Spontaneous matter?

I cannot find a reference to it after a quick search, but I've heard it postulated that matter might be spontaneously appearing in the void as the universe expands. Is this in any way a viable theory?

Also, when we speak of the metric expansion of space, does it require energy to be considered measurable? In other words, if there were no matter, does the idea of the "metric expansion of space" have any meaning whatsoever?

Thx

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you talking about virtual particles?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think so; virtual particles don't "remain" as normal matter does, correct? I'm trying to remember what I read but the idea was that matter continues to come into existence in a manner similar to lava flow affecting plate tectonics on Earth. I want to know where on the scale of {complete refutable hogwash...plausible...accepted as fact} it lies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Virtual means undetectable. Virtual pairs can be separated and gain enough energy during the separation process to become real. Detectable. One way this is predicted is Hawking Radiation. The link is Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' [great book on the history of gravitational physics]. Page 441 Prof Thorne gives a description how virtuals can become real in the vicinity of a black hole. Page 439 is a better reference start page.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GzlrW6kytdoC&pg=PA412&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Spontaneous matter? . . . IMO, "YES" . . . not postulated, but "hypothesized" . . . At the risk of a moderator warning, or another ban . . . I refer you to related threads on the Alternative Theories forum

 

This was proposed as a way to have a steady state universe after it was shown that the universe is expanding right? Doesn't it violate conservation of energy?

 

I don't know if this was the cause for the proposal but I came to the same conclusion: that there would be no Big Bang to explain. I agree, it certainly does seem to violate conservation of energy which is why I'm asking how much credibility the idea has in the astrophysics community.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps matter is getting pushed to the edge of the universe and then popping back into itself, like one of those toy water-snakes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

View attachment 5888

 

(damn inline picture hassles)

 

Is there any chance at all that this thread could contain a little less wild speculation and a little more science at all?

 

The natural phenomena we call the CMBR is proof the universe is expanding. Along with a bunch of other stuff. You still find some fringe folks needing to resurrect the Fred Hoyle model or there version of it.

 

There is no science supporting any steady state, tired light, etc. models. This is the internet not a research group or university.

 

Uhh, so asking for the science isn't scientific enough for you? What the hell do you think the purpose of my thread is?

Ahh! Fred Hoyle, thanks so much BruceP, that's exactly who I was thinking of. It appears he did try to reconcile his steady-state universe with the conservation of energy.

It also appears that he was a bit on the fringe, as you suggested...

 

IMO: If one presupposes an "original energy" milieu (pre-universe?) that is thus far undetectible (in our universe), from which the detectible universe (mass AND subsequent energy forms) evolved, then the "original energy" is conserved . . . and that energy is simply (or complexly) transformed. This is a response to Prom's QUERY . . . not intended as a troll or advertisement. Send it to Alternative Theories, if you want . . . .

 

You believe in spontaneous formation of matter? For crying out loud, really?

 

Actually, Hoyle wasn't. He was a highly respected, mainstream astrophysicist. He developed the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis. He was just a strong proponent of the Steady State theory. He actually coined the term Big Bang, intending it to be prejorative. Ironically, it was his own nucleosynthesis which provided some of the strongest evidence for the BB, in the form of the predictions of primordial Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium.

 

Not necessarily "spontaneous" formation, but perhaps a consequence, under certain "conditions", of a subquantum cosmic process. BTW: Was HBB a 'spontaneous" event?

 

Although outside the field of cosmology and astrophysics he was quite a flake.

 

I would never consider Sir Fred Hoyle fringe. When the Steady State Model was proposed it was a viable model and conservation of energy is always important. I'd forgotten how he did it. He was a great cosmologist and contributed much to the science. My fringe comment was referring to more recent attempts after the 'horse is out of the barn'.

 

What is space in the absence of matter(and I guess you're also implying energy since they're dual aspects of the same thing?) Does it even make any sense? It sounds like the expansion of nothing in the absence of something that would make that "nothingness" to make sense...

 

I have no idea what "subquantum cosmic process" means. Mass formation would seem to violate the conservation of energy/mass no?

What is HBB?