Cosmological Model of The Universe

and as far as preparing experiments you would literally have to create a BH to be able to prove your theory, and then you would still have many problems even after you created it, you would have to make an artifical universe for it to consume which is impossible because you dont know how the universe was created. thats why they say they will fund you after you come up with an experiment because your theory is impossible to prove at this point in time because they know you cannot create a BH in your garage or anywhere on earth for that matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so if your well connected to DRs and Scientists, after you have created your BH which is impossible, locate a lab that has the tiny amounts of anti matter that we have created here on earth and introduce it to your BH.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When I think parallel universe, I think other dimension(s). There is no evidence that there are other dimensions, or by extension, any other dimensions that interact with our known 4 dimensions.

Mind restating your question so there is no confusion of terms?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree. Perhaps I was not clear enough in describing my predictions. No need to create an artificial black hole. Nor an artificial universe. No more than any other theory needs to recreate the actual universe. There are many other ways to establish the validity or just a high degree of confidence in a given theory.

Why do we have the Standard Model as our best 'working' model now? Math, GR, QFT, particle research, established laws, experiments, and most importantly, astronomical observations.

But do we have any actual proof of the theorized conditions present at the big bang? Do we have any actual proof infinitely small/dense singularities exist? No.

My model does not conflict with the SM. It compliments it. It fills in a few important blanks. It offers an actual, known physical mechanism for the hypothesized rapid initial inflation, as opposed to the somewhat unsatisfactory 'field' postulated by Guth. Most importantly, recent observations lend at least some circumstantial support for my hypotheses.

Black holes are finally 'coming into their own' in the science community. There are new instruments on line and even newer ones soon to be deployed that are dedicated to seeking black holes out in the first moments following the big bang.

If we can peer back to the beginning, utilizing all these new tools in our belt, and discover that trillions of 'monster' black holes did in fact exist 'instantly', this discovery will radically change the way we view the universe, telling us our theories were all wrong about the big bang, and what came after.

If we discover a gigamassive black hole existed at the instant of the big bang, and still does, that will be very strong circumstantial support for my model. I don't think any other model out there makes such a prediction.

One way or the other, we should know the answers to these questions very soon.

 

so "if" everything was created by the big bang and there is a supermassive BH at the center of our galaxy which we know to be true, then why hasnt it consumed our galaxy over the past millions of years wouldnt it be logical to think that not all BH are put in existance to eat all matter/energy? might the BH at the center of our galaxy be a portal or wormhole to other galaxies?

 

What do these two have to do with each other?

Why should it?

Huh?

And it might rain on the Sun.

 

why shouldnt it consume our galaxy because everytime i have heard about a blackhole the G field is so strong that not even light can escape it. so why would our galaxy be able to keep going over millions of years if there is a supermassive BH at the center of our galaxy? maybe like i said not all BH are made to consume all matter/energy. if there were a BH at the center of every galaxy then they could be wormholes or portals. and i mentioned the big bang and BH because he theorized in 1 post that if there was a big bang why couldnt there be trillions of BH so im just thinking that if there were trillions of BH why would all of them be made to consume everything that comes close to it. read the whole thread instead of just reading what i posted. i never once said in this thread that portals or wormholes exist just throwing it out there because it doesnt make sense that there is a BH at the center of our galaxy and it hasnt consumed it over the past millions of years.

 

That's only right up close, inside the event horizon. At a distance, the gravity of a black hole is the same as anything else of the same mass.

The thing about a black hole is that it is small. It has such powerful gravity simply because you can get so close to it.
If you could squash the Earth down to the size of a marble (9mm radius), then it would collapse into a black hole, and would have inescapable gravity at a radius of 9mm. But its gravity at a radius of 6000km (where the surface is now) wouldn't change, and all the satellites would keep orbiting unaffected.

Schwarzschild radius

 

Sorry to be gone so long. I guess I should update this. Here is a copy of a letter I wrote to Lee Smolin. Since then there have been numerous other discoveries ... all which continue to support my model.

Dear Lee,

I hope you can forgive the intrusion. I have been reading some of your papers - such as this one - "Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle" @ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0407/0407213v3.pdf. and it is clear you not only have a high degree of intellectual scepticism, but also a high degree of professional integrity and ethics.

I will get straight to the point.

There appears to be mounting evidence in support of the formation of very early (within the first 200 million years) supermassive black holes. From reading many papers, it's apparent that simply changing some of the long-held yet unproved assumptions and parameters used in modelling could reveal new, previously undetected patterns in the radiological data we already have. Of course data is continuously streaming in from current instruments, and a host of newer and better technologies are soon to be deployed, which will give a much clearer picture of the early universe.

However, I think I can make a good case in support of my model from observations already disseminated by the scientific community.

Perhaps I have nothing to contribute. But perhaps I do. Of course, you are under no obligation to read it.

Neil Tyson told me two years ago that unless there were ways to test my model, it was worthless. I think it is safe to say we now have ways to test any of the several predictions made, including ...

Prediction:

We should detect the presence of a remnant 'giga-massive' black hole at the Big Bang.

Lee, I refuse (naively, perhaps) to believe that a plausible, realistic and testable theory could be discarded simply because of it's source.

I hope you will at least take a look at the testable predictions. Thank you for your time.

- James

"Allow me to say ... that when you are on the frontier of knowledge ... between what is known and unknown ... reaching out into that abyss ... sometimes you do actually have to make stuff up that might be true, so you can organize a research plan to find out whether or not it is. This is the creativity of discovery that not everyone has. But those that do, all of society follows them into those directions."
.
"Einstein's best quote ... Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

- From The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ... January 18, 2011.

Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe ... 1/26/09

Abstract:

In brief, I think there is mounting evidence that the Big Bang was likely a nearly instantaneous centrifugal partial release of mass from a black hole containing all the mass of the Hubble volume.

Introduction:

The search for viable, reasonable, and logical solutions to the problems inherent in the Standard Cosmological Model (Big Bang, Lamda Cold Dark Matter with Inflation) has spawned a menagerie of theories over the last half a century. While mathematically supported, they are all fantastically implausible theories. In just the last two years, a number of astronomical observations have confounded the astrophysical community ... observations clearly at odds with accepted theories and popular models, such as galactic superclusters and supermassive black holes ranging up to ten billions of solar masses found to exist much earlier than predicted. The following model which I proposed two years ago remains rational and sensible. It appears to follow all known laws of physics. There is no magic. No time reversals, or expanding bubbles of space, no 'empty packets', no 11 or 26 dimensions and colliding membranes, and no instantaneous, voluminous expansions of matter created uniquely or repeatedly from 'nothing'. It offers a simple solution ... not only for our Hubble volume ... but to the universe beyond. The model is supported extremely well by the accumulated observational evidence, physics, and existing mathematics, and does not appear to be fatally contradicted in any way. It is eminently, and currently falsifiable. I include just a few of the many resources and relevant highlights from recently published articles and research papers in the addendum following the main body of text.

