Another Steady State Universe Theory

Re: Perhaps not critical mass

1. there is no need for a mysertious force in the current big bang/inflationary model to counteract gravity (infact only a steady satte theory needs cosmological replulsion otherwise the universe is necessarily empty).

2. Black holes MUST have angular momentum equal to the angular mometum of the star that they were formed out of an dht eangular momtum of subsequently accreted matter. The amount of angular momentum is always the same due to the conservation of angular momentum.

There is absolutely no reason to think that a black hole would be able to 'explode' just beacuse it's spinning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will try my best to explain these questions to the best of my ability.

Q1. What explanation does steady 'new steady state theory' give for the cosmic background radiation and it's isotrophy and uniformity?

A1. This is an area that I am not too familiar with so please bear with me. The CBM (Cosmic Background Microwaves) could originate from one of two sources. The first would be from our local big bang, although this would mean that the microwaves would have to be traveling inward instead of outward. The second would be that they come from the infinite universe, which would average the temp out over the eons. My question; How can microwaves be residual without dispursing?

Q2. How does 'new steady state' get around the problem of the failure to detect a large flux of gamma rays (from the anhilation of newly created matter)that is the problem of all steady stae theories?

A2. New Steady State does not claim that matter is created from nothing. The big bang is merely a mechanism for releasing the kenetic energy store up in black holes. New Steady State also does not claim that matter is destroyed, this would violate the Law of Conservation.

Q3. Why do we not observe any of these 'mini-big bangs' despite the fact that there would be sufficent time for the energy to reach us?

A3.I imagine that a big bang would be a rare occurance. Afterall, the Big Bang Theory predicts only one. Evidence of a big bang prior to ours would be obscured from view by the energy from our own big bang.

Q4. How does 'new steady state' theory get around the redshift magnitude test and others and the predicted curvature of the universe?

A4. NSST would lead to the conclusion that the redshift is caused by the doppler effect. NSST would predict that the universe is curved locally, but flat universally. please note characteristics #6,7,& 8 along with all the text above and below it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Perhaps not critical mass

Quote> there is no need for a mysertious force in the current big bang/inflationary model to counteract gravity.

My question: Was the early universe less dense? A very dense object (such as the big bang) would be so dense that nothing could escape it (including the Universe). In essence, a big bang would also be a black hole.


Black holes MUST have angular momentum equal to the angular mometum of the star that they were formed out of and the angular momentum of subsequently accreted matter. The amount of angular momentum is always the same due to the conservation of angular momentum. When a figure skater "shrinks" (draws in their arms) they speed up. When they "expand" (throws out their arms) they slow down. But angular momentum is conserved.

Also, please don't discount the New Steady State Theory6 based on my off handed conjecture on blossoming black holes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You see the questions 1), 2) and 4) where included because theyare the stumbling blocks of all steady state theorys. Question 2) doesn't really apply to this model though and is better rephrased as question 3).

As you point out in this theory the big bang would of been a local not a global event, therefore you would not expect the high degree of uniformity and isotropy (1 part in 10,000) that is currently observed in the cosmic background radiation which this theory cannot explain.

It's two main problems are that it defies the second law of thermodynamics and suggests no mechanism for black holes to 'big bang'.

The redshift magnitude test is to do with the curvature of the universe which is predicted to have a closed topology (though COBE suggest that might not be the case), which would also be incompatible with this theory.

 

Re: Re: Re: Perhaps not critical mass

Thge early universe was very dense (but when your talking about anything in the planck era gravitational collapse is not a problem), but it was also very isotrophic which prevented gravitational collapse.

A black hole gets larger when it accretes matter the initla angular moentum of the star does however casue it to spin very quickly as the black holwe is necessarily alot smaller than it's parent star.

 

Question #1- How does rhe Big Bang Theory circumvent the problem posed by having an isotrophic and uniform early universe become lumpy later in life, especially without the outside matter of the New Steady State Theory?Would not the current universe also be uniform and isotrophic?

