|
|
Astronomy forums are FREE. If you wish to participate you must
LOGIN | REGISTER.
Origins of the Universe
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
Hello David
You are right, their is no one origin for the universe.
What needs to be discussed and focused on is the ongoing processes that enable star formation and galaxy evolution from one form to the next.
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
This link is quite interesting on Redshift and may spell the end of the Big Bang theory.
This is 20 pages long, so I will post the conclusions.
EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE — MISTAKE OF EDWIN HUBBLE? COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT AND RELATED ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN STATIC LOBACHEVSKIAN (HYPERBOLIC) UNIVERSE
http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol39/pdf/v39p1501.pdf Quote:
7. Conclusions and remarks
On the basis of a three-dimensional real Lobachevskian geometry, we presented a geometrical analysis from which cosmological red-shift and related phenomena follow in natural way. The presented equations give correct numerical values for their respective physical quantities. The new Eqs. (15) and (16) which relate red-shift to aberration might be useful in astronomical observations. Our presentation of Lobachevsky–Hubble cosmological redshift (5), the Lobachevskian–Doppler effect (7), and aberration was done in rigorous way on a purely geometrical basis of Lobachevskian three-dimensional real geometry with all entities clearly defined. At present, the widely adopted view explains cosmological red-shift using the vague concept of physical space inflation.
For example, observations tell us that space within galaxies, which are rather diffuse objects, do not expand. Thus, where is the “border line” in space which divides expanding space from non expanding space?
Next, we are told that inflation itself is due to some rather mysterious event, which was sarcastically named by Fred Hoyle (to ridicule the whole concept), as the big bang.
Instead, we offer an alternative solution based on simple Lobachevskian geometry. We believe that looking at experimental data and Eq. (5), a much simpler solution ( minimum complexity solution) is to admit that the space between distant sources and our spectrographs is negatively curved,i.e. it is a Lobachevskian three-dimensional space causing the recorded shifts. In other words what we see through our telescopes is the fundamental formula of Lobachevskian geometry: Eq. (3). Experiments confirm our model. From the analysis performed, the importance of the range of applicability of some mathematical notions follows. For example, someone who only saw a map of the Earth as in Fig. 2, and had no prior knowledge where this map came from, and what mechanism was used in mapping process, will in good faith believe that Greenland is as big as the USA. His or her conclusions about geography made from the istorted image will be necessarily false.
Similarly, making conclusions about the geography of the universe based on the so called “relativistic” formulas in the form of RHS expression in Eq. (7) (and Eq. (6) as well), is misleading since we did not know that we were looking at distorted formulas of a precise Eq. (3) of non-Euclidean geometry projected into Euclidean space–space in our vicinity! Conclusions based on a distorted formula will nevitably lead to the inconsistencies and/or paradoxes for projections from regions of high distances d ≃ 1 in space or high distances ≃ 1 in velocities space. Of course, as long as we stay “close to equator”, (which means going local, i.e. d ≪ 1, ≪ 1) distortion will be negligible within the required range of precision. Nevertheless we have to be aware that we are still dealing with the distorted images.This rises the serious question of applicability of the Special Relativity in the range d ≃ 1, ≃ 1. One may ask a legitimate question of how the experimentally detected cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is related to Lobachevbreak skian geometry (Lobachevskian universe)?
The answer is that in Lobachevskian space, CMBR is identified with the homogeneous space of horospheres which is dual [7,9] to Lobachevskian space. In our work [3] we showed that a horosphere in Lobachevskian space, as far as physics is concerned, is a surface of constant phase of an electromagnetichorospherical wave. In other words, it is a horospherical wavefront. Radiation represented by horospherical wavefronts homogeneously fills the entire Lobachevskian universe. Therefore, assuming a hyperbolic universe, we have to have CMBR with its properties of homogeneity and isotropy! It follows “automatically” from Lobachevskian geometry.
