# Thread: Solving the entropy problem

1. ## Solving the entropy problem

Many advocates of General Relativity and Big Bang Theory are dedicated to the position that space and time originated with the big bang. Though many of them say that we can’t know anything about conditions before the big bang, they are comfortable that the big bang came from nothing. There was no space. There was no time. All there was at that instant was an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense, infinitely curved (or closed) singularity, something that didn’t exist in space or time until the instant of the big bang.

According to the theory, the big bang could and did occur without space or time, and allows for space-time to originate at the instant of the big bang.

Theoretically if neither space nor time is necessary for the big bang itself to occur, it is logical for the big bang to be making its own space-time as it expands.

But on the other hand, before the instant of the big bang can you logically deduce that there was no space; that there was no time?

As the big bang universe expands, the density is said to be thinning and the curvature is said to be flattening. Current estimates show that the expansion of the known universe is accelerating and if that is the case it is "open" or "flat" as opposed to "closed" and will expand forever.

I can’t see how the known universe, or any observations, or any evidence would be any different if space and time did exist before the big bang.

But I can see how increasing entropy in the expanding big bang universe would eventually cause it to cool and disburse until no life could exist.

Even though this severe entropy isn’t likely to occur for billions and billions of years, I am concerned about it.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

Maybe it isn’t that way.

Here’s why I say that.

Maybe there is a grander universe in which our big bang is playing out. As the big bang expands it will merge and mingle with the greater universe from which it came. As it merges and mingles it will bring an influx of new useable energy to be disbursed across a great expanse of the greater universe solving the problem of increasing entropy.

Maybe our big bang universe came from a big crunch in the grander universe; a big crunch that consolidated all of the cold matter and un-useful energy from a large area or arena in the greater universe. Gravity consolidated all of that matter and energy into an infinitely dense mass that then triggered the big bang.

Maybe big crunches and big bangs are commonplace in the greater universe.

The big bang universe expands right back into the greater universe and brings to it a new influx of useable energy which solves the entropy problem. Our big bang infusion will be spread out and shared across a great expanse of the greater universe before it eventually gets crunched piecemeal into innumerable other big crunches taking place over trillions and trillions of years across trillions and trillions of light years in the space-time of the greater universe.

The greater universe would be relativistic, infinite, flat, homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale; matter and vacuum energy would be in balance and infinite, the cosmological constant would be at critical density; the greater universe would have always existed, and because entropy would be solved will be able to support life forever.

There, now I feel better.

2. Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity

"Ironically, it is possible that if more people understood what cosmologists really believe they know about the early universe, the standard Hot Big Bang theory would not attract so much psuedoscientific "critiques".... But this theory does not say what many noncosmologists think it does--- the real theory makes far less grandiose claims than bad popularizations tend to suggest, and at the same time, is far better supported by a tremendous body of interlocking chains of evidence than most people realize."

Originally Posted by Bogie
Even though this severe entropy isn’t likely to occur for billions and billions of years, I am concerned about it.
Well, I wouldn't be too concerned. Billions and billions doesn't quite cover it. As it appears, the universe as we know it is a bit over 10 billion years old. The human species has existed for about .00004 of that history. It is probably more like hundreds of billions of years for entropy to finally prevail. Theoretically. To see what scientists who have given these ideas a lot of thought, read Weinberg's The First Three Minutes and then read Paul Davies The Last Three Minutes.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
981
Bogie,

Here is the explanation for what you are saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question

4. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
1,005
Physics, as we know it, falls apart at the big bang. It is interesting to discuss, but inherently impossible [IMO], to testably describe the properties of this universe prior to the BB.

5. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,540
Originally Posted by Bogie

Theoretically if neither space nor time is necessary for the big bang itself to occur, it is logical for the big bang to be making its own space-time as it expands.

Maybe our big bang universe came from a big crunch in the grander universe; a big crunch that consolidated all of the cold matter and un-useful energy from a large area or arena in the greater universe. Gravity consolidated all of that matter and energy into an infinitely dense mass that then triggered the big bang.

