I'm reading "The Red Limit" by Timothy Ferris and he brings up the now late Steady State Theory.
Of course it violates a few laws of physics, but are there any ideas out there now-a-days that are similar to the SSU?
Order of Dr. Kilopi
I'm reading "The Red Limit" by Timothy Ferris and he brings up the now late Steady State Theory.
Of course it violates a few laws of physics, but are there any ideas out there now-a-days that are similar to the SSU?
Banned
By steady state do you mean... not expanding?
And or does that include Not having evolving galaxies?
-MT
I havent read the book.
Established Member
To crosscountry
I posted an article here on a SSU. It is lost back in time. Search could bring it up.
My SSU does not violate any laws of physics which the BB does.
The 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy' imply that matter always existed and subsequently, there was no beginning or end to the universe.
To MT
In a SSU, galaxies eventually evaporate as the stars onviously age.
New galaxies reform from the gigantic intergalactic gases.
cyrek
Established Member
How does an SSU avoid turning into either iron or positronium. The former an artifact of stellar cooking; the latter an artifact of unbridled cosmological expansion.Originally Posted by cyrek1
Established Member
Or, for that matter, how does it contend with becoming increadibly HOT?
Order of Dr. Kilopi
see, in the SSU, galaxies reach the horizon of sight. After a long time the expansion is so great that the far away galaxies cannot send light to reach us, the ovservers. that way the universe doesn't get hot but stays an average temp/mass
conservation of energy is not violated (well, locally it isn't. I'm still trying to understand how this idea ever got past conservation of energy)
Established Member
Warning: Ignorance ahead.
I don't understand the question about why the universe wouldn't be "hot" if it were steady-state. It seems to me that energy would simply radiate away into infinite space, often getting itself caught up in matter as the opportunities arise. If it really were a problem, wouldn't we, being so (astronomically-speaking) near so many other stars and our own galactic core, be baking away under the massive onslaught? Couldn't a similar question be posed about gravity? If this were a steady-state universe, why aren't we all one big blob of mass floating somewhere?
I'm not arguing - I'm saying I don't understand the issue. Care to inform the uninitiated?
Sincerely,
Derrick Baumer
Established Member
Well, if SSU doesn't have an expansion factor, then infrared radiation (heat) would be produced by all of the stars and planets. This radiation would spread out across the universe in all directions, never to 'cool' off...
Order of Dr. Kilopi
I belive there are higher levels of SSU that find ways around the heat.
SSU says the universe is expanding and that at a cetain point those galaxies too far away just dissapear. New ones arise elsewhere in space.
Established Member
Several points:
QSSC, is quasi-steady state cosmology. It is a theory that describes an occilating universe, expanding and contracting every 40 Gyrs or so. Galaxies do not disapear (that happens in the big bang umodel).
There are othere steady state universe models (very few these days) where there is no expansion (Cold Creation is one of those).
The laws of physics do not brake down in steady state models. They all break down in big bang type models, however.
There is no heat problem. The only heat problem occurs in BB models, at t = 0.
QSSC is not yet dead, Fred Hoyle is, and so its main support beam.
Cold Creation theory is not a quasi-steady state model. It clearly defines a universe (the one in which we live) that neither expands or collapses.
cc
Order of Dr. Kilopi
well, I'm in favor of theories that show expansion since that would agree with observation.
some Steady State Theories incorporate expansion and even acceleration.
Banned
Steady state, is Nonsense...
Entropy is LAW... and it says everything winds down and gets messy... and messier... and just decays back down the ground level, from which is was risin from.
Everything decays.. And that goes for space as well.
-MT
Order of Dr. Kilopi
I always hated Chemistry... entropy is why.
Order of Kilopi
You're referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics - which deals with Entropy and states that the entropy of the universe increases in a spontaneous process. By definition, the higher the randomness of a system, the greater its Entropy. So the second law essentially says that the universe tends toward disorder.
However, I don't like the use of the word "spontaneous" in these textbook definitions. Whether or not a reaction is spontaneous depends upon the conditions under which it occurs - such as temperature.
Hydrogen will not fuse into Helium under normal temperature and pressure conditions on Earth. But the core of a star is a nice high temperature pressure cooker for making helium out of hydrogen. That reaction is spontaneous under those circumstances, but in chemistry terms you've produced heavier elements from lighter ones and thus decreased the entropy of the universe. So a reaction can be spontaneous under certain conditions and not increase the entropy of the universe.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that it is appropriate to apply the 2nd law - which was derived from considering chemical reactions in the 19th century to the universe as a whole. It makes sense when you're talking about small systems that don't have outside energy sources. Such systems will tend toward disorder or run down. But the universe? On what timescale?
Order of Kilopi
Don't hate chemistry because of entropy. Hate chemistry because of kinetics!!
(Actually don't hate chemistry at all - but if you're going to insist then kinetics seems like a much better reason.)
Banned
Dgruss23:
yes.. which is my basic arguement against fusion.. i.e.. we can do it.. but it require alot of work to do so... ie.. by the application of energy we can make things happen in reverse to universal law... opposite to Entropy.
thus my argument is.. we can make it happen... but like cleaning our room, it takes work to do so. and we don't get it back.. but we do end up with a clean room, or the joys of having made helium.. since we all like balloons.
