When did the universe 'wake up'?

[Admin]

It was a big moment for our cosmos when the first stars awoke, but it's an elusive one for scientists.

When did the universe 'wake up'? : Read more

 

[rod]

It was a big moment for our cosmos when the first stars awoke, but it's an elusive one for scientists.

When did the universe 'wake up'? : Read more

"In new research, however, a team of astronomers has identified some of the oldest galaxies ever seen. These objects were already fully formed when the universe was just 680 million years old, according to the scientists, who also found evidence that these galaxies were flooding their surroundings with extreme ultraviolet radiation. That flood formed gigantic bubbles, where the neutral gas became energized and ionized, offering astronomers the first direct image of a major transformational epoch in our universe."

My observation. An interesting report showing how the universe was a plasma, changed, and now plasma again, seeking to understand when the Population III stars formed after the big bang, reionization, first galaxies formation, etc.. A galaxy said to form 680 million years after the Big Bang is discussed. Using the cosmology calculators, http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html, this looks like z = 7.8 or so with light-time distance of some 13E+9 billion years (look back time) and comoving radial distance of 29.622E+9 light years distance (where this galaxy is today vs. look back time). I used the flat universe model in the calculator. The Big Bang cosmology model, has a great detail of activity going on in it (to explain the origin of the universe and what we see today) as well as Spitzer showing cosmic high noon with star formation rates dropping off dramatically after z = 3.0. The present process operating in the universe today changed dramatically since the beginning in the Big Bang model compared to what we see today. A good example is Population III stars, no Population III stars visible today, e.g. M42 in Orion.

 

[Stephen J. Bauer]

Surely the epoch of matter precedes the origin of its combination towards visible light. Yet there are so many frequency spectrums outside that of visible light, it really is uncertain upon which came first. So the investigation into the effects of extreme ultraviolet light on neutral gases is an interesting aspect in the transformation from neutral matter to a more ionized and demonstratively energized matter. Yet even at this point in the epoch of the universe, electromagnetism should have been a more dominate force than gravity. In its simplest ideation, the concepts of cold and hot are polar opposites. The phenomenon is referred to as the Magnetic Seebeck effect or ‘thermomagnetism’.
Its resembles a universal evolution by degrees, not unlike that proposed in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume2'. If you're interested in exploring this concept more, please review the alternative theories presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', or even the ramifications of these concepts in the sci-fi fantasy adventure, 'Shadow-Forge Revelations'. The theoretical presentation brings forth a variety of alternative perspectives on the aspects of existence that form our reality.

 

[WhyIsTheUniverseHere???]

Where, what does the universe come from? the "Big Bang"? What was before it? Nothing? What was before "nothing" and what was there before whatever was there before "nothing"? It drives me nuts! Maybe I just bury the head in the sand and take it that the "Big Bang" is the beginning of everything, and voila! Agh!

 

[KC Strom]

Where, what does the universe come from? the "Big Bang"? What was before it? Nothing? What was before "nothing" and what was there before whatever was there before "nothing"? It drives me nuts! Maybe I just bury the head in the sand and take it that the "Big Bang" is the beginning of everything, and voila! Agh!

So, there is a theory that "our" universe began when a black hole in a separate universe "opened" and matter started streaming through. Who knows...

 

[Harold]

"KC Strom wrote , post: 512155, member: 1109581"

So, there is a theory that "our" universe began when a black hole in a separate universe "opened" and matter started streaming through. Who knows...

Hi KC ... sure perhaps matter came through a black hole or it was a combination of matter & gas from there and other universes where it had escaped. To think this is the only universe is absurd as an example did all planets form around our star/sun exactly at the same time ... no, did all the solar systems form in the Milky Way at exactly the same moment ... no, did all the Galaxies form exactly at the same time ... no, let's get a little more ridiculous when it rains or snows do they all form and fall to the ground at exactly the same moment ... again no. What I'm proposing is matter or gas or dust can be flung or expelled by different forces eventually grouping to form it's own mass. I am sure there are as many universes as stars in our universe each of course forming at different times from the other, many of these universes formed before us and after us. On the edge of all universes matter, gas, plasma, dust etc have a spillover into a void of seeming nothing but it too will eventually fill with enough to start it's own big bang it's a cycle in my opinion that has always existed in my opinion.

