Ok. I guess I will deal with you first. Lofty statement. Very impressive. Please provide your supporting evidence/reference material. How long have black holes been 'known about'? It would seem you have access to material unavailable to 'laymen'. Newton described a 'viable' model of gravity, which was refined through GR. Are you suggesting that I am required to create a NEW model? Ludicrous. Are you a teenager, or something? Just 5 years ago even suggesting that black holes would actually merge would get you ridiculed by 'learned people' such as yourself. Rude. Lol. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Thankfully it is not universally held. Respected journals won't even read material from laymen, let alone publish. Get real. This leaves few options for reaching the scientists. I really don't care how you perceive my actions. It would appear ( happily ) that most scientists have a little more curiosity than you. My model refines the standard BBM. Maybe you should read both of them again. The model can be falsified through observational evidence. The model can be falsified by conflicting with known math, and/or physics. And I do make predictions. Read it again. No, it doesn't. However, I am describing a physical process. Not a metaphysical one. If there is an error in my reasoning, or if I have incorrectly interpreted the evidence, it is a simple matter to point out these flaws. I am not a mathematician. I don't have to be one to comprehend the concepts of gravity, precession, or a variety of other observed phenomena. My aren't we feeling superior today .... I just finished a quick review of recent publications which this site will not allow me to link as of yet. But I think you can find them by using the titles. New Insights Into Open String Theory String Theory and the Unification of Forces M-theory, the theory formerly known as Strings Problems with string theory Physical Reality Of String Theory Shown In Quantum-critical In its near 40-year history, string theory has ... Just one exerpt .... from Physicsworld.com Why can’t string theory predict anything? String theory replaces a microscopic world-view based on point-like elementary particles with one based on 1D strings. Compared with the particle view, however, strings have got physicists virtually no further forward in explaining what they see when they actually probe nature at small scales using machines like the LHC. This may not be surprising given that strings are 10^20 times smaller than particles such as protons and neutrons. But why is it so hard to turn stringy ideas into hard predictions? The theoretical framework of the particle world-view is quantum field theory (QFT), which describes particle interactions as being due to the exchange of a field quantum (photons, for example, mediate the electromagnetic force). For some deep reason, a type of QFT called a gauge theory describes the electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions extraordinarily well, and has done for nearly 35 years via the Standard Model of particle physics. Because QFT allows particles to appear from “nothing” via quantum fluctuations of the underlying fields, the vacuum is not really empty space at all. The starting point for calculating physical quantities in both field theory and string theory, since string theory is rooted in the same quantum-mechanical principles as QFT, is therefore to write down the appropriate “Lagrangian” and understand the vacuum. In the Standard Model, this is reasonably straightforward, since the Lagrangian is fixed once you know the particles and ensure that the interactions between these particles respect gauge symmetry (which in the case of electrodynamics, for example, makes the values of measured quantities independent of the intrinsic phase of the electron wavefunction). As for the vacuum, in order to give particles their masses theorists invoke a scalar field called the Higgs field that has a non-zero value in the vacuum. Once you have got the Lagrangian, you can then derive a set of Feynman rules or diagrams that allow you to calculate things. The simplest diagram you can draw corresponds to the classical limit of the theory (i.e. where there are no quantum fluctuations) and yields a probability amplitude for a particular physical process, for example an electron scattering off another electron. By then adding the contributions from increasingly complex diagrams (using perturbation theory), QFT allows you to refine the calculations of this probability – to a precision of 10 decimal places in the case of quantum electrodynamics. The stringy world-view turns these 1D diagrams into 2D diagrams, since the space–time history of a string traces out a 2D surface rather than a line. This is great for incorporating gravity, which the Standard Model ignores, because gravitational interactions of point-like particles lead to infinities in the calculations. The problem is that theorists do not know what the Lagrangian is in string theory. Instead, researchers have five sets of possible Feynman rules, each of which approximates the physics described by a different Lagrangian (i.e. a different formulation of string theory). The upside is that the five different string theories are linked by dualities that suggests string theory has a unique underlying structure (called M-theory); so it does not matter too much which one you work with. The downside is that the five “backgrounds”, as string theorists call them, live in 10D space–time. If we lived in a 10D world, then it would just be a case of finding an experiment to verify which of the five backgrounds fits best. But when you curl up six of the dimensions on a Calabi–Yau manifold in an attempt to describe the four dimensions of the real world, you produce a slightly different background with its own set of Feynman diagrams. Indeed, the number of 4D Lagrangians you can get is about 10^500, each of which corresponds to a different way of compactifying the 6D manifold, choosing fluxes and choosing branes (i.e. “non-perturbative” effects that are extremely difficult to calculate). Since each result corresponds to a different universe, you really need to study all 10^500 in order to find out whether or not string theory describes the real world (unlike in QFT, where if you see something in nature you do not like, then you can add a new particle or field into the Lagrangian). The punch-line of this string theory “landscape”, however, is that it is the only explanation physicists can offer for the cosmological constant – a property of the vacuum that was discovered in 1998 and which QFT gets wrong by a factor at least 10^60. Very difficult reading for a man of my limited cognitive abilities. But I think I understand it to some small degree. My model relies solely on GR, and our current observations. Strings are still 'magic'. As Witten himself has described M-theory. Sorry.
