Intergalactic stars

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Harmony, May 1, 2014.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Too bad we cannot rule out the no boundry condition.

    As I said before the mass of the universe is not compressed in one area it is dispersed more or less evenlythroughout the universe.

    That doesn't make any sense. The problem is you say energy is formed from the expansion of space. That is a major no-no. You need to modify your conjecture.

    Huh? Energy conservation works is the opposite direction - WTF are you talking about?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    Hi quantum wave,

    I have no answer to explain the cause of the coming into existence of space and time. Space and time are only defined within the spacetime boundary and I have no answer to this first cause problem. The big bang theory also does not address this problem of first cause.

    Hi brucep,

    Fair comment about my concerns. I have to say that I am just trying to work out a theory of the universe which makes sense to me.

    Your statement that the universe is infinite in extent is another possibility. There does not seem to be unanimity about this point with all cosmologists. The problem I have with the idea of an infinite universe is to understand how spacetime came into existence and was suddenly infinite. In this context I think of spacetime as something with a real existence which supports wave propagation and the curvature of spacetime as described by general relativity.

    https://www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics

    Hi origin,

    The idea of including spacetime curvature in the total energy equation comes from the theory of general relativity. Within GR we have an equation which equates a distribution of mass and energy with a curvature expression for the curved geometry of spacetime. So spacetime curvature is another form of energy. By moving all the terms of this equation to one side and equating to zero we have a formula for the total energy of the universe which is always zero. Then expanding empty space will change the spacetime curvature which must require the formation of mass and energy to balance the total energy equation.

    Richard
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    What you have is not a theory, what you have is a conjecture. There is no requirement that the universe makes sense to you.

    Mass and energy cause a curvature of space. The curvature of space in not energy, saying so seems to be nonsense.

    What evidence do you have that curved space IS enegy
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    The issue of first cause is the first thing that I pinned down when I set out on the same project. Having a personal view of cosmology is as easy or as hard as you want to make it. But I always interpreted a personal cosmology to answer the tough questions that the consensus does not answer or even address. You can go with some version of the current cosmology and modify it to be satisfying to you. I just wish that you felt that the question of a beginning was a huge issue that you had to take a stand on. Maybe that is going to be they way you go, but everything you come up with will be subject to being inconsistent with some explanation for the existence of the universe, and if you have no explanation in your model, you don't have a complete cosmology.
     
  8. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    Hi origin,

    You are probably right about it being a conjecture but I suppose every theory starts as a conjecture. There is a lot of work needed to turn the spacetime boundary conjecture into a scientific theory. At this stage I am trying to identify possible errors and your comments are very welcome.

    The evidence that I have that curved spacetime is a form of energy lies in the equations of general relativity. In an excellent book by P.A.M. Dirac on the subject of general relativity he shows that there is a wave solution to the equations of general relativity. He describes the wave solution as representing gravitational waves. There are experiments being conducted to search for gravitational waves but so far without success. However, the implicit assumption in the search for gravitational waves is that energy is being transmitted through the varying geometry of spacetime at the speed of light. This energy is in the form of varying spacetime curvature.

    Hi quantum wave,

    That is a fair point about completeness. The only way I can see of avoiding the first cause problem is to assume that the universe has always been in existence. Then if we assume that the universe is finite and expanding we would conclude that as we go back in time the universe volume tends to zero. This seems to imply that it had a starting point.

    Alternatively we could say that the universe has always been in existence and is infinite. This then requires an explanation for the expansion of space and the energy source for the formation of matter.

    So I find that the conjecture that the universe is finite with a spacetime boundary to be the most satisfactory option even though it does not solve the problem of first cause.

    Richard
     
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Paddoboy started a thread here in the Cosmology sub-forum on the topic of The Search for Gravity Waves: End in Sight? I made an attempt to discuss gravitational waves in the context of GR in that thread, and the conclusion I come to is that GR predicts that motion of matter through spacetime emits gravitational waves. That gives you half of the necessary foundation for your idea that expanding space could precede matter formation, since it is an energy form, even if what is expanding is gravitational wave energy.

    It is a pretty well accepted fact that there is an equivalence between matter and energy. I can see how you could say that gives you half of the picture for you concept, because the expanding space, if it is filled with gravitational wave energy, would require an origin, and the origin is the other half of your equation.

    That is a great place for you to insert something in your model about preconditions that could cause a huge expanding gravitational wave, and at the same time give you some motivation to invoke the conclusion that you mentioned, that the universe might have to be considered to have always existed and is infinite.

    Then, if you contemplate that, there are a variety of reasonable and responsible speculations about the cause of the observed redshift. Do we have to back track the observed expansion to a single point of space and time, just because we can do so mathematically, or can we stop back tracking before that, and before the math becomes a singularity?