Maybe big crunches and big bangs are commonplace in the greater universe.

The big bang universe expands right back into the greater universe and brings to it a new influx of useable energy which solves the entropy problem. Our big bang infusion will be spread out and shared across a great expanse of the greater universe before it eventually gets crunched piecemeal into innumerable other big crunches taking place over trillions and trillions of years across trillions and trillions of light years in the space-time of the greater universe.

The greater universe would be relativistic, infinite, flat, homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale; matter and vacuum energy would be in balance and infinite, the cosmological constant would be at critical density; the greater universe would have always existed, and because entropy would be solved will be able to support life forever.

There, now I feel better.
It is very interesting problem. According to WMAP observations is something strange in a polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation . It suggests that this radiation have had a certain direction at the very beginning and there was a certain volume at this beginning.

There are two possibilities :
A. The space exploded at the very beginning faster then light for a small fraction of the second– so called space inflation.
B. The eternal energy was concentrated and transformed into a matter in a certain volume and then expanded according to Hubble.

Your idea is similar to “B”. I do not know if our instruments can verify if the Big Bang started from zero volume with a rapid space inflation like “A” or there was a transformation in a certain volume like “B” and then the expansion without a mysterious space inflation.

6. Cougar, thanks for the great link, and I would agree that I might be getting concerned too soon. Your time frame of hundreds of billions of years for entropy to finally prevail is comforting , and completely acceptable.

I will be taking a look at your suggested sources to see what scientists say who have given these ideas a lot of thought (Weinberg's The First Three Minutes and then read Paul Davies The Last Three Minutes).

Bob Angstrom, you know what? I appreciate having Asimov’s book brought to my attention, but darn it, I read the clip in Wiki and it ruined the ending, lol.

The last line in the book, “And there was light—" does tie a lot of concepts into the mix.

I’m not intending to discuss religion or less specifically God, but it is hard to contemplate the universe without considering the concept. I only mention this because until now I have been posting at IIDB, the secular web. Any discussion not in line with naturalism and a “closed” universe is quickly squashed; but that is alright, it is what they are about. I’m glad I came across ATM.

Thanatos, I agree that anything before or beyond the big bang cannot be known and speculations in that realm are not testable, and therefore are not addressed by science. But you hit the nail on the head when you said they are interesting to discuss.

To me, the possibility of a greater universe is not far fetched. I discuss it from the point of view that I can’t prove it, but it is interesting to me to describe what I think it would be like. It would be interesting to me to hear what others think could realistically be “before” and “beyond” the big bang, if anything.

Czeslaw, Actually I don’t have a problem with the inflationary scenario. I refer to it as follows: “The exponential expansion is determined by the distance that the particle horizon must have expanded in the first second to maintain the causal connection to the detected particle horizon some 13.7 billion years after the big bang.” This is probably not very accurate but it leaves open the possibility that there really is no causal connection to the big bang without inflation.

It use to be that I even had problems with the big bang, let alone inflation. I remember laughing when I first heard the inflation scenario. But after a few years of casual study I find discussing the universe within the context of General Relativity, the cosmological principle, and big bang theory pretty satisfying.

Your mention of WMAP and something strange in a polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a good example. WMAP findings can support the big bang, or they can be inconclusive, depending on many factors that are not necessarily pure science like funding, peer relationships, common sense and speculation into areas that science will not go.

7. Originally Posted by Cougar
Well, I wouldn't be too concerned. Billions and billions doesn't quite cover it. As it appears, the universe as we know it is a bit over 10 billion years old. The human species has existed for about .00004 of that history. It is probably more like hundreds of billions of years for entropy to finally prevail. Theoretically. To see what scientists who have given these ideas a lot of thought, read Weinberg's The First Three Minutes and then read Paul Davies The Last Three Minutes.
I got both books from Amazon used book links, and they are good reading. Slightly dated, i.e. the editions I received were written in 1994, but that is good in a way. There is so much new theory since then that one can forget that we are still talking general relativity and the cosmological principle as the mainstream.