This model appears to have no conflicts with current particle research, including the very latest from CERN's LHC (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS experiments) and Brookhaven's RHIC, and offers a reasonable physical causality for the initial extreme temperatures and subsequent transitioning states of matter.

This model does not provide a mathematical solution for the Theory of Everything, but it does offer a potentially satisfying physical solution to several uncomfortable problems associated with the Standard Model, and the theorized isotropic end to the Hubble volume. These problems include the source of the matter/energy released from the Big Bang, the initial hyper-inflation, the accelerating recession, black holes, and the apparent lack of decaying matter.

Included are several currently testable predictions of previously unknown objects or phenomena using available astronomical data and/or dedicated observations with existing instruments that, if confirmed, would strongly support this model ... to the full or partial exclusion of all other popular models. Of course, none of the predictions are obviously inherent in the Standard Model. Future planned observational instruments should provide additional confirmations.

The genesis of our 'local' universe was quite probably the result of a near-instantaneous release of matter/energy from a 'giga-sized' black hole containing all the matter and energy of the Hubble volume.

The accumulated evidence strongly suggests the Big Bang was actually the 'Big Spin'.

I think the model deserves organized research.

The Theory:
1. The Hubble volume has a presumed finite amount of mass.

2. Black holes have a finite mass limit.

3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass (matter + energy) contained in the Hubble volume.

The Process:

1. Assuming the validity of quantum mechanics, black holes are physical, 3-dimensional objects. There is no logical or rational reason to believe they are zero-point, zero-dimensional singularities.
.
2. Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity dictate that black holes accrete matter/energy indefinitely. There is no longer any credible evidence to believe they are limited in any way. Galaxies will merge. Orbits will eventually decay. Although there will be galactic escapees, these phenomena are but a temporary respite. Hawking Radiation, if confirmed, will not affect this is any material way, as accretion rates, even if not visibly feeding, will invariably out-pace evaporation. Space has inherent energy, and black holes collapse and 'eat' space continually. The same eventual fate awaits any and all m/e temporarily escaping black holes through gamma rays or other radiant outflows.

3. Black holes are not anchored in place, other than being temporarily tidally locked at the center of galaxies, and therefore, once all nearby available m/e has been consumed, including all material in orbit, the black holes will seek out new sources of gravity, subject to and only initially delayed by inertial momentum.

4. All matter that was released from the Big Bang remains in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous, therefore Newtonian law requires that black holes will eventually chase down all matter irrespective of the accelerating recession. As black holes consume and consolidate matter, they become less and less gravitationally 'confused'. They are essentially pulled in fewer and fewer concurrent directions even as their individual angular gravitational attractions increase.

5. Current research indicates that black hole rotational spin generally increases with mass. Schwarzschild black holes are still a purely mathematical construct and have yet to be confirmed to exist, and while the rotation rate may or may not eventually exceed c, it is not unreasonable to presume the surface matter of rotating supermassive black holes, irrespective of the physical state of the matter, must be rotating past a fixed point in space at many multiples of c.
6. As black holes eventually gain mass far in excess of trillions and quadrillions of solar masses the strain on space increases (gravitationally induced ripple effect), collapsing and drawing in ever increasing volumes of space and all m/e contained within.

7. Eventually, as our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only a few black holes remain, containing nearly all the mass of the Hubble volume, including the remnant left over from the Big Bang.

8. Regardless of the immense distance separating the last black holes, they will eventually find each other, and this final merging triggers a major contraction of surrounding space, dragging all remaining m/e released from the Big Bang back to the single merged black hole ... down to the last escaping photon and (theorized) graviton.

9. This sudden collapse of space, in addition to the accumulated spin is sufficient to increase the rotational velocity of the black hole to the point where centrifugal force at the equator finally exceeds the gravitational attraction, briefly releasing a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum slows the rotation below the threshold.

10. The Big Bang.

11. The hyper-velocity release of m/e, orders of magnitude of c, offers a physical explanation for the initial inflation, and also allows for ionization and instantaneous formation of H and H3. Space, no longer trapped by the immense gravity well, 'snaps back' to near-uniformity dragging along H and H3 with it ... and also dragging along preexisting (from the last black hole merger) microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation. Heavier molecular elements formed during the event should be rare.

12. The hyper-velocity release also offers a simple, straight-forward physical cause for an initial high temperature (on the order of T>10^13K) of matter consistent with the formation of the QGP phase of QCD.

13. The release of mass is not perfectly uniform, and countless smaller black holes are instantly spawned ranging from a few solar masses to perhaps trillions or quadrillions of solar masses. Mutual gravitational attraction and the remnant 'giga-massive' black hole impede their outward velocity.

14. Space begins to cool, and the newly created smaller black holes immediately begin to feed and the resulting jets ionize the atoms in space near the event, assisting in rapidly forming stars, galaxies, and superclusters, while star and galaxy formation lags behind in the outer regions being more generally dependent upon the coalescing clouds of H and H3.

15. This closed-loop process repeats eternally.

It is also my hypothesis that the actual universe ... or omniverse ... is indeed infinite, boundless and eternal. Space, with it's inherent energy has always existed. That all observed/unobserved m/e, is simply 'borrowed' energy from vast volumes of the fabric of space. Dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a property of space, and is responsible for the observed accelerating recession, as recently theorized by 2006 Nobel Laureate George Smoot et al.

I hypothesize that the laws of space are universal, and therefore dictate that each finite universe created will function in exactly the same manner as ours, with exactly the same physics, and that they must be identical in mass, distinguishable only by their age, relative evolution, and distribution of matter and energy. Every black hole will have the exact same critical mass point, and this identical process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. As our universe is a closed loop, so too are all others.

If there are any other universes beyond the Hubble volume, then logically, there should be an infinite number of them. Over eternity, with respect to Thomas Digges, if they are not all closed-loops, and not identical, photons or other exotic material from outside our universe should have leaked into ours.

I hypothesize that space, with it's inherent energy, is in an eternal battle with gravity, constantly striving to 'smooth out the wrinkles' seeking 100% isotropy while gravity, manifesting from matter, is constantly seeking 100% entropy. Having had eternity to accomplish this, space keeps all finite universes generally equidistant, using the same physical processes currently at work that manifest in the accelerating recession. Therefore any contact between universes should be limited to the shock waves associated with Big Bangs rippling through space, as suggested by Einstein, but on a far greater scale of time and distance than he imagined.