From Mirriam-Webster: 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe 2 : a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters Your personal view ( or mine ) is not relevant. I am merely describing the natural order of the universe based on our current knowledge of physics, and our observations. I do not use 'tentativeness' as an argument for the correctness of my description of the universe. I am just an observer. Einstein was close. He thought angular momentum would prevent a black hole from ever forming. It is angular momentum that will allow the release of the black hole's stored energy. That is the 'known' physics. From Space.com: an excerpt ... updated 12:59 p.m. PT, Tues., Jan. 15, 2008 I might also add that we 'see' solely through mathematical constructs, and our understanding of physics. In actual fact, we are unable to verify any of this through direct observation ... so far. Yes I did explain how it gets 'recalled'. Black holes are not fixed in place, nor are they fixed in their trajectories. They will always move toward ANY source of mass/gravity. So when they have finally eaten everything in their immediate vicinity, they will eventually 'gravitate' toward other sources. No new physics required for this phenomena. If we suddenly teleported our sun to another galaxy, the lines of space would indeed 'snap back' to uniformity. Space is most certainly collapsed within a black hole. Our understanding of GR, and observations would support this. The current radiological composition of our visible/local universe is strong evidence of this 'snapping back'. So too is our understanding of the rapid expansion just after the BB. And Einstein said space itself would not be limited to c. Just any matter/energy occupying space. Not at all. If black holes were anchored in place I would concede your point. But they clearly are not. There is no evidence that 'space' was EVER being added. ( There is, however evidence that space was 'compressed'.) This is an unsupported assumption. Einstein said space is UNIFORM, unless disturbed by mass/gravity. This would tend to suggest it existed before our BB, and is simply being affected currently by the matter/energy released by the BB. No. It is not. Black holes will CHANGE their trajectories. It might be a very slow process, but they will eventually move toward any gravitational body. We do not KNOW space is expanding. DE is not a 'fact' no matter how authoritative Adam Riess sounds. All we know is that distant galaxies are receding from us at a rate proprtional to time/distance, and that their motion relative to CMBR is minimal. Current particle physics research ( to the best of my knowledge ) is suggesting that space itself IS energy. We can draw different conclusions from observational 'evidence'. Space may be attempting to straighten the lines out. Smooth away those nasty bumps. According to Einstein, space is UNIFORM. Lol. It will always try to STAY uniform ... perfectly isotropic. But it is in a never-ending struggle with mass/gravity. A dynamic and eternal balancing act between the properties of space, and gravity/EM. Must you?
I am not entirely certain which 'attitude' you are referring to, DH. I try to interject a little playful humor whenever possible. Teasing is not allowed? Ok. To anyone I have offended, I am quite sorry. That said, I do my best to accurately state the known facts, while making sure that 'hypotheticals' are clearly stated, too. I have had many disagreements with people who claim ST/SST/M-theory has some actual validity. The best that can be said for it, is that it is a reasonable field of inquiry, and that we can learn a great deal from the investigation. I have also had arguments with people claiming Hawking Radiation is 'accepted' theory. This is not true, either. Popularity of a given hypothesis is not sufficient to elevate it's stature. DH ... if you have a complaint, you need to be more specific. Of course, you have the power to simply ban me. There is no real recourse on my part. I wrote you a private message respectfully asking you to specifically explain why you moved me to 'pseudo'. You have have rudely ignored that request. I asked James R to respond to my reasoned, and rational rebuttals. He too, has ignored me. I respectfully suggest you both need to examine your own attitudes. I will be happy to treat you both fairly, and I expect the same in return. OK?