Davies quickly addressed the expanding universe and entropy in the first chapter of The Last Three Minutes. The way he put it was that if the universe is a closed system, thermodynamic equilibrium (or maximum entropy) seems inescapable. He went on to say that this “final cosmic heat death not only says something about the future of the universe but also implies something important about the past. It is clear that if the universe is irreversibly running down at a finite rate, then it cannot have existed forever.” He finishes the thought by saying, “In other words, the universe must have come into existence a finite time ago.”

He has used the two “ifs” that the standard cosmology uses, and for good reason. The first “if” is “if the universe is a closed system in a thermo dynamical sense”, and the second “if” is “if the universe has not suffered complete entropy yet, it must have come into existence a finite time ago”. Both “ifs” are the ultimate conclusions from observation and from the existing evidence. We just can’t justify making the leap to speculations beyond the evidence because no proof is possible.

So the playing field for the standard cosmology is a thermo dynamically closed system that tends toward complete entropy in which no life can exist, and that closed system (our known big bang universe) had to have a beginning, otherwise complete entropy would have already occurred.

In the late chapters Davies offers a glimmer of hope by discussing various alternative cosmologies like bubble universes and cyclical universes, but ultimately he concludes that if there is a purpose for it all, and if the purpose were to be fulfilled, then coming to an end would be a fitting conclusion to the fulfillment of purpose. And on the other hand, if the universe endures forever it is hard to imagine that there is any ultimate purpose to the universe at all.

My speculation about solving the entropy problem, i.e. “maybe big crunches and big bangs are commonplace in the greater universe”, does nothing to solve the “purpose” problem.

That problem has to be solved individually.

However, I peronally would rather live in a universe that could exist forever by solving the entropy problem, than to discover that there was a purpose that I might not find satisfying, .
Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Apr-07 at 02:07 AM.

8. Originally Posted by Bogie
Davies quickly addressed the expanding universe and entropy in the first chapter of The Last Three Minutes....
Thanks for the memory refresher and review!

9. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Did I read something about "purpose"? The universe exhibits exquisite purpose. It is all around you but you have to understand it as "purpose" rather than "end".

10. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
Why do we insist on assigning human characteristics to nature???

Existence and reactions from all the processes that exist in nature are it's only real attributes. Any kind of "Purpose" we try to impose on it, is just our own egocentic delusionalism.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Maybe I'm egocentrically deluded, but it seems to me that nature imposes its purpose on me (and maybe somebody else too). The feeling gets stronger when googling the etymology of "nature" and "purpose".

There doesn't seem to be any evidence for universal entropy - the evidence seems to be that there is a continual galactic-scale recycling operation in process, in which omelets of matter are turned into eggs (stars). (And maybe where eggs are fresh-hatched out of dark matter?)

12. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
Originally Posted by ngeo
Maybe I'm egocentrically deluded, but it seems to me that nature imposes its purpose on me (and maybe somebody else too). The feeling gets stronger when googling the etymology of "nature" and "purpose".

There doesn't seem to be any evidence for universal entropy - the evidence seems to be that there is a continual galactic-scale recycling operation in process, in which omelets of matter are turned into eggs (stars). (And maybe where eggs are fresh-hatched out of dark matter?)
Well, I suppose that survival is a pupose, but then again, that's just the "Nature" of the beast!

As for your second paragraph, and in answer to Bogie's entropy problem, Again, Yes...new galaxies are being made daily, it just takes about 200 + million years to be able to see the new stars created in them...ie I Zwicky 18

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new...004/35/image/a

13. ## Cosmic 'eggtropy'?