Per the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore, in this regard, it is not unreasonable to assume that the energy contained within space itself must be eternal, universal, generally isotropic and homogeneous ... and capable of performing the necessary work.
The Logic:

1. Matter in the physical universe has a gravitational 'critical mass point'. Except, so far, black holes.

2. Relativity and quantum mechanics allow for such a process.

3. The ever-increasing acceleration rate of the recession can not go on indefinitely.

4. All systems in the universe appear to conform with physical laws.


Supporting Evidence:
1. The laws clearly apply across the observable universe.

2. Quantum mechanics dictates that all matter has physical dimensions and occupies physical space.

3. There is no evidence that matter decays to zero. In any case, the estimated time for a black hole to evaporate far exceeds the time needed for the merging process to occur. We have already observed a black hole believed to be 18 billion suns. There is a high probability that black holes in excess of one trillion suns already exist. If the time it took for a trillion sun black hole to fully evaporate was reduced to the age of the Hubble volume, then it is a safe comparison that the time it would take for the entire H/v to merge into one black hole should be far less than a billionth of a second.

4. The apparent homogeneity evidenced in the COBE data, depicting the universe at 300,000 years after the Big Bang, is only evident on the large scale. It is clear that on the smaller scale it is anything but homogeneous. There might very well be in excess of trillions of supermassive black holes hidden within that picture.
5. The current isotropic chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe is consistent with the model.

6. The high numbers of black holes merging or set to merge were not generally predicted by the Standard Model or theorized isotropic death of the universe, but are inherently predicted by the model.

7. Virtually all galaxies appear to have massive, or supermassive black holes at their cores and this phenomena is also inherently predicted by the model.

8. The recent discovery of a dwarf galaxy containing a supermassive black hole is in contradiction to established theory regarding the relationship between the mass of galaxies and the mass of their central black holes, and calls into question basic assumptions regarding galaxy formation. Both hierarchical (majority) and non-hierarchical formations are predicted by the model

9. The recent observations detecting far more galaxies and their attendant black holes gravitationally bound to ours and M31 than expected.

10. The recent discoveries of high numbers of early protoclusters clusters, including quasars with masses ranging up to 10 billion suns inconsistent with generally accepted theories.

11. The just-announced (unconfirmed) discovery of a protogalaxy , 480m years after the Big Bang. ( Rychard Bouwens, Nature 1/27/11 )

12. The recent discovery of a supercluster in the distant past containing the mass of 800 trillion suns, the existence of which is not supported by current theories of galaxy formation.

13. The recent discovery of a black hole spinning at upwards of 1,000 rps.

14. The recent observations suggestive of black hole spin's upward velocity being related to increased mass.

15. The recent ergosphere/frame-dragging studies.

16. The recent discovery of a supermassive black hole exiting a galaxy at several thousand kps.

17. The recent Penrose et al. study indicative of violent events prior to the Big Bang.

18. No compelling evidence that black holes are limited to any specific mass.
19. No evidence of black holes showing any loss of mass.

20. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else.

21. No evidence of any black holes exploding.

22. No evidence of white holes.
23. No evidence of branes, strings, 11 through 26 dimensions, although strings per se would not conflict with the model.

24. Closed-loop supported by 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

25. Violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy build-up) is avoided.

26. The process is not constrained by the existence of dark matter or anti-matter.

27. Appears to be entirely compatible with current particle research and generally accepted Standard Model particle theories.

Predictions:

Hypothesis A:
Space has always existed, and hosted 'local' violent events prior to the Big Bang.

Background:
Preexisting space should still retain faint ripples from any phenomena immediately prior to our Big Bang that were violent enough to cause massive shock waves in the fabric or medium of space, and these ripples should manifest as subtle patterns in the CMBR.

Similar to the Penrose et al. study, but we take it a step farther and look for echoes of collisions with greater amplitude resulting from far more massive collisions (and with perhaps far more subtle effects) than the comparatively 'minor' collisions Penrose has suggested occurred.

Prediction:
Patterns in the CMBR should show very faint overlapping ripples correlating to collisions of black holes containing variable masses in excess of trillions of solar masses prior to the Big Bang, but should not show patterns in the CMBR indicative of identical, comparatively minor violent events.

Ancillary Prediction:
The CMBR should not show subtle patterns indicative of prior identical Big Bangs as those specific waves/ripples should have propagated beyond our field of view long before our BB occurred.

Hypothesis B:
An infinite number of non-overlapping finite universes exist throughout infinite space, separated by vast and relatively consistent distances, and each universe contains exactly the same mass, and shares the same physics, as our Hubble volume. They are distinguishable only by relative age/evolution and their distribution of matter/energy.

Prediction:
The apparent faint patterns, characterized as 'bruising', believed to be detected (Feeney et al.) in the CMBR should not be the result of, or indicative of collisions with:

1. hyper-expanding universes, each with their own uniquely different physical laws, matter/energy composition and structure,
2. hyper-expanding universes with the same physical structure and laws as our universe,
3. 'glancing' blows from either type of universe (conforming or non-conforming),
4. residual shock waves from our own prior Big Bangs,
5. or residual shock waves from other massive collisions, internal or external to the Hubble volume.

These should instead be indicative of shock waves proceeding in advance of, and emanating from, distant identical but staggered Big Bangs occurring at the appropriate times and distances to create the varied patterns observed in the CMBR.

Ancillary Prediction:
Furthermore, we should find that a closer examination of the CMBR with greater sensitivity (creating better computer algorithms, employing the variety of different instruments currently deployed with their differing capabilities of detection, doing experiments specific to the model's predicted parameters) may reveal additional faint patterns beyond those discovered by Feeney, et al. caused by the shock waves of other identical 'bangs' external to the Hubble volume, differing only by frequency, and strength, relative to time and point of origin.

Hypothesis C:
All black holes are physical 3-dimensional structures, rather than infinitely small/infinitely dense zero-dimensional structures, and will rotate surface matter in excess of c. The top angular velocity (spin) is only constrained by achieving sufficient rotational angular momentum to overcome it's own gravity and only under specific minimum conditions of mass, volume and surface area.

Background:
Einstein's mathematical work on collapsing bodies, current ergosphere and frame-dragging studies, and many other experiments show a black hole's gravitational force is sufficient to collapse normal space and exempt itself from space's normal limit to acceleration.

This hypothesis also requires a radical departure from the questionable and problematic mathematical presumption of the infinitely small/infinitely dense 'singularity' and instead presumes a universal 'max' point where matter/energy can no longer be further compressed. This logical presumption stems from the reality that black holes are 'here'. If they could actually infinitely compress a finite or infinite volume of matter/energy then they should cease to exist in our universe, gravitationally or otherwise, at the instant they form.