Lol, that is how I took it, as if you had put a Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! at the end. You didn't answer my questions very well and I hate it when people say that the universe doesn't care what we think. Do you think I thought it did. Never-the-less, I will work up a response.
I have access to textbooks and lecture notes but so does anyone else. Here is a news article on how NASA had made progress in the simulations I mentioned. Notice how they say "Previous simulations had been plagued by computer crashes. The necessary equations, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, were far too complex.". Previously it had been too difficult, which is not the same as 'declared impossible' or 'never considered'. GR is not Newton's work 'refined'. GR reduces to Newton's work in particular simplifications or limits but its much much more indepth and rich. Your claim illustrates you know neither. I'm 26 and 5 years ago I was sitting courses in GR lectured by colleagues of Hawking and know for a fact your claims about merging black holes being 'ridiculed' is nonsense. I have experience of the peer review process from both sides, reviewer and submitter. So its informed opinion compared to your ignorant opinion. You sound bitter. And that's why you got such a response from your 1000 emails, right? So which journal did your work get published in after all your help? Your model which can't model anything? You make predictions? You say "I am not a mathematician. I don't have to be one to comprehend the concepts of gravity, precession, or a variety of other observed phenomena." which means you don't provide any quantitative predictions. Compared to you, yes its inevitable. Not all gauge theories are quantum field theories. Is the description of string theory yours? Its just that if you don't know the mathematics of basic GR then you dont' know the mathematics of string theory and your analysis of it is from a layperson's point of view, reading the views of either other laypersons or people who have to translate the details of string theory into something you understand. Either way, you don't evaluate it directly you just take other people's word for it. As it happens Calabi-Yau manifolds and string dualities are my kind of thing. How much do you actually know about either of them?
Oh, excuse me. I thought your theory qualified as a personal view. Do you have some peer support, publication, or anything that makes it anything other than your personal view for discussion? Don’t clutter up your response by answering this rhetorical question. I was referring to the following: You seem to get my point but waved off the question. Are you now saying that you don’t have a Cosmological model of the universe, you only have a model that has the flaws of the current standard model modified if you like with anything you like from Space.com? My question was what causes the Big Bang to reoccur after the black holes have all merged. Do you have an answer or would you like to think about it? We will get into that below. OK, if I understand you. When you say space will snap back you mean the curvature that is imposed on space by mass as part of GR will undo itself when the black holes start of “gravitate” toward each other? Instead of the space itself being removed from the universe as the predicted collapse occurs; I think I get what you are saying but we will have to get into that below. You can’t have it both ways. Either space is created or it isn’t, unless you are saying that space was created by the initial exponential expansion and is not being continually created as expansion proceeds. Which is it? I said You replied: First, does "not it all" mean you do or you don’t agree that the separation between galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate. Would you say yes or no? Whatever point you are making about the black holes not being locked in place is not responsive to the question about accelerating expansion. I will address your statement about “but they merge” below but first the acceleration because then I will try to pin you down with a little more detail to help me understand you. That part of your answer answers my question. The part about, “( There is, however evidence that space was 'compressed'.) This is an unsupported assumption. Einstein said space is UNIFORM, unless disturbed by mass/gravity". Can that be brought up again later? I know you are enthusiastic about your theory but it would help me understand it if you would avoid elaborating about other aspects of it in your answers to my questions. You may not always understand my question but I would rather you test your understanding of the question than to have you add more for me to wonder about at the moment. I’m doing this for you, you know. (Just exercising a little attitude myself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Moving on, you are making this tough on me. I said: You said: I take that to mean that in spite of the fact that the galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate, they don’t have momentum? You already said that the separation was not due to new space being created. How can the observed expansion not be one of the two? You went on to say: … which ignores my point. Some force is at work to accelerate the observed motion of separation. If it is not dark energy what is it? No matter what it is, it is increasing strength relative to gravity which already exists and isn’t going to get any stronger. As the distance between the galaxies increases the force of gravity is diminished. Look at it this way. It it were the case that the galaxies have momentum away from each other and as the distance between them increases then force of gravity follows the inverse square rule, thus the separation accelerates over time because the relative momentum of the galaxies is not diminished while the opposing gravitational attraction is diminished. You went on to say: If there is no dark energy what is causing the acceleration? How will the diminishing gravity be able to cause the resulting black holes (after gobbling up their galaxies) to then gravitate toward each other. I’ll come back to Adam Riess, and to the observed recession. If this is true I will send you a monetary tip to your pay pal account. Please link me to something where this is anything more than speculation (not that I have a problem with speculation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) I appreciate your personal view but the universe doesn’t care what you or I think. Just teasing you about that. I acknowledged what I think you mean by that above.