    That is where the other half of the picture that you invoke about expanding space comes in. If the expanding space is a huge gravitation wave emitted by the collapse/bang of a Big Crunch, meaning that ours was not the first or the last Big Bang occurring across the potentially infinite universe for example, that would be a reasonable explanation for the observed redshift, assuming matter formed as the gravitational wave energy density of the huge expanding gravitational wave declined sufficiently to allow matter to re-form after the Big Bang of a Big Crunch.

    I just want to give you the incentive to contemplate a solution to the first cause issue and at the same time begin to consider causes for the energy wave that you invoke.

    There are various possibilities that could complete your view of cosmology, and the Big Crunch idea is the one I consider most reasonable to replace "something from nothing", though the field of Cosmology is full of others. I discuss my views on that cosmology in my current thread in the Alternative Theories sub-forum, where speculation like that should be placed. Take a look, but read it from the beginning: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141264-The-Infinite-Spongy-Universe-Cosmology-2014
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    The accepted BB/Inflationary model of Universe/space/time evolution was not just pulled out of someones arse.
    I can distinctly remember in the late 50's, early 60's three competing theories...the BB, Steady State, and Oscillating theories.
    Gradually the BB model clawed its way to be generally the most accepted. Then with the discovery of the CMBR by Penzias and Wilson, the BB gained complete superiority over the other two.
    And as the scientific methodology and peer review dictates, even the BB has undergone some tinkering with the Inflation theory.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That estimate is wrong.
    I'm fairly sure the best estimate puts the observable Universe at around 47 billion L/years radius.

    This following article may have some relevance to the OP.

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    Nearest bright 'hypervelocity star' found: Speeding at 1 million mph, it probes black hole and dark matter

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-nearest-bright-hypervelocity-star-million.html#jCp
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


    And not only individual stars are thrown out of their parent galaxies, but groups and clusters of stars also.....

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    Entire star cluster thrown out of its galaxy:

    The galaxy known as M87 has a fastball that would be the envy of any baseball pitcher. It has thrown an entire star cluster toward us at more than two million miles per hour. The newly discovered cluster, which astronomers named HVGC-1, is now on a fast journey to nowhere. Its fate: to drift through the void between the galaxies for all time.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-entire-star-cluster-thrown-galaxy.html#jCp
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    That is what you come up with from my thread? For starters, quote the first thing in the thread that you think I pulled out of my arse, and I will try to justify it from somewhere besides a bodily orifice.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Waves transfer energy. Space is not energy nor does it form energy. If I throw a rock in the water the the waves that form in the water transfer energy. The water is not the enegy nor did the water make the energy - the rock did that.

    To get back to the start of this discussion, here is [one of] the line that I have a problem with:

    The idea that the universe is continually making energy as it expands is 100% in the realm of pseudo-science. Saying that is your hypothesis does not make it so. There is not even a compelling reason to come up with an idea like that - it answers no questions or addresses any observations!
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I was pointing out that at one stage, not so long ago, the BB did have some serious competition.
    That has now, all but vanished.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I see what Harmony said a little differently. He is saying what he said in the latest response in the context of spacetime. You then went back to his earlier post. He now says "curved spacetime is a form of energy", if you go by the EFEs. Were you familiar with his reference to P.A.M. Dirac? If the wave solution to GR that he refers to represents gravitational waves in the form of varying spacetime curvature, that would make sense. GR predicts gravitational waves, and if they are found, doesn't that give him some room for discussion? He is simply looking for a sequence of events, and if he wants to try to put spacetime first, and if it consists of gravitational energy based on its curvature, maybe he could salvage something out of his conjecture that could lead to a better conjecture.

    Are you willing to try to talk it through instead of just ignoring what he said after admitting that he appreciates your comments, and after he made immediate changes in response to what you said? Yet you respond to that by repeating your criticism to the earlier post?
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    You don't keep abreast of the topic then. Maybe your are going by some source that I'm not aware of, but the consensus cosmology is made up of a lot of separate theories, and there are still competing theories at each point. The consensus is not clearly written out for every one to evaluate, it is a general consensus made of varying views on the many parts. There is still work to do to improve our understanding of what we observe, but I think that you would agree with that.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Of course there is work to be done. But I certainly do not shift away from my previous claim, that the BB/Inflationary model is now overwhelmingly accepted.
    That overwhelming acceptance came about after the discovery of the CMBR, which also saw the demotion of Steady State and Oscillating theories as serious contenders.
    Inflation as detailed by Alan Guth was then proposed to explain some problems that still existed...flatness and horizon problems, and that has also gained acceptance with revelations and findings since.
    I see it as tinkering with a car engine [the car engine is the BB] then gradually improvements are made through tinkering with certain aspects such as fuel injection etc to improve performance. It doesn't though change the overall car engine system methodology.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    All you really need from GR is the concept that the gravitational field radiates in finite time (e.g., light speed) and the consequence will be that a passing object (in linear motion) emits a pulse, and that a single object in rotation (e.g. an orbiting planet) will emit a sine wave, and multiple objects in rotation will exhibit something resembling a musical chord of pure timbre (without any attention to tuning)--that is, one sine wave per object, at whatever the frequency of orbit is for each--and at their respective phases. Note, each of these signals would be modulated by whatever motion that system's star (or centroid) is making in relation to the observer. However, since remote planets are so weak insofar as what can be measured on Earth, the likelihood of even detecting such a wave is infinitesimal, except for massive objects in rotation, such as a black hole orbiting some centroid, or a binary star, etc.