Prediction:
Mathematical calculations/computer modelling should show that an extremely massive physical black body that achieves rotational hyper-velocity of the surface area in excess of c, under specific minimum conditions of volume, mass, and surface area, should achieve sufficient centrifugal force to temporarily overcome it's own gravitational attraction, and should shed a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum reduces spin below the threshold.

Ancillary Prediction:
Computer modelling of the release of matter/energy at hyper-velocity rotation should correspond with the initial inflation of the Hubble volume.

Hypothesis D:
Black holes accrete matter and merge until all the m/e of the Hubble volume is contained in a single black hole.

Background:
It is not an unreasonable assumption that all mass released from the Big Bang has remained in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous. Furthermore, in light of the evidence of black hole mobility, we can assume they will always be free to seek the next strongest gravitational mass, subject only to inertial angular momentum. While inertial momentum will temporarily defeat the much weaker gravitational attraction, the gravitational bond will never be actually broken.

As black holes continue to merge, slowly consolidating the mass of the Hubble volume, there will be fewer and fewer sources of gravity to 'confuse' them. As the merged black holes gravitational attractions increase, and there are fewer and fewer nebulous sources of gravity (gas and dust clouds, galaxies), they will, over trillions, perhaps even quadrillions of years, alter their inertial angular momentum away from each other, eventually reverse their courses, and seek each other out.

Prediction:
Computer simulations should show that the observed mobility of black holes will allow them to merge continually, irrespective of the accelerating recession until 100% of the m/e released from the Big Bang is recovered, and this 100% state of entropy will occur in a small fraction of the time theorized for an isotropic end.

Hypothesis E:
As with Hypothesis B, all universes beyond the Hubble volume share the same mass and physics. They are distinguishable only by their age and distribution of matter/energy, and are all closed loop universes.

Prediction:
The most recent and future data from instruments should not indicate any severe red-shift photons originating from outside our Hubble volume. This finding would only be relevant if other experiments and/or observations strongly indicate the existence of space prior to the Big Bang.

Hypothesis F:
The Big Bang was not a perfectly homogeneous release of matter and energy.

Background:
Heavier elements formed instantly upon release from the gravitational well would not have the hyper-velocity of lighter elements due to gravitational restraints and therefore the density of m/e should be far greater in close proximity to the Big Bang event.

Smaller black holes should have been immediately created from the BB's release of m/e, and thrown into the nearby maelstrom of other denser matter also formed instantly upon release from the BB. This gravitational chaos should have quickly created black holes with masses ranging to the trillions of suns and beyond.

Prediction:
Extensive examination of the very early universe (within 200 million years) should find black holes with masses well in excess of 50 billion suns contradicting current Standard Model theories of a generally isotropic/homogeneous early universe.

It appears unlikely that a different process other than spin could be responsible for a black hole to overcome it's gravitational attraction and release it's mass. Therefore ...

Ancillary Prediction:
Assuming sufficient instrument sensitivity, the creation of proper algorithms, and adequate computational power ... mined data from all currently available instruments should indicate, if not confirm ...

The presence of a remnant 'giga-massive' black hole at the Big Bang.

In Conclusion:

1. This model offers a physical solution to the accelerating recession problem.
2. This model offers a physical solution for the source of the mass released in the Big Bang.
3. This model offers a physical solution to the decaying matter problem.
4. This model offers a physical solution to the black hole problem.
5. This model offers a physical solution for the initial hyper-inflation.
6. This model appears consistent with current particle research specific to the evolution of matter.
7. This model offers a physical solution for the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe.
8. This model offers a possible physical solution for the WMAP cold spot.
9. This model offers a possible physical solution for the Sloan, Pisces-Cetus, and CfA2 Great walls.
10. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe.
11. This model appears to violate no known laws of physics, or thermodynamics, including entropy build-up.
12. This model requires no new laws to function.
13. This model is well-supported by the accumulated observational evidence.
14. This model appears to be superior to the current Standard Cosmological Model, and other popular models.
15. It still leaves the question "What created space?" along with the solution to the 'Theory of Everything' to future theorists.

Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could, as theorized, simply materialize from 'nothing' ... or even 'something' ... with no reasonably explained origin (and sans God) then that same process could happen at any time, at any location. Such as two seconds from now inside the Moon's orbit, or at any other time in the history of the Hubble volume. That would appear, so far anyway, not to be the case.

I fully understand my hypotheses regarding space and the universes beyond the Hubble volume fly in the face of popular beliefs, and I certainly do not deny that quantum physics allows for the possibility of alternate physics. However, I don't think space allows the 'macro' universe to function in a plethora, if not infinite number of ways, and it seems apparent that if there are indeed finite universes beyond ours, there must be an infinite number of them ... and they are remarkably quiescent.

In any case, assuming the existence of space prior to the Big Bang, my model of the Hubble volume can stand alone.
Addendum:

On early star/galaxy formation inconsistent with accepted theories ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A.133G

January 11, 2011 ... Abstract: We report evidence of a fully established galaxy cluster at z = 2.07, consisting of a ~20σ overdensity of red, compact spheroidal galaxies spatially coinciding with extended X-ray emission detected with XMM-Newton. We use VLT VIMOS and FORS2 spectra and deep Subaru, VLT and Spitzer imaging to estimate the redshift of the structure from a prominent z = 2.07 spectroscopic redshift spike of emission-line galaxies, concordant with the accurate 12-band photometric redshifts of the red galaxies. Using NICMOS and Keck AO observations, we find that the red galaxies have elliptical morphologies and compact cores. While they do not form a tight red sequence, their colours are consistent with that of a ≳1.3 Gyr population observed at z ~ 2.1. From an X-ray luminosity of 7.2×10 43 erg s -1 and the stellar mass content of the red galaxy population, we estimate a halo mass of 5.3-8×10 13 M_ȯ, comparable to the nearby Virgo cluster. These properties imply that this structure could be the most distant, mature cluster known to date and that X-ray luminous, elliptical-dominated clusters are already forming at substantially earlier epochs than previously known.

Early clusters and 'astonishing luck' ...

http://newswise.com/articles/astronomers-camera-reveals-early-galaxies

1/11/2011 5:05 PM EST ... AzTEC 3 was one of the very first objects discovered by the team using the AzTEC camera and one of the first few AzTEC galaxies to be followed up with detailed scrutiny by other telescopes.
What are the chances of detecting something as important and rare as one of the earliest-known protoclusters in the universe on the first try? As Wilson sees it, “We either got extremely lucky, or the universe biased our search and provided a signpost, like the tip of an iceberg sticking up out of the sea, that attracted our attention. Because they are monstrously huge and unusual, I think it may not be so crazy to think that galaxies like AzTEC 3 tend to exist in special places in the universe and we just don’t understand the signpost yet. That’s one thing we’ll definitely be looking to explain in the future.”