Perhaps I have a faulty memory. Did I say they were 'never' considered, or declared 'impossible'? Maybe I did. Hmmm. Tell me ... what's the BBM mechanism for getting rid of black holes in our 'forever expanding' universe? Wow! Using the word 'refined' tells you all that, huh? I was not specific enough. I was referring to mergers other than 'local groups'. My apology. So what will be the combined mass of all the matter/energy of all our local galaxies when all has merged into one black hole? And what will it do next? Sit there? Leak particles at a slower pace than it absorbs CMBR? Hmmm. Ignorant. Ok. Let's see YOUR model. Lol. And you sound insufferably arrogant. But no, I am not bitter at all. Just stating reality. 'Bitter' has no relevence. What 'response' would you be referring to? Do you think I expected the astrophysical community to be thrilled when I suggested they might have it wrong? Even so, I did get many positive responses. More than I expected. Changing the way we think about our universe is no easy task. When you get some life experience under your belt, you will understand this a little better. It requires patience, and a thick skin. I have both in abundance. My model describes in simple terms how our universe operates on the large scale. That is all it is intended to do. Just like the BBM or BBM plus inflation theory does. Clearly this bothers you. I have made predictions that are observational. The BBM already makes many predictions. Mine is in line with most of them. Again, let's see what your superior brain has worked out for the processes and functions of our visible/local universe ... as well as what may or may not be beyond. I didn't write the article. I take the word of those directly involved in the reasearch. People like Michael Green. Alan Guth. Brian Greene. Neil Turok. I just don't brush off the disclaimers as you do. Enough to know that they don't exist. Enough to know that 'strings' are just one possible mathematical outcome out of a ridiculously high number of EQUALLY possible outcomes. Enough to know that after 40 years of research by the brightest minds in the world ... using the most sophisticated tools ever devised ... we are no nearer to proving their existence today than 40 years ago. Cocky isn't a bad thing. I'm not offended by your attitude. Time will 'refine' it. Lol. And you will probably grow to be a little more 'in depth' and 'rich' in your thinking. But not today.
quantum_wave writes: You seem to get my point but waved off the question. Are you now saying that you don’t have a Cosmological model of the universe, you only have a model that has the flaws of the current standard model modified if you like with anything you like from Space.com? No. I have a model that answers questions the BBM can not with out resorting to 'magic'. My question was what causes the Big Bang to reoccur after the black holes have all merged. Do you have an answer or would you like to think about it? Lol. Perhaps you are still under the illusion that black holes are 'infinitely' dense. We have zero proof that they are. And mounting evidence against that possibility. We have no evidence that a zero-dimensional structure exists anywhere in the universe. This is a mathematical construct only. I don't think the universe allows infinitely small any more than it allows infinitely big. The most likely mechanism is angular momentum. It will reach a point where the spin overcomes the gravitational force. I will cover your other points later. I'm hungry.
Originally Posted by QW 2) Science says that there is no known physics that will make an accumulation of all of the matter and energy in the universe become a new Big Bang while you require it. If there was any such physics the standard cosmology would include it and wouldn’t have to start at t=10^-30, we could go right to t=0 and describe the circumstances at that point in time. I don’t see where you address the new physics to make that happen and in fact you say that it doesn’t require new physics. You will need to explain what makes the crunch become a Big Bang when the entirety of the universe gets back into it besides naming it critical mass limit. I would accept that there is a maximum energy density that is short of infinite, i.e. there cannot be a point with zero volume that contains the total mass of the universe but even professionals that I have asked don’t firmly adhere to the infinite density implied by GR. But there has to be a cause for even a finite maximum density to Bang. ” Oh. I see what you mean ... I guess. All we know is there must have been a release of matter/energy at some earlier point in our universe's history. I use the term BB but I do not think it could have been a chemical reaction ... ie; explosion per se. For that it would be presumed you need atoms, and I think the material making up the physical structure of a BH is reduced well below that threshold. Didn't I post that article about a SMBH spinning at near C? I think Einstein was just off by a little. They DO fly apart from spin. It just happens later than Einstein thought.