Originally Posted by Bogie
So the playing field for the standard cosmology is a thermo dynamically closed system that tends toward complete entropy in which no life can exist, and that closed system (our known big bang universe) had to have a beginning, otherwise complete entropy would have already occurred.
This is to me perhaps the strongest reason to consider a Big Bang beginning of our universe, that the universe cannot be infinitely old if entropy is real, though it remains 'untestable' in that we cannot telescope universal 'entropy' forward or backwards hundreds of billion years to prove otherwise. It may not be 'proof' of Big Bang, since we can't possibly test for the first and last three minutes, it nevertheless furthers the discussion of its possibility. I.e., It could have happened, same as our universe bubble being within the bubble of a greater bubble universe could be how it now happening, maybe.

In the later
Originally Posted by ngeo
Maybe I'm egocentrically deluded, but it seems to me that nature imposes its purpose on me (and maybe somebody else too). The feeling gets stronger when googling the etymology of "nature" and "purpose".

There doesn't seem to be any evidence for universal entropy - the evidence seems to be that there is a continual galactic-scale recycling operation in process, in which omelets of matter are turned into eggs (stars). (And maybe where eggs are fresh-hatched out of dark matter?)
This could be true if, and here we invoke again that big "if", for the sake of discussion, if the universe recreates energy on a continual galactic scale through new star formation. But such energy creation may have to invoke one more 'energy' source to convert dead hydrogen atoms into hot stars, to avoid creating something out of nothing. That additional energy, if it is doing this to reverse entropy, would come from gravity, but only "if" this gravity was greater in galactic space than we now assume it to be (invoking 'dark matter' again?). If not greater, then entropy is inevitable, but "if" greater, then the additional force needed to smash these hydrogen clouds into combustion fusion would have to come from greater gravity. This may be what is missing in the 'entropy' equation, though at this time we do not know if this is how the eggs are fried. Of course, all this becomes moot if cosmic light redshift is for any reason other than 'Doppler expansion' effect, meaning the universe is only illusionary. It may have fooled us into thinking it is expanding, leaving us with cosmic egg on our face, per our thinking Clausius's cosmic 'eggtropy'.

BTW, I like my eggs easy over.

14. This is a very interesting discussion. I have a few points though. We keep discussing whats "bigger" - our universe is in a greater universe and so on, but how can we possibly know what scale of the universe WE live in...ie. we know of photons , neutrinos, quarks and so on, how do we know that they too dont have whole universes inside them? How can we possibly know if we are on the bigger scale of things or on the smaller scale of things in a MUCH greater universe. Our universe could be similar to an electron (or even smaller) in a bigger universe. It could even be a collision of two of these particles that we call our universe that caused the big bang. Maybe if we took ALL of the matter and energy in our observable universe and collapsed it - then that would be one of these enormous particles, that collided with another one, and exploded into our universe...(giant black holes flying around? Not so far fetched if you ask me)

If there were whole universes inside photons, and if things lived there..intelligent things, if would be impossible for them to ponder the concept of other photons(and their function in OUR universe), let alone us humans, and an even bigger universe that we live in. Similar to how we are trying to ponder the idea of an even bigger universe.

This is pretty much what we are doing in this thread. "what if our universe is in an even bigger universe"...well whats "outside" of that universe, an even bigger one, and an even BIGGER one after that? where does all of this stop? This can be said about smaller things aswell. But maybe, just maybe the big and small things link up at some point. As in if we "zoom in" then we see the universe(stars and galaxies), and if we "zoom out" then we see the photons again. Like a loop - wouldnt that be weird.

And think about it, if tomorrow "someone" comes to us and gives us the answer to how our universe started...what would that change? we still would not be able to do anything with that knowledge. Yes it woud be taught in schools, but a few generations later, it will be nothing special. Life would go on.

As for the purpose of the universe...think of it this way, if humans (or any other intelligent species) did not exist to ponder what the purpose is, then there would be no such thing as a purpose...it would be just a whole bunch of matter swirling around making stars, galaxies...photons flying everywhere...see what i mean..there is no purpose for it all. Its just what happens...which is why i think that our universe is nothing special, just another big bang.....This idea makes people uncomfortable, and that is very understandable, but why does there HAVE to be a purpose?