Question #2-How does the Big Bang Theory explain the fact that the local big bang did not collapse back in on itself immediately after leavind the planck era?

Question #3-Wouldn't the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predict that an environment that is largely matter free ,but with an area with a high concentration of matter in it (a black hole), become rather hemogenous over time?

Question #4-Would it be possible for the Redshift Magnitude Test to show a locally curved universe even though the universe as a whole is flat as shown by the cosmic background radiation?

Question #5-Even though the universe as a whole is flat as shown by the cosmic background radiation, would it be possible for the Redshift Magnatude Test to show a curved local area of the universe?

 

1) Quantum flucations and gravity. The universe still is pretty uniform and isotrpic though.

2) The intial kinetic energy that causes expansion prevents immediate recollapse, of course if recollapse occurs or not depends on the Friedmann equation.

3) yes the 2nd law would predict that an area cintaining just a black hole woulf become homogenous over time (due to Hawking radiation).

 

There is nothing in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics about Hawking Radiation.

 

No there isn't, but Hawking radiation is intrinsically linked to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

inflation

I heard somebody say in this forum: "huble himself said that the redshifted light only accounts for the galaxies accelerating away from each other and NOT that the universe is expanding"

Is the any evidence that the universe is in fact expanding and galaxies aren't just flying away form each other???

 

Yes, unless we are pretty much at the exact centre of the expansion, which would contradict coperinican cosmological principle (our own observation point should not be a prefered one), the redshift would not be the same in all directions).

 

aaahhh

I see....

 

So the redshift magnitude test disproves the New Steady State Theory. The redshift would tend to point to the assumption that the farther away a galaxy is, then the faster away it is moving. This directly violates the black hole exploding assumption. I stand corrected.

 

The redshift magnitude test suggests that the universe is curved, this is to do with the lensing of far off sources by the curvature of the universe.

 

curved

how does the magnitude of the redshift suggest the universe is curved?

I thought it just meant that the vacuum of space is expanding.

certianly space is curved due to gravity, the lensing effect is caused by dense region of space being in front of the area you are observing. I do not see how this correlates to redshifted light though.

 

No it's not the magnitude of the redshift, it's the magnitude (brightness) of the sources that are furthest redshifted that suggest the curvature.

 

The problem I have with most of these assumptions is that they all rely on something that has never been observed outside of mathematics: infinity. I believe that at some point there must indeed be an infinite reality. I think it currently probable that energy is indeed infinite. Beyond that I think it prudent to use occam's razor.

It would be more accurate to say energy had no beginning and is infinite...as time is a measure of the motion of energy.

I tend to think it more likely and simpler that it curves and you would indeed return to the starting point, both in distance and time. Observable evidence will be forthcoming as we peer greater distances into the past.

Why not constant instead of no limit?

If there were occuring at an infinite number of places they would be occuring at all places and this is obviously not the case.

Not sure what you mean by "infinite number of places" here.

I do not contest that multiple big bangs are quite possible. But you seem to unnecessarily complicate the theory with all of the infinite axioms.

 

infinate

The concept of infinity means without end. The theory goes that there is an infinate amount of space. If there were then to be a FINATE amount of matter, energy, black holes, or big bangs(in the theory) then that would mean that only a very small portion (proportionally) of the universe would have these things. Most of the universe (an infinate area of it actually) would not contain these things. An infinite number of places does not mean all places. Just as there are an infinate number of even numbers, but obviously not all numbers are even.

 

I stand corrected.

However, the statement I was responding to was thus:

Now, my main contention was how can there be an infinite number of big bangs? Maybe I am missing something, but could you explain how an infinite number of bigbangs could be occuring without our ability to detect them? Or is there somehow a finite number of big bangs at an infinite number of places?!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really this theory doesn't stand up, for example how does it explain that our light cone is only ~13bn years?