You are talking about the Big Bang I'm pretty sure. Do you call it something else or are you now taking the straight GR line and saying we don't know for sure there was an event, we just know that as of 10^-30 seconds we were inflating exponentially and an instant later exponential inflation was over? I know that is hard to understand so let me ask it differently: Do you believe that the big bang was an explosion of space and energy and that the story of the Big Bang, and stages that make it up are true or does your Cosmological model differ from BBT at some point. I said I considered BBT to be GR plus Inflation and the cosmological principle. What I'm getting at is that your model is cyclical and so it includes repetitions of some "Bang type" event but there is no such event described by the current consensus cosmology and so it is not described by your model unless you describe it.
Slowly but surely I am gaining credibility with my theories. Dr. Tyson, and Dr. Ibison ( among others ) have suggested they have merit. Observational evidence continues to mount in favor. This coming year we may finally 'settle' the question of 'infinite' space with no boundries beyond our local finite universe. If in fact it does come down on the side of 'infinite',and generally isotropic space, this will lend major support to my 'closed loop'. No photons escape. If the universe is infinite, and the same properties apply universally, then it is relatively safe to assume an infinite number of similar finite universes. If photons ( CMBR ) could escape from just ONE ( ours ) then they could escape from an infinite number, and it would have gone on eternally. Therefore, we would be able to measure extreme red shift CMBR. Answered. Ok. No. Space was not 'created'. It was just collapsed. When the BB happened, space carried the lighter elements with it as it 'uncollapsed'. We have no evidence that space is either being created or destroyed. Of course they are receding at an ever-increasing pace. I hypothesize that this is a property of space trying to smooth out the bumps. Trying to make the 'lines of energy' straight. Scoop up the matter/energy, and space will stop 'smoothing'. We do not know yet just how 'mobile' black holes can be when not tied to an object in 'normal' space' The latest on spin suggests that they may NOT be limited to c. And if they are not constrained by the laws of 'normal' space it is entirely possible they could easily 'catch up' to any escaping matter/energy. What keeps a photon from exceedong c? The photon itself? Or the properties ( energy ) of space? I'm betting on space. That part of your answer answers my question. This is supported by GR. The math. Our observations. Maybe compressed is a poor choice of words. Space is most assuredly affected within the Schwarzschild radius. The lastest ( again ) on SMBH spin dragging space and the matter/energy occupying that space around it at near c would suggest that the normal properties are either breaking down, or the energy contained in space is being ripped from it by the BH. Too late ... LOL. Yes, they have momentum. We do not know that DE exists. We can only describe what is occurring. My hypothesis of space's natural tendency toward general isotropy ... through it's inherent energy ( which, by the way, would explain where OUR energy for our local universe came from 'originally') is ( I think ) a more satisfying answer than some mysterious and completely seperate force acting on an inert medium. A medium of 'nothingness'. See above. This only applies if the sources of gravity ( black holes ) are fixed in place. You assume that once a black hole has stopped feeding it just sits there, or continues on whatever path it was on originally. What is the theoretical limit of a 'graviton'. Infinity? We are affected by every gravitational source in the visible universe. It is only that the effect of gravity far away is overshadowed by the near sources. Take away the near ones, and the black hole will seek out the next strongest gravitational source. WHEREVER it is. Thought experiment: If we release 100 molecules of nitrogen in a vacuum chamber, what happens? The molecules leave the 'container' at a certain velocity. They will quickly achieve maximum velocity on their quest to equalize the distance between each molecule. Why? Why do they want to be equi-distant? I think it is the energy in space doing this. Not the molecules. The article I was reading last week ( paricle research/space is energy )was from a respected source. I will try to find it. I don't have a paypal account. Damn. Lol. And I appreciate your comments, and 'interest' ....