-MT
Established Member
It is probably best to leave the term "Steady State Universe" to mean the Hoyle-Narlikar theory wherein the universe appears to stay the same over time, but is nonetheless expanding. For your non-expanding (also non-contracting) universe, I would use either "static universe", "stationary universe" or, referring to Toivo Jaakkola's work, "Equilibrium Cosmology" (EC). There was a recent discussion on the static universe (SU) in this forum. Some basic ideas about it can be seen in my opening post in that thread.
I would add that the Hoyle-Narlikar SSU is somewhat implausible, calling as it does for the formation of hydrogen in interstellar space. In SU, the formation of new H can potentially (and more reasonably) be placed within or near black hole-like galactic cores.
Order of Dr. Kilopi
good distinction
Established Member
So you're applying a definition of entropy based solely on chemistry to nuclear reactions? Obviously the result of that will have no meaning.
Four protons move through different steps to the lower energy state of a helium nucleus, releasing energy and particles in the process. Would you say entropy decreases here?
Entropy has since been defined in terms of quantum physics and applies very well.Frankly, I'm not convinced that it is appropriate to apply the 2nd law - which was derived from considering chemical reactions in the 19th century to the universe as a whole.
Outside energy sources for the universe? I think I have read that changing curvature of space and expansion can possibly have the effect of an energy source. As for the timescale for a freely running down universe, there's a summary on Wikipedia.It makes sense when you're talking about small systems that don't have outside energy sources. Such systems will tend toward disorder or run down. But the universe? On what timescale?
Established Member
cyrek reply
Before I say anything further, I want to clarify that a SSU is flat space.
No expansion or contraction. Space is infinite but the SS matter Universe is not.
The redshift of the light is caused by the light pulses expanding, not space.
Gourdhead
The BB is supposedly 13.7 billion years old. There were billions of blue giant stars that have ceased to exist during this interim. Iron cores would be the remains of these stars because that is the end product of fusion. Where are they? Have you read any reports of these remains? Black holes are supposed to be the end product, instead of iron cores.
In a SSU, you do not see these end products for the same reason you do not see them in this supposed BB concept.
I don't believe in blsck holes either. In the galaxy cores, neutron star congregates create the supposed black holes because their mass is enhanced by coulomb forces to create the illusion that black holes exist.
The final produxtt in a SSu is the neutron stars.
Travis
I explained this heat problem by showing that the photons expand intrinsically to beyond radio wavelenghts to oblivian. These photon endings, may they rest in peace, are replaced by the new photons created by the newly forming stars. So you have a balanced state of heat energy also.
crosscountry
See 1st paragraph.
Order of Dr. Kilopi
This isn't the Steady State that I was referring to. I'm not sure I like your's as much.
Banned
Cyrek1:
So what happens when we end up with a universe full of just nuetrons stars and black holes? and or dwarfs???
do they just blow up into solar systems again.?? hea.. i like that idea.
fits right into my theory. except for the infinite space, and recycling nuetron stars.
i say they get one shot.. 2 if they are lucky..
and thats ok.. cause one day, we will be able to move stars, and we can build our own designer solar systems, with spare stars on our solar system border, ready for ignition and burning, once our star runs dry...
thus we need only build a new star to survive, every 12 billion years of so.
-MT
Established Member
So these new galaxies are just created out of nothing? Where does the mass come from?
No, they can't receed too far to be seen. Nothing can outrun light, after all.
Established Member
When you have a non-expanding, non-contracting universe, you have to make it infinite in space because gravitational equilibrium between masses keeps it all balanced. If space is finite, then mass must be finite. In that case, it will either continue expanding forever or, if there is enough mass and therefore gravity to overcome the expansion velocity, will begin to contract until all matter is again in one place.
A singularity.
Order of Dr. Kilopi
you are WRONG about that. My memory doesn't serve me well enough right now to find my sources, but what you said isn't true.
Established Member
To MT
What makes you think neitron stars are permanent objects?
All nuclei in matter have a mix of protons and neutrons. Once the neutron content exceeds a value of about 1-1/2 the proton content, the matter slowly decays. I cannot see how neutron stars can be composed of nothing but neutrons.
I consider the GRB's as the products of neutron star decay. These GRB's exist by the zillions in the universe. Neutron star decay is the obvious cause.
Faultline
Matter does not necassarily have to extend to infinity with space. The gravitational attraction of matter wins the 'tug of war' with the space vacuum. so mass can be finite in an infinite space.
cyrek
Established Member
Well, the streaching photons to oblivion thing: How is that consistant with conservation of energy?
Established Member
Wrong about which part?
Member
How would light pulses expanding account for acceleration? Have we been able to explicitly see light expansion in a lab?
How does SSU account for CMB? And does it claim that scientists have grossly misinterpreted COBE and WMAP data? If so, how do SSU proponents interpret it so it better fits those observations? What fatal problem do they see in the mainstream cosmological model that are not being addressed as we speak that their theory explains?
Again, this was WMAP data interpretation. What's your alternative the fits the exact same data?
But what happens when a neutron star is past the critical mass of supporting itself? I refer you to Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps for a thorough explanation of why it is foolish to claim that neutron stars are the end of the road.
Is this consistent with CMB data? Does it explain that data better than current models?
Order of Dr. Kilopi
there are galaxies that are accelerating away from us so that we cannot see them. they are past our horizon. eventually all galaxies will do the same, and we'll be left alone.
light cannot outrun the acceleration of the Universe
Posting Permissions
