The current theory that all the stars in the universe formed from an all pervasive cloud of hydrogen gas (part of the Big Bang theory) seems to be at odds with observation. One would expect that the effect of gravity would be to cause the hydrogen to gravitate together to form stars and that stars would gravitate together to form galaxies as is observed. The mystery is that in all the observations there seem to be no isolated stars between galaxies. It would be reasonable to expect that in the gravitational contest between galaxies there would be individual isolated intergalactic stars. One could argue that they may be there but we can not see individual stars at a distance. Yes, but we should be able to see individual supernovae between galaxies at a great distance as they shine as bright as a galaxy. This one piece of evidence seems enough to discredit the currently accepted evolutionary model of the universe. The observations rather suggest that star formation occurs in galaxies from a hydrogen cloud seeded by the original formation of the central black hole. www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe Richard
I should add to my post that intergalactic stars do exist and have been observed but they are believed to arise from galaxy collisions (source Wikipedia). My point is still that the expected outcome for the collapse of a general all pervasive cloud of hydrogen would be for individual stars to form in locations between galaxies. This is not what we observe. In general stars exist within galaxies which appear to form from the center. Richard
My theory, to help explain this, is the universe formed in a way different from what is currently assumed. This theory is based on the second law of physics or entropy considerations; entropy of the universe has to increase. I am assuming a law trumps a theory that violates the law. If the universe expanded from a singularity, to initially form all the sub particles from which hydrogen would form, the universe begins with high entropy that lowers instead of getting even higher. The phase transition into hydrogen and helium causes the entropy to lower with respect to the initial sub-particle continuum. Forming stars and galaxies from a random cloud continuum, lowers entropy even more, since matter become more localized and condensed from random into order. This model, although spectacular, does not follow the second law, since it starts with entropy already extremely high where it decreases, releasing energy. The question becomes, what type of universe model could reflect a gradual increase in universal entropy, from time zero? The simplest model I could think of would be similar to cell division. The BB singularity will not become a big bomb, like in the current theory, but rather it quietly splits into two, like a dividing cell. The amount of the entropy increase is a small as possible; the first entropy step up the ladder. This divide again and again, etc., stepping up the entropy so the second law always has room to move in the right direction. Picture the mother of black holes (the original BB singularity) dividing like a fertilized ovum. The entropy curve shows a gradual rise, with each increase in entropy absorbing energy, cooling the still very compact, but differentiating black hole contained universal mass/energy. When this reaches a certain point, we get the mini-BB phase, where all the sub-cells go boom, forming galaxy seed expansions from black holes centers. The uniform background temperature of the universe suggest this occurs all at the same time. The expanding mass/energy blast, from all the coordinated cells, begins to separate all the cells. This forms the more formal expansion of the universe relative to the galaxies. The extreme energy/pressure waves of the mini-BB phase, adds to the entropy rise, by aiding neighboring galaxy and early star formations. Each expanding cell will see energy from all external directions, from neighboring cells. The entropy continues on the rise making the expanding space-time between galaxies to high in entropy. There is not much in the way of intergalactic star formation beyond collisions of drifting galaxies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is no violation of the second law due to the continuing expansion of the universe, which means that entropy is never in equilibrium, and in trying to reach equilibrium again you can get pockets of order without violating the second law, because the maximum allowable entropy also keeps increasing. The way I was taught to look at it: imagine a room full of hydrogen, perfectly still and uniform (at maximum entropy). We now add on an extra room for it to occupy, and so the gas is now in partial order as it is only occupying half the available space. When the new space becomes available the gas is no longer in equilibrium, and even though it was at maximum entropy in the smaller room, it now isn't, and it's entropy can increase due to the new space. Basically the increasing space means that the maximum entropy available to it is also increasing. So there is no violation, and thus no need to throw out the existing theories. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There are a number of problems with the Big Bang theory that seem to be inexplicable. One of them is the distribution of stars and galaxies. Also the problem of the fine balance of the expansion of the universe. The fundamental problem seems to be the initial assumptions of the model that the universe is finite with no boundary. When you really look into this problem you find that you have to assume the existence of a fourth space dimension to justify the finite no boundary hypothesis. The problem of a universe in which the temperature tends to infinity as you go back in time towards the big bang is difficult as a valid initial condition. Once you change the initial assumptions to assume not just a time boundary but a spacetime boundary then a different explanation is available which does not require inflation or dark energy to describe the evolution of the universe. As regards entropy, in the spacetime boundary model the universe is empty for the initial phase before galaxy formation. There are no particles or atoms at this time and so no meaning to temperature or entropy. The change occurs during galaxy formation when galaxies are formed due to the expansion of space driven by expansion at the space boundary. The conservation of the total energy of the universe (mass energy and spacetime curvature) results in galaxy formation starting with the central black hole. The energy of spacetime curvature is transferred into mass and energy of the stars of the galaxy and the emission of a burst of gamma rays is associated with the formation of a galaxy. www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe Richard
Glancing through the paper offered there seems to be quite a few problems with it. The site that the paper is located seems to indicate the paper was not peer reviewed. The only mathematics shown does not support the papers hypothesis. The observable universe currently amost 4 times larger than the figure of 12.56 ly in radius (if by radius you mean the distance we can see from earth in any direction). The idea of the universe having an actual radius or even using the Schwarzschild radius for the calculation does not make a lot of sense. You wouldn't happen to be the Richard that wrote the paper would you? You have not explicitly stated that you are.