It was an event. Call it whatever you want. At some point there was a rapid expansion of matter/energy. We can't say that space was expanding too. There is a difference between space 'snapping back', and expanding. Since we can not see what actually happened before/during/after the time frame you describe, we must rely on mathematical constructs, and our understanding of GR. Ok to your last statement. The universe is generally isotropic. Not on board with inflationary theory. Space is not being created if it already existed before the BB. The BB is an 'overlay' if you will, of matter and energy. And a burr in space's saddle. Space doesn't seem to care much for gravity ... or more accurately ... doesn't like it's energy being converted to matter, or radiation. The universe has kicked 'consensus' in the rear repeatedly. Why stop now? Lol. The current cosmology has real problems. Why else would cosmologists be reduced to attempting magic acts like colliding membranes, multiple dimensions, or time reversal to accomodate our observed reality? My model simply states that it takes every bit of energy in the visible/local universe to MAKE it. It doesn't matter if the BH is a singularity or an object a thousand ... or a million light years across. The matter and energy that make up the visible universe came from somewhere. I have provided a way for this to happen using GR and everything we know to date. My guess is that quantum fluctuations eternity^2 ago formed matter from the energy contained within space. Once the process created enough mass to not only create a BH but cause it to release it's energy, the balancing act was in place. And that dynamic balance will last forever. Since the properties of space are most likely universal, I think it extremely likely that it is repeated infinitely. Eternally. Whatever critical mass point exists for OUR BH would exist for ALL black holes. I think it takes a whole lot of space/energy to 'borrow' a universe. I don't think the energy density of space is all that high. So there are probably incomprehensibly large voids between finite universes like ours. Anyway ... when you have real, actual infinite space to deal with ... who needs extra dimensions?
Lol, so true. But do you or do you not have a description of the event as part of your model? Watching 24. I'll finish responding tomorrow.
Hey Q. Now that you are beginning to understand my model a little better, maybe you would not mind re-reading it. I'm pretty sure I describe all the necessary features. Maybe I need to re-read it too ... lol.
Revised Edition: Pinkerton Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe 1/26/09 The Theory: 1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass. 2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit. 3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe. The Process: 1. Black holes convert all matter/energy into sub-elemental hydrogen* for uniform 'stacking'. ( *This for lack of a better term as we have no way at this time to determine the actual form the matter/energy takes. But clearly, when the energy is released, prodigious amounts of hydrogen and helium are formed immediately.) 2. Black holes may not be subject to normal laws of space** ( rotational speed limits, inertia ) ( **see below ) 3. Black holes ( to our knowledge ) currently merge at velocities 'tethered' by the rotational force and tidal forces of the satellite galaxy, or even just a single stellar companion. 4. Over eons of time black holes will grow in mass/gravity. 5. Although some escapes temporarily through x-ray/gamma ray bursts ( and possibly through Hawking Radiation ) they will continue to grow in mass/gravity. 6. Eventually unencumbered by the rotational/tidal force of orbiting galaxies, black holes could theoretically** achieve near infinite velocities. Therefore significantly speeding up the merging process and 'chasing down' gravitational sources at velocities far out-pacing the expansion of space. ( **see below ) 7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons. 8. The strain on space ( gravitationally induced ripple effect ) increases with the growing mass. 9. As our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only one black hole remains, containing nearly all the mass in the visible/local universe, still within upper mass limits* predicted by physicists. ( *infinite ) 10. At this trigger point, all remaining space containing matter/energy collapses into the black hole. 11. When the last sub-atomic particle reaches the point of 'singularity', critical mass is achieved. 12. The Big Bang. 13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it. 14. Space immediately begins to cool, and star/galaxy formation begins. The Logic: 1. All things in the physical universe have a critical mass point. Except, so far, black holes. 2. I believe theoretical physics currently allows for such a process, and observations are beginning to bear out this reality. 3. At the time calculations were made regarding upper-mass limits, black holes were mere theoretical oddities, and even Einstein argued against the possibility of their actual existence in physical space. 4. Though we have never seen a black hole reach critical mass, that in no way suggests they don't. 5. The visible/local universe has yet to reach infancy compared to it's expected life span. It is premature to assume on such small evidence that the current expansion will go on forever. The Evidence/Proof: 1. The laws of physics, quantum mechanics, GR. 2. The observations, predictions and experiments providing adequate proof/accuracy of those laws. 3. The current chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe. 4. The current ( and upwardly mobile ) estimated mass of the visible/local universe. 