Horospherical waves are solutions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator (wave operator) in Lobachevskian space. Their properties are well known and well understood. Thus, there is entirely no need to associate CMBR with the big bang — an event which itself cannot be understood and deliberated in scientific terms. In Lobachevskian space filled only with radiation CMBR would be perfectlyisotropic. In the presence of matter however, which on local scales is distributed rather randomly, a small anisotropy in the properties of CMBR might be present due to local conditions. This was already recorded by COBE. More about the space of horospheres can be found in [7, 9].
The author wishes to acknowledge Vadim von Brzeski for his invaluable comments.
|
-
-
chipdatajeffB
 - Joined on 07-16-2002
- Dallas area, Texas
- Posts 7,268
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
Maybe, maybe not. But your cut-and-paste here copied in some formatting info that results in a long scrolling effort for readers.
Be kind, rewind ... please edit this into a more readable form.
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz
The next best thing is read the link
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
I came across these links and thought it maybe of interest to someone.
|
|
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4570
| The role of jets in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies | |
|
|
|
| Authors: V. Antonuccio-Delogu (Oxford and Catania), J. Silk (Oxford) |
| (Submitted on 27 Jun 2008 (v1), last revised 1 Jul 2008 (this version, v2)) |
|
| Abstract: (Abridged) We study the interaction of relativistic jets from AGNs with the ISM in their host galaxy, using a series of Adaptive Mesh Refinement simulations of the evolution of the interaction between the cocoon produced by the jet with a dense cloud, placed very near the cocoon's path. We vary only the jet's input power between P_{jet} = 10^{41}-10^{47} {\rm erg/sec}. The density Probability Distribution Function (PDF) within the cocoon can be described in terms of two distinct components, which are also spatially distinct: a low- and a high-density component. The PDF of the post-shocked region is well approximated by a modified lognormal distribution, for all values of $P_{jet}$. During the active phase, when the jet is fed by the AGN, the cloud is subject both to compression and stripping, which tend to increase its density and diminish its total mass. When the jet is switched off (i.e. during the passive phase) the shocked cloud cools further and tends to become more filamentary, under the action of a back-flow which develops within the cocoon. We study the evolution of the star formation rate within the cloud, assuming that is determined by a Schmidt-Kennicutt law, and we analyze the different physical factors which have an impact on the star formation rate. We show that, although the star formation rate can occasionally increase, on time scales of the order of $10^{5}-10^{6}$ yrs, star formation will be inhibited and the cloud fragments. The cooling time of the environment within which the cloud is embedded is however very long: thus, star formation from the fragmented cloud remains strongly inhibited. |
|
and
| http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0740 |
|
| AGN Jet-induced Feedback in Galaxies. I. Suppression of Star Formation | |
|
| Authors: Ralph E. Pudritz, Robi Banerjee, Rachid Ouyed |
| (Submitted on 4 Jul 2008 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2008 (this version, v2)) |
|
| Abstract: Astrophysical jets are associated with the formation of young stars of all masses, stellar and massive black holes, and perhaps even with the formation of massive planets. Their role in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies is increasingly appreciated and probably reflects a deep connection between the accretion flows - by which stars and black holes may be formed - and the efficiency by which magnetic torques can remove angular momentum from such flows. We compare the properties and physics of jets in both non-relativistic and relativistic systems and trace, by means of theoretical argument and numerical simulations, the physical connections between these different phenomena. We discuss the properties of jets from young stars and black holes, give some basic theoretical results that underpin the origin of jets in these systems, and then show results of recent simulations on jet production in collapsing star-forming cores as well as from jets around rotating Kerr black holes. |
| |
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzz
I have ben emailed by a few people to post more links.
One of the properties of compact matter is their abilty to form jets and these jets form quite frequently and different sizes. It is this property that will prevent the collapse to black holes only. We have millions of stellar black holes throughout the Milky Way and we have larger black holes from 20 to 1000's sun masses in globular star clusters. Swam of Very large BHs and a huge one at the centre.