Most astronomers believe that such a massive cluster should not be mature until 2 to 3 billion years later, Wilson’s UMass Amherst colleague Yun explains. “Such a young cluster is really interesting. The current computer simulations of the universe suggest that we were extremely fortunate to find it.”

Ancient supermassive black holes inconsistent with accepted theories ...

http://www.subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2006/0​

Japanese Researcher Finds Massive Black Hole 12.7 Billion Light-years Away
Astronomer Tomotsugu Goto from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has used the Subaru telescope to identify a distant quasar powered by a massive black hole. The quasar is almost 12.7 billion light-years away from Earth in the direction of the constellation Cancer the Crab. It is the most distant one ever found by a Japanese researcher and the eleventh most distant quasar currently known.

The black hole is probably 2 billion times more massive than the Sun. So far, researchers have not yet proposed a theory of how such a massive black hole can form only 1 billion years after the birth of the universe.

Object Name: SDSSJ084119.52+290504.4

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5318411/

A team of astronomers have found a colossal black hole so ancient, they're not sure how it had enough time to grow to its current size, about 10 billion times the mass of the sun.
Sitting at the heart of a distant galaxy, the black hole appears to be about 12.7 billion years old, which means it formed just one billion years after the universe began and is one of the oldest supermassive black holes ever known.

"The universe was awfully young at the time this was formed," said astronomer Roger Romani, a Stanford University associate professor whose team found the object. "It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size."

Romani told SPACE.com that the black hole is unique because it dates back to just after a period researchers call the 'Dark Ages,' a time when the universe cooled down after the initial Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. That cooling period lasted about one billion years, when the first black holes, stars and galaxies began to appear, he added. The research appeared June 10 on the online version of Astrophysical Journal Letters .

Object Name: Q0906+6930

Surprising find ...

http://news.discovery.com/space/obese-black-hole-110112.html

Wed Jan 12, 2011 05:30 PM ET ... The black hole inside a neighboring galaxy, known as M87, is obese and filled with the equivalent of 6.6 billion of our suns, according to new measurements.These supermassive black holes are relatively rare, scientists suspect, so it is surprising that such a behemoth lives relatively close by -- just 50 million light-years away.

More on galaxy formation ...

http://science.gaeatimes.com/2010/08/26/how-the-first-super-massive-black-holes-were-born-21533/

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... "For more than two decades, the prevailing wisdom among astronomers has been that galaxies evolved hierarchically - that is, gravity drew small bits of matter together first, and those small bits gradually came together to form larger structures."
“Together with these other discoveries, our result shows that big structures - both galaxies and massive black holes - build up quickly in the history of the universe. Amazingly, this is contrary to hierarchical structure formation,” he said.

http://science.gaeatimes.com/2011/01/10/supermassive-black-hole-discovered-in-dwarf-galaxy-29820/

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... “Now, we have found a dwarf galaxy with no bulge at all, yet it has a supermassive black hole. This greatly strengthens the case for the black holes developing first, before the galaxy’s bulge is formed,” said Reines.

Unexpected superclusters ...

http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxy-cluster-universe.html

Oct 15, 2010 11:53 AM ET ... Astronomers on the hunt for the biggest, most distant gangs of galaxies have landed a prize catch, a behemoth of a cluster 800 trillion times more massive than the sun ferreted out by a new cosmic fishing net from when the universe was half its present age.

Lack of 'smaller scale' homogeneity in the COBE early universe ...

http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue1/9801c.jpg

http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/nobel-laureate-george-smoot-and-the-origin-of-the-universe

On Spin ...

http://www.universetoday.com/12408/black-holes-seen-spinning-at-the-limits-predicted-by-einstein/

The supermassive black holes that lurk at the hearts of the most massive galaxies might be spinning faster than astronomers ever thought. In fact, they might be spinning at the very limits predicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Perhaps it’s this extreme rotational speed that generates the energetic jets that blast out of the most massive and active galaxies.

Note: The theorists were surprised.

Astronomers used NASA’s Chandra X-Ray Observatory to study 9 giant galaxies that seem to contain rapidly spinning supermassive black holes. These galaxies have large disturbances in their gaseous atmosphere, so the researchers calculated that these black holes must be spinning at near their maximum rates.

“We think these monster black holes are spinning close to the limit set by Einstein’s theory of relatively, which means that they can drag material around them at close to the speed of light,” said Rodrigo Nemmen, a visiting graduate student at Penn State University.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10611-spinning-black-hole-is-fastest-on-record.html

"They found the innermost stable orbit around GRS 1915 is so close that the black hole must be spinning at nearly 1000 times per second - the fastest ever recorded."

"But if McClintock's team is right, the black hole is spinning at 98% of the theoretical maximum rate, which is calculated by how fast stars can spin before they collapse to form black holes."

Note: It does not take an academician to realize that if this black hole has actual physical dimensions, and has sufficient diameter, then relative to a fixed point in space, the surface matter will be rotating in excess of c.

If earth, using the approximate equatorial circumference of 40,000 kilometers, was rotating at even half that velocity, 500 rps, assuming sufficient gravity, the surface matter would be moving past a fixed point in space at 20 million kps, or 66 times c.
.
So if this massive black hole spinning at 1,000 rps has a physical circumference no bigger than earth's, the surface matter is moving past a fixed point at 132 times the speed of light and it is not flying apart.

On UHECR ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHECR

The source of such high energy particles has been a mystery for many years. Recent results from the Pierre Auger Observatory show that ultra-high-energy cosmic ray arrival directions appear to be correlated with extragalactic supermassive black holes at the center of nearby galaxies called active galactic nuclei (AGN). nteractions with blue-shifted cosmic microwave background radiation limit the distance that these particles can travel before losing energy; this is known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit or GZK limit.

AGN have been proposed as likely sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and results from the Pierre Auger Observatory suggest that these objects may be their source. However, since the angular correlation scale is fairly large (3 degrees or more) these results do not unambiguously identify the origins of such cosmic rays. In particular, the AGN could merely be closely associated with the actual sources, which may be found, for example, in galaxies or other astrophysical objects that are clumped with matter on large scales within 100 Mpc.