    But there is no greater significance to this, if that's what you're driving at. The same force of gravity that binds the Earth to the Sun emits a wave of period 365 days (plus approx 6 hrs) to Voyager out at the edge of the solar system. Obviously that observer would be experiencing the waves from massive planets like Jupiter and Saturn as well (all the planets, but depending on the observer's location these would tend to predominate). The combined "wave" of all the planets would be a composite of all of the objects in our solar system, plus any apparent motion of the Sun if the observer is not in heliostationary orbit of some kind, such as a probe orbiting Earth, or some other arrangement.

    I doubt that. The matter we are talking about is relatively late in the timeline of the Universe's evolution. We are at present only talking about supermassive objects, and I suspect anything detectable will be confined to a fairly recent date of genesis.

    You seem to be reading something else into gravity waves, but I'm not sure what it is. Obviously the detection of such waves confirms that the "action at a distance" thought to transmit in zero time, was not exactly correct. But of course Newton could not have predicted that light speed is finite, and/or that graviatational field radiation would require finite propagation delay. There just wasn't any evidence to suggest it. So he did the best thing any honest person would do--he didn't make something up! That left the question for another day, and that day arrived in the late 19th c. when folks began to realize that the speed of light is invariant in all reference frames. Fortunately Einstein paid heed to this when he began formulating the implication of SR on gravity, and he went back and updated the idea of gravity field radiation and/or wave propagation to include the new understanding that it transports energy in finite time.

    Hmm. The energy in the rotating object was imparted to it by the Big Bang itself, in whatever secondary kinds of angular momentum were still preserved as the matter that created the objected condensed/accreted and formed that object, and/or its orbiters which are causing the centroid to move away from the center of the object itself, giving it the harmonic motion that is necessarily attended by a gravity wave. It's Ok to think of it as an energy form, but it's only influential in it's own local area due to the rapid attenuation of the inverse square law. That means most gravity waves are weaker than very distant radio signals, so that amount of energy is typically infinitesimal for most observers. Incidentally, I vaguely remember a physics quiz question in which we were asked to compute the amplitude and wavelength of a gravity wave produced by a semi as it barrels down the highway at 70 mph, given the mass of the truck, its initial position and heading, and the observer's position.

    But I don't see any connection between this and the assumption made by Harmony about the timeline of the Universe, why "what is expanding is gravitational wave energy". What did you have in mind?
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Let me confirm that you are saying that the gravitational wave energy that affects Voyager is the net directional, time delayed gravitational wave energy emitted by the objects in space that are massive enough to have a meaningful effect on Voyager.

    My idea was to make Harmony's thread a learning experience, to the extent that what he posted could be improved by discussion, as opposed to reciting theory to him and telling him is wrong. I was going for letting him revise, and then retest his understanding, keeping him involved, and making a discussion happen that others may be interested in, contribute to, and learn from. That has not been your style; are you now a changed man, lol.

    You have been quite rude toward people who want have that type of discussion, and to me personally, with attacks, misrepresentations, general disparagement, without ever quoting what I said that set you off on me, or what makes you have to make me out to be the fool like in the last post you directed at me. Something justifies all of that disdain in your mind, and I don't have any interest to talk with you anymore because you have proven your nature and intentions toward me. I'm OK with that relationship. I'll leave Harmony to you and Origin, if he decides to come back.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Can I offer a comment???
    A couple of months ago, this forum, mainly the P+M section was absolutely inundated with alternative pseudoscientific and conspiracy rubbish.
    As admittedly being part of the problem as you see it, I along with everyone else was getting quite aggressive and angry....
    I copped a banning myself, but unlike the alternative/pseudoscience/conspiracy pusher, I copped it sweet, without any whinging and whining....
    Things have quietened down some, as a couple have been perm-banned.
    When these culprits come here, claiming 100% faitre complei certainty in their hypothesis, and calling mainstream intrangescent and close minded, insulting the greats of the present and passed, yeah, people get quiet short.
    They were firstly dishonest in posting in P+M, they were dishonest, in saying certain reputable people said certain things when that was not the case, they took others out of context, they called forumites dunces, and general insults about the knowledge of some.....So you tell me, who was being rude?