 

[Stephen J. Bauer]

Where, what does the universe come from? the "Big Bang"? What was before it? Nothing? What was before "nothing" and what was there before whatever was there before "nothing"? It drives me nuts! Maybe I just bury the head in the sand and take it that the "Big Bang" is the beginning of everything, and voila! Agh!

Asking 'why' implies that there needs to be a purpose. One purpose it fulfills is that you thought to ask the question. For if there was no universe, then you could not ask the question.
Asking 'what' was before 'nothing' is twofold: 1. 'Nothing' is just an unknown entity to be defined; 2. The fact that there is a universe, and a 'nothing' to precede it, there is an expectation of something from nothing. The 'Big Bang' is akin to a unidimensional singularity, which is essentially how cosmologist define 'nothing'. So what was before this singularity?
The definition of what was before this 'nothing' is the subject of many cosmogonic theories, whether it is of philosophical, mystical, religious, or secular origin. However, there is no known language or relationship that can bridge this enigma of infinites that would surely present a better sense that which 'is' and 'is not' at the same time. One book series that explores this very subject is 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 1' [i.e. a philosophical approach] and 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2' [i.e. a more secular approach].

 

[Truthseeker007]

So, there is a theory that "our" universe began when a black hole in a separate universe "opened" and matter started streaming through. Who knows...

That theory makes sense to me. Do you know who the originator of that theory is? I thought of that myself one day and I was wondering who actually came up with that.

 

[Reb Duvid]

"Like pimples"? Was the editor asleep?

 

[Stephen J. Bauer]

That theory makes sense to me. Do you know who the originator of that theory is? I thought of that myself one day and I was wondering who actually came up with that.

As this theory has been around since the latter part of the 20th century, I do not find the concept of torsion geometry enough to convince me that we are living in a nesting of omnipresent black holes. The scale makes no sense. If it were possible that our universe began when a black hole in a separate universe 'opened', then we are expected to believe that there can be a consecutive chain of infinitely dense black holes, one inside of the other, all interdependent upon each other but then independent of each other's energy/total information. Should that even be probably, what is the origin of the first black hole?

Besides, the only way such a hypothesis would work is via a wormhole link to a white hole, so it would not be working against the tide of gravitational acceleration, somewhat like the promoted unidimensional singularity of the 'Big Bang'. Note that the maximally extended version of Schwarzschild solution describes an idealized black hole/white hole that exists 'eternally'(infinitely) from the perspective of external observers. The other side of the wormhole bridge becomes a new, growing baby universe. For observers in the baby universe, the parent universe would only appear as the 'Big Bang' of this white hole. Theorizing upon the equations of general relativity as time-reversible [i.e., exhibiting a Time reversal symmetry], general relativity must also allow for the time-reverse of this type of eternal black hole, that formed from collapsing matter. The time-reversed case would be a white hole that has existed since the beginning of the universe, and which emits matter until it finally explodes and disappears. Accordingly, the observable universe is created the Einstein–Rosen wormhole interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe.

The possibility of the existence of white holes was put forward by Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov in 1964. White holes are predicted as part of a solution to the Einstein field equations known as the maximally extended version of the Schwarzschild calculations describing an eternal black hole with no charge and no rotation. The theory of wormholes goes back to 1916, shortly after Einstein published his general theory, when Ludwig Flamm, an obscure Austrian physicist, looked at the simplest possible solution of Einstein's field equations, known as the Schwarzschild solution (or Schwarzschild metric).A 1935 idea from Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen for unifying electromagnetism with gravity lives on in the minds of science fiction fans, which became known as an "Einstein-Rosen bridge" or Schwarzschild wormhole.

Why anyone would buy into the hypothetical of an ability to detect a wormhole confuses me. The expectation of trying to tie a black hole and a white hole together by the possibility of their proximity to each other does not in anyway demonstrate the existence of the fabled wormhole (which only exists in the fringe of mathematical theories). A proposed quantum entanglement of a black hole and a white hole together belies the nature of black holes in and of themselves. While the movie 'Interstellar' tried to promote this sci-fi notion first by having us believe that any ordinary matter could make it beyond the event horizon of black hole 1, and then secondly that ordinary matter could reintegrate outside the event horizon of black hole 2 [against the gravitational acceleration of the black hole].