Additional data collection will be important for further investigating a possible AGN source for these highest energy particles, which might be protons accelerated to those energies by magnetic fields associated with the rapidly growing black holes at the AGN centers. According to a recent study, short-duration AGN flares resulting from the tidal disruption of a star or from a disk instability can be the main source of the observed flux of super GZK cosmic rays.
Some of the supermassive black holes in AGN are known to be rotating, as in the Seyfert galaxy MCG 6-30-15 with time-variability in their inner accretion disks. Black hole spin is a potentially effective agent to drive UHECR production, provided ions are suitably launched to circumvent limiting factors deep within the nucleus, notably curvature radiation and inelastic scattering with radiation from the inner disk. Low-luminosity, intermittent Seyfert galaxies may meet the requirements with the formation of a linear accelerator several light years away from the nucleus, yet within their extended ion tori whose UV radiation ensures a supply of ionic contaminants. The corresponding electric fields are commensurately small, on the order of 10 V/cm, whereby the observed UHECRs are indicative for the astronomical size of the source. Improved statistics by the Pierre Auger Observatory will be instrumental in identifying the presently tentative association of UHECRs (from the Local Universe) with Seyferts and LINERs.

On the fabric of space ...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.4278v3.pdf

Note: The following paper was originally submitted February 23, 2010.

October 24, 2010 ... "To accommodate the observed accelerated expansion of the universe, one popular idea is to invoke a driving term in the Friedmann-Lemaitre equation of dark energy which must then comprise 70% of the present cosmological energy density. We propose an alternative interpretation which takes into account the entropy and temperature intrinsic to the horizon of the universe due to the information holographically stored there. Dark energy is thereby obviated and the acceleration is due to an entropic force naturally arising from the information storage on the horizon surface screen. We consider an additional quantitative approach inspired by surface terms in general relativity and show that this leads to the entropic accelerating universe."

"In this case the tension does not arrive from the negative pressure of dark energy but from the entropic tension due to the entropy content of the horizon surface. This is equivalent to the outward acceleration aH = cH of Eq. (7). If we chose to put the information screens at smaller radii, then, associating entropy with information,we would have found a proportionally smaller pressure, and an acceleration that decreases linearly with the radius in accordance with our expected Hubble law. Thus, the acceleration of the universe simply arises as a natural consequence of the entropy on the horizon of the universe." - Paul H. Frampton, George Smoots

Note: Unless I am in error, Frampton et al. is theorizing, in essence, that DE is actually just the fabric of space attempting to 'smooth out the wrinkles'.

More fabric of space ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216095014.htm

“The Birth of Time: Quantum Loops Describe the Evolution of the Universe” (ScienceDaily, Dec. 17, 2010)

What was the Big Bang and what happened before it? Scientists from the Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw have attempted to answer the question. Within the framework of loop quantum gravity they have put forward a new theoretical model, which might prove useful for validating hypotheses about events prior to the Big Bang. This achievement is one of the few models describing the full Einstein's theory and not merely its greatly simplified version.

Traditional cosmological models describe the evolution of the Universe within the framework of the general theory of relativity itself. The equations at the core of the theory suggest that the Universe is a dynamic, constantly expanding creation. When theorists attempt to discover what the Universe was like in times gone by, they reach the stage where density and temperature in the model become infinite -- in other words, they lose their physical sense. Thus, the infinities may only be indicative of the weaknesses of the former theory and the moment of the Big Bang does not have to signify the birth of the Universe.

In order to gain at least some knowledge of quantum gravity, scientists construct simplified quantum models, known as quantum cosmological models, in which space-time and matter are expressed in a single value or a few values alone. For example, the model developed by Ashtekar, Bojowald, Lewandowski, Pawłowski and Singh predicts that quantum gravity prevents the increase of matter energy density from exceeding a certain critical value (of the order of the Planck density). Consequently, there must have been a contracting universe prior to the Big Bang. When matter density had reached the critical value, there followed a rapid expansion -- the Big Bang, known as the Big Bounce. However, the model is a highly simplified toy model.

Note: Scientists at the U of W are supporting two of my hypotheses ... that singularities are a physical impossibility and matter/energy can only be compressed so far ... and space must have existed before the Big Bang.

The real answer to the mystery of the Big Bang lies in a unified quantum theory of matter and gravity. One attempt at developing such a theory is loop quantum gravity (LQG). The theory holds that space is weaved from one-dimensional threads. "It is just like in the case of a fabric -- although it is seemingly smooth from a distance, it becomes evident at close quarters that it consists of a network of fibres," describes Wojciech Kaminski, MSc from FUW. Such space would constitute a fine fabric - an area of a square centimetre would consists of 10^66 threads.

On preexisting space ...

Note: According to Michio Kaku, mainstream scientists are now beginning to accept the probability of preexisting space.
.
Following is a short video: Michio Kaku, Andrei Linde, Paul Turok, Roger Penrose ... BBC series, early 2010. Please forgive the use of youtube ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwirDNFQnI&feature=related

In it, among other things, Kaku discusses the probability of our universe springing forth from 'nothing' at some point and says it's really not such a bad idea if you just re-define what nothing is. He suggests that it isn't a stretch that one of the materializing particles from preexisting space might have just 'kept going' and instantaneously shoved a rather large bunch of matter/energy into the existing space.

And Andrei Linde posits an eternal (and apparently eternally accelerating) expansion of space, of which our Hubble volume is just one of the newly formed air bubbles in the Swiss cheese.

On merging black holes ...

Note: 33 pairs of merging black holes were announced in January last year by astrophysicist Julie Comerford.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21534105C

Abstract: "Since nearly all galaxies host a central supermassive black hole (SMBH), mergers between two galaxies can bring dual SMBHs to the resultant merger-remnant galaxy. However, only a handful of dual SMBHs have been identified observationally, and here we present new detections of 33 dual SMBHs. We searched the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey for galaxy spectra with AGN emission lines that are offset in velocity relative to the mean velocity of the host galaxy's stars, suggesting bulk motion of the AGN within the host galaxies."

"Within the set of DEEP2 red galaxies at 0.3 < z < 0.8, we find 32 AGN with statistically significant (greater than 3 sigma) velocity offsets, ranging from 50 km/s to 300 km/s. After exploring physical effects such as AGN outflows that could cause such velocity offsets, we find that these offsets are most likely the result of dual SMBHs. We also report on a z=0.36 COSMOS galaxy whose optical imaging shows a tidal tail and two bright central nuclei; with follow-up slit spectroscopy we confirm that the central nuclei correspond to dual SMBHs. Our sample of dual SMBHs provides a direct observational probe of galaxy mergers and the galaxy merger rate, as well as SMBH mergers that are expected to produce gravity waves observable by next-generation projects such as LISA."

Not always anchored to galaxies ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24375102/

Stefanie Komossa ( Planck Institute ) and her team have now detected the consequences of such a merger: a 100-million-solar mass black hole in the process of leaving its home galaxy.
The "kick" the black hole receives is akin to the recoil of a rifle. It can propel the black hole to speeds of up to several thousand miles per second, according to theoretical simulations. The escaping black hole Komossa and her team observed was racing along at 5,900,000 mph.