The first round of stars were probably supermassive hydrogen/helium stars that would burn fast and collapse/explode, leaving a black hole in the center of a huge cloud of cosmic dust. If so, the dust would contain heavier nuclei, and would be captive around the black hole. Each dust cloud from the massive first round stars would have the elements necessary to form a whole galaxy containing hundreds of millions of new second round stars with a black hole in the center. The clouds would also have heavier elements that formed from the heavy nuclei created in the first round stars, and so the formation of solar systems would be natural in those galaxies. Those are probably the galaxies that we now see. Not in the scenario that I described. Even if there were isolated first round stars outside of the supermassive galaxy forming super stars, those isolated first round stars would burn out fast, and so even though the smaller ones wouldn't go supernova, they would have long since burned out and would not be visible any longer.
Yes, I am the author of the paper and it has not been peer reviewed. The idea that the universe has an actual radius is a direct conclusion from the idea that the universe is finite with a spacetime boundary. The finite with no boundary hypothesis depends on assumptions of four space dimensions for which there is no evidence. The estimate of the radius depends greatly on the estimate of the total mass and including dark matter (as stated in the paper) the estimated radius is 80 billion ly. The rationale for using the Schwarzschild radius (SR) is that the SR for the universe as a whole is the point at which the total mass in the universe creates an event horizon which corresponds to the spacetime boundary. The existence of a spacetime boundary also gives an explanation for the cause of the expansion of space. Richard
No evidence for the space and time dimensions? LOL. You don't have a clue what the rationale is for any of this stuff. I can tell.
There is only one case in which a radius has any meaning and that case is very unlikely. Shape of the universe. Huh? Who thinks the universe has 4 space dimensions? Science says there are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. Most estimates on the mass of the universe involve estimating the DENSITY of matter in the universe and then multiplying by the size of the universe. So trying to use the numbers given for the mass of the universe to calculate the size results in you just going in cirlces and not really calculating anything. There really seems to be a lot of misconsceptions about the current mainstream theories in your paper.
I think like many other "would be's if they could be's" you are fabricating non existent problems with standard cosmology. The Universe in its early stages, was very dense with regions of even more denser regions sprinkled among this vast cloud of hydrogen and some Helium. These denser regions were the likely seeds of stellar and galactic evolution. Gravity in other words, shaped the trillions of short lived giant stars into galactic groups, walls, and super clusters. The spidery web like structure of these groups and walls of galaxies, is seen in the WMAP data. These web like structures continue to "tighten" as groups of galaxies and even walls of galaxies merge, while the overall expansion of space/time moves these spidery starnds further and further apart. What this means in essence, is that in a few hundred million years hence, when M31, LMC and SMC and other galaxies in our local group are merged into one giant galaxy, while at the same time, the galaxies now near the limit of our observable Universe, will have moved beyond our range. The Universe/space/time is a very dynamic entity. Somewhere else someone mentioned about the Universe/space/time being 80 billion L/years in diameter. In actual fact, it's more like 94 billion L/years in diameter, and that being the "Observable part". So the BB/Inflationary model of Universal/space/time evolution holds up quite well, although there are still a few niggling little anomalies that need attending to.