All of this brings me to my final point... Nothing matters...and i mean percisely that. NOTHING matters.

We live, we die, who cares? Our solar system explodes tomorrow, whats different? lets go bigger...our galaxy explodes, who cares now? even bigger...our known and visible universe ends...once again, it just doesnt matter...Stop thinking of things as a selfish human, think of things as they ARE, we are tiny in this universe, have no "power", and serve no function whatsoever. Our universe on the other hand could be a "messenger particle" or some other particle in a bigger universe, but even that makes no difference.

Sying all of that...i still think it is THE most interesting thing to discuss, and i wish to read other peoples thoughts on all of this.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
The purpose of nature is laid out before us . . . it grows.

If the universe is always beginning, it will never have time to start stopping.

16. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
afterburner;

Google...Fractal Universes...it will address most of he things you alluded too and give you a cleared picture of what is possible on those levels.

Here is a link to a gentleman that has worked on this for a long time.

http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/oldmenu.html

17. Established Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
763
Second law of thermodynamic is likely wrong, or else universe could not exsist as it is now. I suppose all energy was made in "zeropoint generator" when universe was filled with enough energy in form of radiation it started colapse into the thing from which bigbang started.
I am not sure if this theory is correct, but I dont now any other hypothesis.

18. Originally Posted by Digix
Second law of thermodynamic is likely wrong, or else universe could not exsist as it is now. I suppose all energy was made in "zeropoint generator" when universe was filled with enough energy in form of radiation it started colapse into the thing from which bigbang started.
I am not sure if this theory is correct, but I dont now any other hypothesis.
In your scenario, a "zeropoint" generator" begins to fill space with energy in the form of radiation, and that radiation leads to a big bang.

Consider this: energy has always existed, the universe is (potentially) infinite and filled with energy which is in a constant dynamic between energy and matter. Energy and matter are composed of one unifying particle, the elemental energy/wave particle, which causes 1) gravity (curvature of space), 2) sub-quantum and quantum particles, nucleosynthesis, atomic particles, star/galaxy/black hole formation, 3) big crunches, 4) big bangs.

Therefore it is characteristic of matter and energy to regenerate itself to overcome the progression of entropy.

Because of a limit on how much matter it takes for a big crunch (critical capacity) to result in a big bang, the landscape of the greater universe is self designed and is characterized by vast homogeneity on a large scale, and part of that homogeneity is the presence of big crunches and big bangs in the process of unfolding (happening) here and there, now and then.

Our big bang universe is one of those big bangs that came from a big crunch that formed in the greater universe, reached critical capacity which compressed matter/energy under such heat and pressure that all matter was dismantled into its single basic constituent, the EEP, and the EEPs accumulated in the center of the big crunch and built up enough force to spark a big bang.

19. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
Bogie, Consider this...In essence, what you have designed, is a "pre-existing" Dark Empty (Not really empty) Space, the Matter/Energy gets born into.
Now, the Big Bang says that, the Big Bang did NOT happen in a "Pre-existing" Dark empty space.

Now, you are thinking of the Dark empty space as the whole infinite universe, with the Matter/Energy coming into it "all at once" as a smaller universe within the whole.

So, consider this... Just take out the "Infinite", and understand that our universe started with the Dark empty space getting here first (maybe it took 5, 10 or even 15 billion years to develope and expand enough) and then the Matter/Energy started getting here... black hole/galaxy/stars (Notice I reversed the order).

20. Originally Posted by RussT
Bogie, Consider this...In essence, what you have designed, is a "pre-existing" Dark Empty (Not really empty) Space, the Matter/Energy gets born into.
Now, the Big Bang says that, the Big Bang did NOT happen in a "Pre-existing" Dark empty space.

Now, you are thinking of the Dark empty space as the whole infinite universe, with the Matter/Energy coming into it "all at once" as a smaller universe within the whole.