5. Recent observations of black holes merging**** or set to merge. ( **** see below ) 6. The recent acceptance that ( virtually ) all galaxies have black holes, or super-massive black holes at their core. 7. The recent observations detecting more galaxies than previously thought gravitationally bound to ours, and Andromeda. 8. No evidence to support the recent hypothesis that black holes are limited to 50 billion sols. 9. No evidence of black holes showing appreciable loss of mass over time. 10. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else. 11. No evidence of branes, strings, 5th through 26 dimensions, etc. 12. Closed-loop*** obeys all laws of thermo-dynamics/entropy. ( *** see below ) 13. Not affected by hypothetical dark matter/energy. Predictions: 1. Black holes in excess of 50 billion sols will be discovered through the latest and soon to come optical/radio telescopes. 2. Every new discovery will fit within the parameters of this model. 3. This cycle will repeat endlessly. In Conclusion: 1. This model reasonably answers the question of the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe. 2. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe. 3. This model explains where our big bang got it's mass. 4. This model appears to violate no known laws. 5. This model requires no 'new' laws to function. 6. This model is vastly superior to all flawed existing, and previous models. 7. It still leaves the question "How did it begin?" to future theorists. It is also my theory, however, that per Einstein's Uniformity of Space math ( born out by observations ), the universe is indeed infinite. That black holes are simply 'borrowed' energy from the fabric of space. That dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a 'property' of space. This process/cycle is akin to the sub-atomic particles that 'materialize' and are instantly annihilated by anti-particles ... but on a much larger scale. And I also suggest that this process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. The distance between black holes ( visible/local finite universes ) would be equivalent to the distance between 'materializing' particles. Once we have a better idea of the total mass of our local universe, we should be able to calculate ( based on the energy contained in space itself ) the cubic volume of space necessary to create/borrow our local universe. But I think it is safe to presume the distances between local/finite universes could easily be quadrillions to octillions of light years. Furthermore, I theorize that the laws of space are universal, and therefore dictate that each local universe will function in exactly the same manner as ours, with exactly the same physics, and that they will be identical in mass, as every black hole will have the exact same CMP. Again, I base this on Einstein's Uniformity of Space, for which we have a great deal of supporting evidence, and none contradicting it. ( ** ) It is possible that my supposition of black hole inertia-less, near infinite velocities or near infinite spin will not be born out by future observations. However this would not stop the process. ( The fact is, we do NOT know what constraints space puts upon a black hole within 'collapsed space' once it is released from external tidal forces.) Instead, it would merely slow it down. No matter how far space 'expands' the last black hole standing would warp space sufficiently to pull back any remaining mass/energy. ( *** ) If the loop was not closed, then we would get photons from outside our universe leaking ( over eternity ) here into our universe. And of course if the loop was not closed ... meaning if even a single photon were allowed to escape, the 'next' black hole would be one photon short of critical mass. I don't think space allows this to happen. ( **** ) Just a few days ago it was announced that 33 merging pairs of supermassive black holes have been discovered, proving that this phenomena is much more common than previously known. Logic tells me that if this theory is incorrect, then the universe did in fact have a beginning. And therefore it can not be either infinite in volume, or eternal. That there really is nothing beyond the bubble of our expanding visible universe. That there was some metaphysical reason ( ie: God ) since it truly would have had to spring into existence from 'nothing' ... because there was no space with it's inherent energy to 'borrow' from. I think there is sufficient evidence in Einstein's math to safely conclude this is not a possibility. The 'lines' of space would not have an 'endpoint'. And since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it is not unreasonable to also assume therefore, that the energy contained within space itself must be eternal, universal, and generally isotropic/homogeneous. Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could 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. That would appear ( so far, anyway ) not to be the case. There must be a specific, defined universal process. A function that allows matter to exist, if only temporarily. It took all the energy from our universe to create our universe. I hope this didn't take too much of your time. Thank you for your attention. James Pinkerton Copyright 2009 James Pinkerton