On multiverses ...

Note: In the following, Ms. Mersini-Houghton of Chapal Hill creates an entirely different universe, but apparently makes no attempt to describe it's physical laws, or structure, or how it would have left that 'imprint'. Or why there would be just 'one'. Maybe I missed all that. In any case, she is 'captivating' the astrophysical community, and worth mentioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersin

In 2007, Mersini-Houghton claimed that the observed CMB cold spot was "the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own", just as she and her collaborator had predicted in her theory 8 months earlier.

In Nov. 2008, a NASA team led by Alexander Kashlinsky observed the Dark Flow of clusters in the universe at exactly the velocity and alignment predicted by her earlier in the 'Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape I, II' papers in 2006.

In the same year (2006) WMAP reached agreement with SDSS experiment, that the overall amplitude of fluctuation is less than 1. If these observational findings, predicted in the 2006 papers by Mersini-Houghton et al. are confirmed over the next few years, then they may offer the first evidence of a world beyond our own. Such confirmation would tie the standard model of cosmology into a more coherent picture where our universe is not at the center of the world, but part of it.

After the observational confirmation of the three predictions (the Void, Dark Flow and Sigma8) her work continues to attract international media attention, GCHEP/UNC, and Discover magazine, October 2009.

Two astrophysicists reported recently that they have found evidence of the northern hemisphere void in analysis of WMAP data.

On October 11, 2010, Laura Mersini-Houghton appeared in a BBC programme What Happened Before the Big Bang (along with Michio Kaku, Neil Turok, Andrei Linde, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin and other notable cosmologists and physicists) where she propounded her theory of the universe as a wave function on the landscape multiverse. The programme referred to three observational tests of her theory's predictions, which makes it the only theory on the origins of our universe ever to offer predictions and have them successfully tested.

Mersini-Houghton's work on multiverse theory is discussed in the epilogue of a recently published biography of Hugh Everett III.

Note: I won't argue whether or not the predictions were confirmed. I will argue that her theories and predictions are not based on known physical laws and could apply to any manner of phenomena. That the predicted phenomena could easily have other physical causes ... and her conclusions are hasty.

Partial list of supporting research materials and articles available on-line ...

http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48204

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48202

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Spectroscopic_Telescope_Array#Launch

http://www.universetoday.com/12408/black-holes-seen-spinning-at-the-limits-predicted-by-einstein/

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/agn_3c_33_unraveling_black_hole_spin

http://ttt.astro.su.se/groups/head/sara/node11.html

http://susy06.physics.uci.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHECR

http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~austin/nuclear-astrophysics.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2197v1.pdf

http://notes.kateva.org/2004/01/news-of-fermi-paradox-abundant-mature.html

http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/sauron/

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2024v1.pdf

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48204

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/2010/31/

"Hubble Astronomers Uncover an Overheated Early Universe"

October 7,2010 ... The universe went through an initial heat wave over 13 billion years ago when energy from early massive stars ionized cold interstellar hydrogen from the big bang. This epoch is actually called reionization because the hydrogen nuclei were originally in an ionized state shortly after the big bang.

Note: I believe the evidence is pointing more toward early massive and supermassive black holes than massive stars.
But Hubble found that it would take another 2 billion years before the universe produced sources of ultraviolet radiation with enough energy to do the heavy lifting and reionize the primordial helium that was also cooked up in the big bang.

This radiation didn't come from stars, but rather from quasars. In fact the epoch when the helium was being reionized corresponds to a transitory time in the universe's history when quasars were most abundant.

"The Cosmology Prize honors a leading cosmologist, astronomer, astrophysicist or scientific philosopher for theoretical, analytical, conceptual or observational discoveries leading to fundamental advances in our understanding of the universe." - Gruber Foundation

I hope you can at least understand my desire to participate.

Thank you,

James Pinkerton

 

Beg your pardon. Please disregard the post I just made. I did not remember I had already posted it here. Meant to post it on another forum.

 

SUSY Dealt Another Serious Blow

Well, string theorists such as Michael Green must be tearing their hair out about now.

Shortly after LHC experiments pulled one leg out from under the stringers, more recent experiments at CERN and the LHC have once again shown strong evidence that the basic foundations of string theory do not exist.

Supersymmetry Squeezed as Large Hadron Collider Spots Ultra Rare Particle Decay

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095018.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2012) — Cambridge scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, near Geneva, have spotted one of the rarest particle decays ever seen in nature.

The result is very damaging to new theories like the extremely popular Supersymmetry.

The math was never strong, even though string theorists have insisted otherwise. At best, the number of possible realities was never constrained below 10^530. For years they couldn't even come up with experiments to test the theory. I have (fruitlessly) pointed out it was an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Not even an actual theory, despite all the wonderful shapes created by thousands of brilliant mathematicians to describe the various ways dimensions could co-exist with ours.

Over the last 20 years, Brian Greene of Columbia University has, it seems, funded Columbia's entire science wing from his on-going promotions of ST. He, Michael Green, and so many others have appeared on numerous science programs for years, speaking of SST as if the existence of strings was a foregone conclusion.

String theory is the foundation of many, if not most popular modern cosmological models, including the ekpyrotic model ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

Excerpt:

The ekpyrotic universe, or ekpyrotic scenario, is a cosmological model of the origin and shape of the universe. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis) meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire".[1] The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard big bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe.[2][3] The ekpyrotic model is a precursor to, and part of some cyclic models.

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity and superluminal expansion while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse. Observations that may distinguish between the ekpyrotic and inflationary models include polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation and frequency distribution of the gravitational wave spectrum.

Without strings, these models collapse, as they require multiple dimensions beyond the 4 we know of.

My apologies to Alpha and other true academicians for still not having a mathematical description for my model. Understood that to them, without it, my model is worthless. Still, it seems my "ideas" have more substance (and support) than string-based models at the moment.

A few excerpts from recent articles of the latest discoveries that lend further support for my description of how the universe operates on the large scale ...

Candidate for Most Distant Galaxy Discovered

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141456.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2012) — By combining the power of NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes and one of nature's own natural "zoom lenses" in space, astronomers have set a new record for finding the most distant galaxy seen in the universe.

The farthest galaxy appears as a diminutive blob that is only a tiny fraction of the size of our Milky Way galaxy. But it offers a peek back into a time when the universe was 3 percent of its present age of 13.7 billion years. The newly discovered galaxy, named MACS0647-JD, was observed 420 million years after the big bang, the theorized beginning of the universe. Its light has traveled 13.3 billion years to reach Earth.

