing, except since the initial point expanded, all matter would have been repelled equally thus masking any starting point right from the get-go. The only means we have to measure now is by the rate at which objects are repelled from each other, and the distiction of the expansion of space-time. If space-time expands seperate from the expansion of the universe, could we not end up with the same results as what we see now. (Not a brainiac on the subject, mostly curiousity and request to know).