Massive BHs exit in varies galaxies and are known to grow to 16 Billion times that of our Sun's mass
[astro-ph/0411099] Host Galaxy Evolution in Radio-Loud AGN
Host Galaxy Evolution in Radio-Loud AGN
[astro-ph/0409687] Evidence that powerful radio jets have a profound influence on the evolution of galaxies
Evidence that powerful radio jets have a profound influence on the evolution of galaxies
[astro-ph/0408555] Heating groups and clusters of galaxies: the role of AGN jets
Heating groups and clusters of galaxies: the role of AGN jets
It will take a few more years before we understand the workings of compact matter. The evidence from the LHC will help us determine the properties of the basic particles of matter and this may explain BHs.
What if there is no Origin but only a recycling process?
|
-
-
LouisB
- Joined on 09-05-2008
- Posts 11
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have theorized within the string framework that our universe exists as three-dimensional membrane that lies right next (less than a proton distance away) to another membrane. Every trillion years or so, the two membranes collide, unleashing a firestorm of energy analogous to the Big Bang. For simplicity, the researchers assumed that the branes were flat and parallel to each other. They also assumed that the branes contained no matter prior to the collision.
Again, this scenario echoes the predictions of conventional Big Bang cosmology, except that in the model proposed by Steinhardt and Turok, the story does not end there. In the far future, another three-dimensional world still lurks nearby, similarly emptied out after its encounter with ours, invisible and imperceptible to us. Although they bounced apart after the collision, the two branes will exert a force on each other that's analogous to gravity, and they will ultimately meet in another crash, triggering another Big Bang. The cycle of such collisions would be eternal.
The new idea was dubbed the ekpyrotic universe.
See http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok : I'm fully aware of their work. The problem they have is that that have a foot lock in the BBT. The BBT has too many problems. These cosmologists as a credit have admited to a cyclic process involving the BBT. This is a start in resolving many issues.
One needs to look at the workings of starformation and galaxy evolution and how compact matter plays part in a recycling process, that does not need any ad hoc ideas such as Dark Matter, dark energy and expanding universe. In addtion a cyclic process can explain all the observation. Keep it simple and observable.
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz
One of the key issues in main stream is that black holes only suck in matter without ejecting matter. Part of a recyling process is the abilty for a cyclic process and compact stars and black holes fit the bill by creating super jets that eject matter that aid in creating stars and reforming galaxies.
| http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510083 |
| Production and decay of evolving horizons |
|
| Authors: Alex B. Nielsen (University of Canterbury), Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington) |
| (Submitted on 18 Oct 2005 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2006 (this version, v3)) |
|
| Abstract: We consider a simple physical model for an evolving horizon that is strongly interacting with its environment, exchanging arbitrarily large quantities of matter with its environment in the form of both infalling material and outgoing Hawking radiation. We permit fluxes of both lightlike and timelike particles to cross the horizon, and ask how the horizon grows and shrinks in response to such flows. We place a premium on providing a clear and straightforward exposition with simple formulae. |
| To be able to handle such a highly dynamical situation in a simple manner we make one significant physical restriction, that of spherical symmetry, and two technical mathematical restrictions: (1) We choose to slice the spacetime in such a way that the space-time foliations (and hence the horizons) are always spherically symmetric. (2) Furthermore we adopt Painleve-Gullstrand coordinates (which are well suited to the problem because they are nonsingular at the horizon) in order to simplify the relevant calculations. |
| We find particularly simple forms for surface gravity, and for the first and second law of black hole thermodynamics, in this general evolving horizon situation. Furthermore we relate our results to Hawking's apparent horizon, Ashtekar et al's isolated and dynamical horizons, and Hayward's trapping horizons. The evolving black hole model discussed here will be of interest, both from an astrophysical viewpoint in terms of discussing growing black holes, and from a purely theoretical viewpoint in discussing black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation. |
|
-
-
orion723
- Joined on 03-04-2007
- Napa
- Posts 4
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
I thought about this too. It seems like scientist now a days are making their research fit to the Big Bang theory. The cyclic theory seemed more reasonable to me since it actually explain where the Big Bang came from (the last) And the Big Bang theory practically just says that out of the no where from all these chemical there was a big explosion and this is just one of the things I'm talking about where scientist say something to MAKE it fit. That just doesn't make a lot of sence to me. I definitly think we should keep on researching on a better theory then just trying to MAKE something fit into the idea that seems the best for us.
|
-
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Is Redshift accurate, have we been lead in the wrong direction?