The diameter of the Big Bang universe, whether if it is 80 billion or 100 billion light years, or any other size, will depend on certain variables. But do we even have enough information of make a determination that isn't completely theory specific? No. If we base every calculation on the model that say everything in the universe must be causally connect to the big bang, the size issue has certain built in parameters based on the particulars of the inflationary model you choose, or any other explanation for the observed expansion. The issues of the possible cause and preconditions to the Big Bang are simply waved off as nonsense if everything must be modeled to be connected to the big bang itself. If the hypothesis that there was pre-existing space, matter, and energy involved with the cause of our Big Bang, then the size issue becomes a factor of those preconditions, and they would necessarily introduce new variables to new equations depending on the alternative cosmological model you describe. If you are throwing out the old model, what evidence do you have to keep the finite parameters? The mention of the finite and accelerating size of the universe and the trend toward continually increasing entropy gives us one picture; that of a universe where entropy will someday be complete, and no useful energy will remain. That is the outcome in General Relativity if the cosmological constant is positive. It isn't any better of an outcome if the CC is negative either. But the equations and variables change if there were preconditions, and the question shifts to whether or not the universe has always existed, and if so, would it have always been spatially infinite. When we consider the observational evidence it is true that accelerating expansion is now a consensus, and the hot dense ball of energy at the start of that expansion is also a consensus. In that model, the increase in entropy had to begin immediately, and has to continue according to the standard view of cosmology until there is no useful energy to sustain life. My question to Harmony is, if you are going to throw out the standard cosmology and hypothesize major changes, why do you keep the finite amount of space and energy? Why not model some cause or preconditions to the Big Bang? Is it because you are modeling out the big bang event itself? Let me ask it outright. Do you think there was a Big Bang?
The universe isn't a black hole. r=2M isn't the radius of the universe. Anything you think can be derived from that is nonsense.
My reference to the idea of four space dimensions and one time dimension arises from the explanations that I have seen regarding the finite no boundary hypothesis for the universe. The description goes something like this. The universe is assumed to be a three dimensional surface in a four dimensional hyperspace. The analogy is to consider a similar case with one fewer dimension. The surface of a sphere is a two dimensional space where there is no boundary but the surface is finite. Then if you take this model up a dimension you have a three dimensional space with no boundary in a four dimensional hyperspace. The mathematical modelling for this was first completed by Albert Einstein and he used four space dimensions and one time dimension. Now my point is that the finite with no boundary hypothesis actually requires the existence of the fourth space dimension. This is why I reject the finite no boundary hypothesis and replace it with a finite universe with a spacetime boundary. As regards the application of the Shwarzschild analysis to the universe as a whole this seems quite valid. I know that this was originally applied to black holes but given that a certain quantity of mass in a given volume has the effect of preventing light from escaping it seems reasonable to apply the same formula within the universe as a whole. Using the estimates quoted in the paper there is sufficient mass in the universe to prevent light escaping beyond a radius of around 80 billion ly. My view on the big bang: The big bang hypothesis is that space, time and sufficient energy for the entire matter in the universe was initially present leading to the ultra high temperatures of the first fractions of a second. My hypothesis in the spacetime boundary model is that empty space and time were initially present in a universe without any energy or particles but just empty expanding space. The formation of matter came much later in the galaxy formation era from the energy released by the expansion of space. Richard
That is nice, but it is not physics. What evidence do you have that your idea is right? What observatons indicate that your idea has merit over the mainstream view. I need to make 2 comments here. First referring the 'the paper' is rather disingenuous. It makes it sound like you are agreeing with someone else when in fact you are agreeing with yourself.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Secondly it seems to me that you cannot apply the Schwarzschild radius since the mass of the universe dispersed more or less evenly throughout the universe and not concentrated in one spot. Refering to the BB theory as a hypothesis does not make your conjecture more believable. So your conjecture rejects the concept of conservation of energy? That does not bode well for your conjecture at all!
Good. So the observational evidence of the redshift, and the observational evidence of accelerating separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups is accepted as sufficient evidence of a big bang type of event. I took your response to mean that at the instant preceding the Big Bang there was empty space and time, and at the instant after the Big Bang, all of the necessary energy for a universe as we observe it had come into existence. I refer to that explanation for the existence of the universe as being "something from nothing", unless you invoke the Supernatural explanation that, "God did it". To follow up on that, you might define "nothingness" as empty space, which many do, and if so, then am I right? Your explanation for the existence of the universe is "something from nothing"; or did God do it?