The relevance here is ... my model predicts that there were black holes immediately following the Big Bang, and were instrumental in the formation of galaxies very early in the universe. Something the standard model ... and all string theory models ... did not inherently predict. On the contrary, as I'm sure the academicians here know, the standard model and others vying to replace it have all presumed an extremely homogeneous (smooth) beginning to our universe.

Of course, now scientists act as if they knew it was 'lumpy' all along, but just haven't yet figured out how it went from smooth at the BB to lumpy so early in the universe. Only a year and a half ago they were quite surprised by this ...

First Galaxies Were Born Much Earlier Than Expected

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101330.htm

Johan Richard, the lead author of a new study says: "We have discovered a distant galaxy that began forming stars just 200 million years after the Big Bang. This challenges theories of how soon galaxies formed and evolved in the first years of the Universe. It could even help solve the mystery of how the hydrogen fog that filled the early Universe was cleared."

We continue to discover supermassive black holes earlier and earlier in the universe.

New Surveys Peer Through Dust to Reveal Giant Supermassive Black Holes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091546.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 8, 2012) — Scientists at the University of Cambridge have used cutting-edge infrared surveys of the sky to discover a new population of enormous, rapidly growing supermassive black holes in the early Universe. The black holes were previously undetected because they sit cocooned within thick layers of dust. The new study has shown however that they are emitting vast amounts of radiation through violent interactions with their host galaxies.

 

Hi James, welcome back

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Sometimes it is a lonely and dejected life, that of amateur cosmologists. But really, some of us just don't settle for "we can't know", or "it is a singularity about which it is useless to speculate". We don't think so, right?

Your cyclical universe is efficient in many ways. As you say, it doesn't require any new physics which is a good selling point for those who may want to venture into the unknown, but don't want to be quite as deluded as someone like me who hypothesizes new and/or different physics to cause a bang and to cause the presence of particles and gravity.

But if you don't think there needs to be some as yet unknown natural laws and if you can live with space-time to do the things it is tasked to do, then I can see how you get a model like yours. When I read it I just put aside my delusions of new laws of nature and go with you into the scenario. It is interesting and we certainly know that there were some non-singular preconditions to our big bang and you have described a set that is as plausible as any.

I think you are saying that there was no beginning to the cyclical universe, but instead your model supports a potentially infinite number of past and future cycles, but am I right to think that?

I also express doubt about the ability for each cycle to pull back in all the EM that has been spread wide. If you can't get enough spin to through off a new Hubble volume from the reclaimed matter/energy of the old one until every bit of the old one gets brought back gravitationally, i.e. before the total mass limit is reached to activate the giga-black hole to spin off the next Hubble volume, then there would be a precise balance between the amount of matter/energy in the universe and the amount of matter/energy that must occupy the central giga-black hole before it is able to reach the instantaneous event of spinning off the next cycle. Are you proposing such a precise balance, saying that every photon of the old EM has to return before the next cycle can begin?

 

Hello, and thank you. Not ignoring your questions but seem to be having a small problem logging in on my home pc. Not sure if I am timed out for forgetting to log out or if there is something wrong with my comp.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is a work pc and can't spend any time on non-work-related stuff.

But to quickly answer the last question, yes ... and no. It's not so much that the last photon triggers the new release/cycle, but rather the local gravitational field triggers the collapse of all space within the perimeter of gravitational influence.

Meaning, enough of space collapses to capture anything and everything that was released from the "Big Bang". All photons, gravitons (assuming they exist). There has to (or should) be a physical mechanism to trigger the centrifugal release. Already know black holes collapse space per GR, so it isn't a stretch to hypothesize that when the localized field becomes strong enough, a major collapse of space could be triggered.

When this virtually instantaneous 'crunch' happens, it is sufficient to cause a sudden increase in spin for the remaining giga-massive black hole.

I am out of time, and perhaps this is a poor explanation, but if you could go back and just review the "Process" portion of my model a couple of posts back.

I see no reason to assume ours is the only universe. This was never a reasonable hypothesis. Man's ego, nothing more. I see no reason to assume space's laws could vary from one region to another. GR says space is uniform. I see no reason to assume laws of physics may be different in other universes. Pure conjecture, even if qm 'could' allow such a possibility. I see no evidence of other universes 'leaking' into this one (ancient and/or exotic material). Therefore hypothesizing all universes are essentially the same, and all closed loops is not an unreasonable tentative 'working' hypothesis.

Got to go ...

 

The galaxy rotation problem does not scale down unless you consider that your universal atom is stationary and the particles have been sped up.

Pi is fascinating because, when derived from distances or time, it becomes a dimensionless constant.

If I started photographing a sparkler around 6 and a bit feet away, the circle was 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning sparkler in one complete circle the ratio ( A ) of the time between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi.
In this case the ratio ( B ) of the actual distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the sparkler to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed.

If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my photograph. If the sparkler is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light from only one rotation despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I taped two sparklers together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from 1 sparkler doing 1 complete rotation. If the sparkler was moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as for a complete circle.

In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of B.

On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will only capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object.

On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation.

On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 4.2 billion and C = 1/4.2 billion you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation.

 

Thank you Laurie. But how is this relevant?

 

Does that mean that space has some sort of physical presence? Do you have a name or description of the nature of space that would allow it to expand and contract under the influence of gravity? Is it the spacetime of General Relativity or does it differ in some ways that you can describe?

 

This is the geometric base for calculating offsets for something like expansion. Note that there are no obstacles/black holes/mysterious sea monsters etc. that could distort the path of this light as it travels from the rotating source to the observer over time.

The number x is an observational constant that tells you when different cosmological data sets can be consolidated for analysis and when they cannot.

 

Please forgive my ignorance. Could you explain how this relates to the model?

 

Unbelievable. 2 hours and my post vanishes. Ok. I'm done for tonight. Will have to recreate it tomorrow night.

 

That is so sad; I hate it when that happens. What I am getting at by starting with "space" is that there is what I call an apparent reality of space that we observe and it has three dimensions. Spacetime, on the other hand is not readily observable. We can observe the different rate that clocks measure time at different altitudes and different accelerations and so the change in the rate that time is measured by clocks in different energy density situations is observational. But how we explain those observations is mathematical and theoretical in the mainstream. Though the theory is supported by the observations of clocks, as yet there is no physical mechanism being described hypothetically to explain the physics of how it works. So one of the reasons for asking about space in your model is so I will know if you are drawing on the consensus spacetime model for you description of space and time, or are you proposing a physical explanation for how space acts relative to gravity and acceleration, i.e. how do you physically explain the observational phenomena.