This is quite interesting link
| http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4085 |
|
| A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics |
|
| Authors: R. Gray, J. Dunning-Davies |
| (Submitted on 25 Jun 2008) |
|
| Abstract: The interpretation of redshift in cosmology and astronomy yields a great deal of information about the universe in which we live, but much controversy surrounds the correct interpretation of the phenomenon. This article discusses the history of the redshift, and how its interpretation varies between different cosmological theories, including the Big Bang theory and some of its most famous rivals, the Steady State theory and Tired Light theory, and aims to highlight a few of the problems still existing. Some notions not normally associated with astronomy and astrophysics are mentioned also in the hope that a somewhat broader view of this important topic may be investigated. |
|
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Every time I come across a paper of interest I post it.
If these papers have no interest please let me know and I will stop posting.
The more we observe the better we can explain the workings of stars and the universe.
| http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4815 |
| Aspherical Properties of Hydrodynamics and Nucleosynthesis in Jet-induced Supernovae |
|
| Authors: Nozomu Tominaga |
| (Submitted on 29 Nov 2007 (v1), last revised 26 Aug 2008 (this version, v2)) |
|
| Abstract: Jet-induced supernovae (SNe) have been suggested to occur in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and highly-energetic SNe (hypernovae). I investigate hydrodynamical and nucleosynthetic properties of the jet-induced explosion of a population III $40_\odot$ star with a two-dimensional special relativistic hydrodynamical code. The abundance distribution after the explosion and the angular dependence of the yield are obtained for the models with high and low energy deposition rates $\dot{E}_{\rm dep}=120\times10^{51} {\rm ergs s^{-1}}$ and $1.5\times10^{51} {\rm ergs s^{-1}}$. The ejection of Fe-peak products and the fallback of unprocessed materials in the jet-induced SNe account for the abundance patterns of the extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars. It is also found that the peculiar abundance pattern of a Si-deficient metal-poor star HE 1424--0241 is reproduced by the angle-delimited yield for $\theta=30^\circ-35^\circ$ of the model with $\dot{E}_{\rm dep}=120\times10^{51} {\rm ergs s^{-1}}$. Furthermore, I compare the yield of the jet-induced explosion with that of the spherical explosion and confirm the ejection and fallback in the jet-induced explosion is almost equivalent to the "mixing-fallback" in spherical explosions. In contrast to the spherical models, however, the high-entropy environment is realized in the jet-induced explosion and thus [(Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Zn)/Fe] are enhanced. The enhancements of [Sc/Fe] and [Ti/Fe] improve agreements with the abundance patterns of the EMP stars. |
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzz
Please do not email me, if you wish to discuss the topic. Share it within this forum.
If this link is a repeat,,,,,,,,,,,its an oops
| http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2965 |
| Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe |
|
| Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma |
| (Submitted on 18 Jan 2008) |
|
| Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts. |
| The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe. |
|
-
-
brooksquest
- Joined on 09-23-2004
- Posts 120
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
Harry and others, I guess I am what you would call a universal naturalist. I look at the universe on a cosmological scale and like to compare it to simple things in nature to see if anything matches. If we consider the natural "birds and the bees" concept and look at the universe we do see some interesting items. Reproduction is a huge piece of the "life" puzzle here on Earth. Does the universe have any means of reproduction? If any of you think a reproductive universe is non-scientific then you might also think that humans can't be scientific because we reproduce. All kidding aside, Black Holes, Galactic Centers, and especially those wonderful Quasars, are perhaps the reproductive "organs" of the universe. The missing link for Humans is hard enough for us to trace, but I think the "new matter" missing link for the quasi-steady state theory of the universe is quite easy to understand and observe. The JETS we see from these objects clearly show a recycling or perhaps a rebirth of matter being fed back into the cosmos. For all the Big Bang die hards: Your theory is dying... if you don't believe it... ponder the existence and characteristics of any giant elliptical galaxy. Think about this but for a moment and you should don your appropriate mourning attire. Cheers, BQ
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day
Brooksquest said
"The JETS we see from these objects clearly show a recycling or perhaps a rebirth of matter being fed back into the cosmos".