In response to Origin: The reason I think the idea has merit is by deduction. If there are two possibilities for a finite universe, one with a spacetime boundary and one with no boundary and we can rule out the no boundary hypothesis then that leaves the spacetime boundary hypothesis as the only possibility. Apologies for not making it clear that it was my paper referenced. The Schwarzschild analysis is based on the supposition that a sufficiently large quantity of mass will curve spacetime to the point where light can not escape. The wikipedia definition of the Schwarzschild radius is: The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object is compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. The wikipedia reference also states later in the mathematical analysis that an object of any density can fall within its own Schwarzschild radius. So an object (being the universe as a whole) having the density being the average density of matter in the universe will fall within its own Schwarzschild radius (i.e. within the boundary) if we make that radius appropriately large. Apologies for my incorrect terminology regarding theory and hypothesis. The spacetime boundary model does not violate conservation of total energy. The point I am making is that with the introduction of the general theory of relativity we have to consider mass, energy and spacetime curvature as part of the conservation law of total energy. An empty expanding spacetime with a boundary is not stable as space curvature is decreasing (radius of curvature increasing). Therefore the formation of matter is essential to balance the total energy equation. The total energy conservation law works in the opposite direction during the gravitational collapse of a star where mass and energy are converted into spacetime curvature with the total energy remaining constant. No one except me seems to be bothered by the fact that the finite no boundary hypothesis depends on the existence of a fourth space dimension. This is crucial because the cosmological principle depends on the finite no boundary hypothesis and much of the cosmological analysis seems to depend on the cosmological principle. Perhaps someone can explain how we can have a finite universe with no boundary and only three space dimensions and one time dimension. Response to quantum wave: Quote: Good. So the observational evidence of the redshift, and the observational evidence of accelerating separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups is accepted as sufficient evidence of a big bang type of event. Answer: What I am saying is that the observational evidence of the redshift and increasing separation of galaxies is evidence for the expansion of space. Quote: I took your response to mean that at the instant preceding the Big Bang there was empty space and time, and at the instant after the Big Bang, all of the necessary energy for a universe as we observe it had come into existence. Answer: As with the Big Bang theory we can not talk about the time before space and time came into existence. What I am saying is that there is a large separation in time, perhaps thousands of years between the existence of space and time and the formation of matter from expanding empty space as described above in my response to Origin. Richard
Just a question about that. The cosmological principle talks about the homogeneity of the universe, stating that from any point within it, the universe will look essentially the same structurally in all directions, on a large scale. More to the point, in the context of your statement, it occurs to me that you might also usefully reference the cosmological constant, which deals with the balance between expansion and contraction. Maybe, but what we observe is the separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups from each other, and the determination that space itself is expanding is theory specific, not observational. I sensing a contradiction, but you may have it all worked out consistently. It would seem inconsistent to say space and time pre-existed alone, and then energy and matter formed within it at some random time, later, not in conjunction or at least not in rapid sequence from an initial big bang event. If you mean that space and time began alone at a point in time, out of "nothingness", and that event corresponded to the Big Bang, then I can see how you might mean that the expansion of space represented a form of energy emerging out of the initial event. You then might be describing a sequence where that energy gets converted to matter after the expansion of space reaches some natural energy density threshold that allowed matter to from from the energy of expanding space. Perhaps as the expansion of space subsided as the conditions for matter formation arose? Does the question about the origin of the universe have an answer in you model? I think there are three main choices, "It has always existed", "Something from nothing", or "God did it". Do either of those explanations fit your model?
Nobody who understands the science of modern cosmology is going to be worried just because you don't. The universe is infinite in extent. That means it's spatially flat. You should try to understand the cosmological metric before you start making irrelevant comments about how the evolution of the universe is theoretically modeled. First introduction to the Friedmann metric which is the foundation of the modern FLRW cosmological metric. "we call the fourth space dimension w and call the four-dimensional distance from the center R. Then the three sphere [hypersphere] of space is the set of points (x,y,z,w) at fixed distance R from the origin" [took most of this from Exploring Black Holes, Taylor and Wheeler.] R^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 = r^2 + w^2 r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 Eternal inflation talks about the time before the 'big bang' inflation event. Eternal Inflation [power point discussion between Guth and a room full of string theorists]. http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/ What you're saying was falsified long ago by the hard work of folks who have the qualifications to do scientific analysis. The CMBR is verification for an expanding universe.