So, consider this... Just take out the "Infinite", and understand that our universe started with the Dark empty space getting here first (maybe it took 5, 10 or even 15 billion years to develope and expand enough) and then the Matter/Energy started getting here... black hole/galaxy/stars (Notice I reversed the order).
Your post paints a significantly different picture from my scenario and I want to list the differences so we can discuss them individually.

First, you interpret what I have designed as “a pre-existing dark empty (not really empty) space that matter/energy gets born into.”

Then you interpret my thinking to mean that matter/energy comes into this potentially infinite dark empty space all at once as a smaller universe within the whole.

Those interpretations do not reveal what I am envisioning.

I am saying that matter/energy has always existed and it is composed of elemental energy/wave particles. Everything is composed of these EEPs. The universe (greater universe) is (potentially) infinite and is filled endlessly with the matter/energy composed of EEPs.

Here is a post (work in process) about the EEP. To RussT, I know you have read it, but I wanted to link it to this thread.

I want to acknowledge your statement, “Now, the Big Bang says that, the Big Bang did NOT happen in a "Pre-existing" Dark empty space.”

Your statement is essentially correct that the Big Bang Theory does not need space or time to have pre-existed because the big bang can create spacetime, but it does not take a position that space and time did not pre-exist, it acknowledges that there is no way to know, from what I have read. Now there are Big Bang purists who say that space time did not pre-exist and I would ask you, is that what you are saying?

If yes, then will you explain why you reversed the order to “black hole/galaxy/stars”?

21. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
Originally Posted by Bogie
Those interpretations do not reveal what I am envisioning.
Yes, sorry, It looks like I did misinterpret what you were saying.

Originally Posted by Bogie
I am saying that matter/energy has always existed and it is composed of elemental energy/wave particles. Everything is composed of these EEPs. The universe (greater universe) is (potentially) infinite and is filled endlessly with the matter/energy composed of EEPs.
Yes, but saying the universe has always existed and is filled with Matter/Energy composed of EEP's, doesn't separate the Non-Baryonic Dark Space from the Baryonic Matter nor does it say how it (Non-Baryonic Matter) got here, or where it comes from.

Originally Posted by Bogie
Here is a post (work in process) about the EEP. To RussT, I know you have read it, but I wanted to link it to this thread.
Do you remember what I suggested there?

Originally Posted by Bogie
Your statement is essentially correct that the Big Bang Theory does not need space or time to have pre-existed because the big bang can create spacetime
Actually this is one of the problems, Inflation shows what...a 'false' vacuum, that expands faster than C, and they can show how the universe has expanded, decelerated that expansion, and is now expanding even faster than before, but...that is all math. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that shows how Dark Empty Space (now that we know it is 'something') was made, where it comes from, or what it is made of! So, the only thing the Big Bang really shows, is how Tev Gamma Radiation becomes the elements/matter

Originally Posted by Bogie
but it does not take a position that space and time did not pre-exist, it acknowledges that there is no way to know, from what I have read.
It acknowledges that there is no way to know what was before 10 ^-43 seconds.

Originally Posted by Bogie
Now there are Big Bang purists who say that space time did not pre-exist and I would ask you, is that what you are saying?
As far as I can see, space and time came into existence for 'our' universe, when 'our' universe was conceived.

Originally Posted by Bogie
If yes, then will you explain why you reversed the order to “black hole/galaxy/stars”?
Because this is the order in which they come into existence.

22. Originally Posted by RussT
Yes, but saying the universe has always existed and is filled with Matter/Energy composed of EEP's, doesn't separate the Non-Baryonic Dark Space from the Baryonic Matter nor does it say how it (Non-Baryonic Matter) got here, or where it comes from.
When you refer to separate Non-baryonic Dark Space (N-BDS) and Non-Baryonic Matter (N-BM) ... do you envision N-BDS as empty space? ... And do you envision N-BM as sub-atomic particles?