Thats about right. We understand the quantum physics of matter and the phases that is able to to change into,
New matter cannot be created from nothing.
New matter from degenerate matter is possible.
|
-
-
porcupinehill
- Joined on 01-30-2001
- Posts 226
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
 brooksquest:
Harry and others,
I guess I am what you would call a universal naturalist. I look at the universe on a cosmological scale and like to compare it to simple things in nature to see if anything matches. If we consider the natural "birds and the bees" concept and look at the universe we do see some interesting items. Reproduction is a huge piece of the "life" puzzle here on Earth. Does the universe have any means of reproduction? If any of you think a reproductive universe is non-scientific then you might also think that humans can't be scientific because we reproduce. All kidding aside, Black Holes, Galactic Centers, and especially those wonderful Quasars, are perhaps the reproductive "organs" of the universe. The missing link for Humans is hard enough for us to trace, but I think the "new matter" missing link for the quasi-steady state theory of the universe is quite easy to understand and observe. The JETS we see from these objects clearly show a recycling or perhaps a rebirth of matter being fed back into the cosmos.
Your argument is aesthetically pleasing BQ. We humans look for repeating patterns everywhere.
In physics this trait can be both an asset and a detriment. Einstein thought as you did and his wonderful, sucessful theories of relativity both arose from simple and asthetically pleasing patterns.
However his taste for this sort of thing kept him from accepting (partly his own) quantum theory (which we all agree is just too bizarre to be seen among the birds and bees). This (many believe) doomed is his work on a unified field theory. He was basically laughed at from 1940 to his death in part becasue he refused to accept ideas outside his sense of aesthetics
So cosmic reproduction?... well..as you say it is an aesthetically pleasing and familiar pattern...but lots of pleasing theories have turned out not to agree with observation.
Q. If jets are the replenishing source in a SS universe how do you deal with the fact that Jets were much more prevelent in the distant past? Are we coasting on a past surplus of matter? Has OMEC reduced production to prop up prices? (sorry)
brooksquest:
For all the Big Bang die hards: Your theory is dying... if you don't believe it... ponder the existence and characteristics of any giant elliptical galaxy. Think about this but for a moment and you should don your appropriate mourning attire.
Perhaps BQ but the overwhelming opinion in physics is that the problems with BB theory are smaller than the things about it that agree with observation and previous theory (recall GR predicted BB cosmology before it had been hypothisized). I will not write it off yet. It may change...It may ultimately be quite different than any version out there now...but I believe that the dominant cosmological theory in 2108 and 2508 will still be something like the Big Bang. (IMHO)
PH
|
-
-
Harry Costas
- Joined on 04-05-2008
- Posts 103
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
porcupinhill said
"but I believe that the dominant cosmological theory in 2108 and 2508 will still be something like the Big Bang. (IMHO)"
You can believe anything you want. Just as long as you can support it with observations and science.
This is an interesting link
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm
One of the main reasons for supporting the BBT is that its named as the standard model and most journals and media think along those lines.
We live in the modern era that requires evidence based on observations and science and not on ad hoc ideas that cannot explain the observations.
|
-
-
brooksquest
- Joined on 09-23-2004
- Posts 120
|
Re: Origins of the Universe
PH, We observe more Quasars farther away (older) because there is more to look at the farther out we look. The closest is about 700 million LY away (pretty young). The oldest are at the edge of our visual limit 10 to 20 BLY away (and old). Look for new galaxies forming and there might be one there. Quantum Theories are for people who are afraid to go outside and look at big things. Einstein was ridiculed more for his "He doesn't play dice" reasoning for not accepting QT as the final answer. Consider this for a sec: If the universe is truly infinite, then everything we can observe from here, IS, relatively "quantum" to the universe as a whole. Mind blowing huh>? Our and Einstein's problems do not arise from aesthetics, they arise from trying to find the first anything and everything that ever was. This uncontrolled curiosity does not meant that we will find a beginning to the universe or that we have found it already. More later, BQ
|
-
|