    I'm not particularly concerned with Harmony, he is no where near as bad as some have been.
    Tell me quantum wave, what are the chances of a science forum such as this, having three people, all claiming to have ToE's, two of them claiming all 20/21st century cosmology is wrong.
    I'm with Einstein when he said Imagination is more Important then knowledge, but in reality both go hand in hand.

    How do these people [the alternative, anti mainstream brigade] have the audacity to claim the knowledge that they do, and deride the current accepted models, when they are not able to access the LHC, RHIC, SLAC, world class telescopes, probes such as WMAP, Spitzer, Planck etc.

    Why not lecture them in your own words...You probably can do it far better then I, but please, you must be aware of what has been going on around here of late.
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Paddoboy, we are all different, we have different skill sets, and different knowledge sets. Being interested in cosmology for me means going where my skill set and knowledge set takes me. I spend hours every day at it, and have for years, it seems. I don't care where anyone else goes with their skills and knowledge. I learn from hundreds of people about every issue in cosmology that I'm interested in. If members want to know why I take a position, and I take hundreds of them that are all internally consistent and that are not inconsistent with scientific observations and data as far as I can tell, let them ask. You might have read a little of it, and might have noticed that I do not claim to have come up with anything that someone else didn't already come up with. I don't claim to be doing science, I don't pretend to be giving clues to the scientific community. I only claim to be evolving my own personal view of cosmology, as it satisfies me. I challenge members who take the time to read it to comment, correct, and suggest. I listen to everything and everyone, and if I can improve my model I do, and have been improving it for years, in my estimation. It is just not everyone's cup of tea, and most can and generally do ignore me by now. Fine, but I still am interested in learning and so I keep doing it.
     
  22. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    I did not intend to imply that gravitational waves are involved in the evolution of the early universe. The illustration of gravitational waves was just intended to show how the varying geometry of spacetime can be considered as a form of energy.

    The adoption of a conservation law which comprises mass, energy and spacetime curvature allows an evolutionary model which does not have the problem of the Big Bang theory where there is a huge violation of the law of conservation of energy at the Big Bang singularity.

    I will try to explain my conjecture of how the universe could evolve from a small spherical region of empty space with a spacetime boundary. The boundary of the universe is spherical and expanding. Going back in time the volume of the universe tends to zero as time tends to zero. Going forward in time the curvature of space within the boundary is also spherical with an increasing radius of curvature everywhere in space. Still just empty space at this stage with no matter or particles or photons.

    Now we apply the general relativity equation which relates a distribution of mass energy to the curvature of spacetime. The change in the curvature of spacetime as the universe expands must be balanced in this equation by the formation of mass and or energy.

    Now we have to turn to observation to try to deduce how the formation of mass energy could occur. Here we consider gamma ray bursts which represent huge bursts of gamma ray energy from around the time of galaxy formation. This suggests that the release of energy from the fabric of spacetime was sudden and explosive. This also ties in with the observation that galaxies contain a supermassive black hole which remains following the gamma ray burst. The energy released results in the formation of neutrons which decay to protons and electrons and form hydrogen atoms. This results in a hydrogen cloud within the halo of each galaxy.

    Expansion at the boundary of the universe is the ultimate cause of the expansion of space. The boundary recession speed is at the speed of light so the radius of the universe increases by one light year per year.

    The observations and measurement of star motion in galaxies which led to the proposal for the existence of dark matter is explained as the remaining hydrogen that has not condensed into stars. So visible stars represent less than 20 percent of the total mass of the galaxy.

    I need to take on board the comment by origin and go back and use the observed density of matter in the universe to estimate the age and the radius.

    Richard
     
  23. Harmony Harmony Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    Hi origin,

    As you suggested, I took a look at calculating the radius of the universe by using the density of matter in the universe.

    In the density we have a relationship between mass and radius and we also have a relationship between mass and radius in the Schwartzschild formula.

    Density (D) = Mass/Volume = Mass/(4/3)PI R^3
    The schwartzschild radius gives R = 2GM/c^2
    So eliminating M we have R^2 = 3c^2/(8 PI G D)

    I obtained the density estimate from the wikipedia source:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_the_universe
    the average density of ordinary matter in the Universe is believed to be 0.2 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre. The graphic suggests that if we include dark matter we should have a mass equivalent to 1.3 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre.

    Working through the calculation using the formula above, the density of 1.3 H atoms per cubic metre gives a radius of around 28 billion light years. The expansion assumption of 1 light year per year then gives the age of the universe as 28 billion years. The red shift measurements of galaxies indicate galaxy formation took place around 13 billion years ago. This implies a period of around 15 billion years during which the universe was empty and expanding before galaxy formation took place.

    I have not included dark energy in the calculation because dark energy is only there to explain the expansion of space and that is covered in this model by the expansion at the boundary.

    Richard
     

Share This Page