This is similar to the improbability of the multiverse concept, wherein we try to account for every possible space-time line scenario to rationalize our philosophical view of existence. These are merely contorted thought experiments, like wormholes and time travel, to get around the concepts of an evolving universe from within a medium of dark energy, i.e., the nothingness. The information is consistently morphing between the forms of energy and matter in the multidimensional environment of its evolving existence. It is the convergence of space and time by degrees that governs any one' particular perspective. If you're interested in exploring how this is all orchestrated in the grander scheme of the universe, you can review the alternative theories presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', or even in the reimagined ramifications of these concepts in the
sci-fi novel, 'Shadow-Forge Revelations'.

 

[Truthseeker007]

As this theory has been around since the latter part of the 20th century, I do not find the concept of torsion geometry enough to convince me that we are living in a nesting of omnipresent black holes. The scale makes no sense. If it were possible that our universe began when a black hole in a separate universe 'opened', then we are expected to believe that there can be a consecutive chain of infinitely dense black holes, one inside of the other, all interdependent upon each other but then independent of each other's energy/total information. Should that even be probably, what is the origin of the first black hole?

Besides, the only way such a hypothesis would work is via a wormhole link to a white hole, so it would not be working against the tide of gravitational acceleration, somewhat like the promoted unidimensional singularity of the 'Big Bang'. Note that the maximally extended version of Schwarzschild solution describes an idealized black hole/white hole that exists 'eternally'(infinitely) from the perspective of external observers. The other side of the wormhole bridge becomes a new, growing baby universe. For observers in the baby universe, the parent universe would only appear as the 'Big Bang' of this white hole. Theorizing upon the equations of general relativity as time-reversible [i.e., exhibiting a Time reversal symmetry], general relativity must also allow for the time-reverse of this type of eternal black hole, that formed from collapsing matter. The time-reversed case would be a white hole that has existed since the beginning of the universe, and which emits matter until it finally explodes and disappears. Accordingly, the observable universe is created the Einstein–Rosen wormhole interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe.

The possibility of the existence of white holes was put forward by Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov in 1964. White holes are predicted as part of a solution to the Einstein field equations known as the maximally extended version of the Schwarzschild calculations describing an eternal black hole with no charge and no rotation. The theory of wormholes goes back to 1916, shortly after Einstein published his general theory, when Ludwig Flamm, an obscure Austrian physicist, looked at the simplest possible solution of Einstein's field equations, known as the Schwarzschild solution (or Schwarzschild metric).A 1935 idea from Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen for unifying electromagnetism with gravity lives on in the minds of science fiction fans, which became known as an "Einstein-Rosen bridge" or Schwarzschild wormhole.

Why anyone would buy into the hypothetical of an ability to detect a wormhole confuses me. The expectation of trying to tie a black hole and a white hole together by the possibility of their proximity to each other does not in anyway demonstrate the existence of the fabled wormhole (which only exists in the fringe of mathematical theories). A proposed quantum entanglement of a black hole and a white hole together belies the nature of black holes in and of themselves. While the movie 'Interstellar' tried to promote this sci-fi notion first by having us believe that any ordinary matter could make it beyond the event horizon of black hole 1, and then secondly that ordinary matter could reintegrate outside the event horizon of black hole 2 [against the gravitational acceleration of the black hole].

This is similar to the improbability of the multiverse concept, wherein we try to account for every possible space-time line scenario to rationalize our philosophical view of existence. These are merely contorted thought experiments, like wormholes and time travel, to get around the concepts of an evolving universe from within a medium of dark energy, i.e., the nothingness. The information is consistently morphing between the forms of energy and matter in the multidimensional environment of its evolving existence. It is the convergence of space and time by degrees that governs any one' particular perspective. If you're interested in exploring how this is all orchestrated in the grander scheme of the universe, you can review the alternative theories presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', or even in the reimagined ramifications of these concepts in the
sci-fi novel, 'Shadow-Forge Revelations'.

That is all very interesting and thanks for the input. Maybe the problem is we make the universe very complicated when it shouldn't be. Is nature complicated? Isn't the universe nature also? I think what would make sense the most is most likely the case. And I don't think it is the religious version of the universe or the big bang but maybe a little bit in between. It's seems to me that some science likes to overcomplicate things with these big terms that nobody understands. They are so worried about the wording that they never figure out the real truth.