When you say that "always existed" doesn't say how N-BM got here are you insisting that it could not have always existed?
Actually this is one of the problems, Inflation shows what...a 'false' vacuum, that expands faster than C, and they can show how the universe has expanded, decelerated that expansion, and is now expanding even faster than before, but...that is all math. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that shows how Dark Empty Space (now that we know it is 'something') was made, where it comes from, or what it is made of! So, the only thing the Big Bang really shows, is how Tev Gamma Radiation becomes the elements/matter.
What is Dark Empty Space if it isn't empty space? I guess they are saying that if it is "made" by the big bang as part of spacetime, then it came from the big bang, out of nothing or more recently out of M-branes. Something tells me that the inflationary epoch is going to be more palatable than some of the newer theories .

I can see energy/matter coming from radiation since radiation is the spectrum of lowest to highest energy EEPs. EEPs endlessly go through the process of both radiating and being radiated as they take on different "stabilized" characteristics based on the various environments that exist and are ever-changing.
As far as I can see, space and time came into existence for 'our' universe, when 'our' universe was conceived.
Do you mean that "our" universe was intended (conceived) before it began?
Because this is the order in which they come into existence.
Where did the black hole come from?

23. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,540
Originally Posted by Bogie
When you refer to separate Non-baryonic Dark Space (N-BDS) and Non-Baryonic Matter (N-BM) ... do you envision N-BDS as empty space? ... And do you envision N-BM as sub-atomic particles?

When you say that "always existed" doesn't say how N-BM got here are you insisting that it could not have always existed?

What is Dark Empty Space if it isn't empty space? I guess they are saying that if it is "made" by the big bang as part of spacetime, then it came from the big bang, out of nothing or more recently out of M-branes. Something tells me that the inflationary epoch is going to be more palatable than some of the newer theories .

I can see energy/matter coming from radiation since radiation is the spectrum of lowest to highest energy EEPs. EEPs endlessly go through the process of both radiating and being radiated as they take on different "stabilized" characteristics based on the various environments that exist and are ever-changing.
Do you mean that "our" universe was intended (conceived) before it began?Where did the black hole come from?
I found an article:
"Since the new theory suggests strings continue to exist inside a black hole, and the nature of the strings depends on the particles that made up the original source material, then each black hole is as unique as are the stars, planets, or galaxy that formed it.

The strings from any subsequent material that enters the black hole would remain traceable. That means a black hole can be traced back to its original conditions, and information about what entered survives. " http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/...eFuzzball.html

If the space-time is not empty - there are moving and vibrating virtual particles - it might be Dark if it is in an equilibrium and there are no particles with a rest mass nor photons.
If this pure gauge energy field would be locally transformed in a special way (Black Hole density ?), there might be conditions for a Baryon Matter creation.
This process is not sure for me, but Big Bang theory claims the Baryon matter is created in this high dense energy concetration.

I think, our Observable Universe began of this first concentrated Black Holes.

24. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
Originally Posted by Bogie
When you refer to separate Non-baryonic Dark Space (N-BDS) and Non-Baryonic Matter (N-BM) ... do you envision N-BDS as empty space? ... And do you envision N-BM as sub-atomic particles?
No, Non-Baryonic Dark Matter is what empty dark space is made of.

[And do you envision N-BM as sub-atomic particles?]

And this totally depends on how "YOU" define sub-atomic particle.

Originally Posted by Bogie
When you say that "always existed" doesn't say how N-BM got here are you insisting that it could not have always existed?
The simple answer is Yes, I am insisting. The explanation is rather simple too, since 'our' universe is evolving (and it definitely is), it had to have a begining!

Originally Posted by Bogie
What is Dark Empty Space if it isn't empty space? I guess they are saying that if it is "made" by the big bang as part of spacetime, then it came from the big bang, out of nothing or more recently out of M-branes. Something tells me that the inflationary epoch is going to be more palatable than some of the newer theories.
[What is Dark Empty Space if it isn't empty space?]

This is answered above...Dark Empty Space Means the Non-Baryonic part of the darkness...Space...but we know it is no longer empty. Mainstream breaks this out to ~23% Dark Matter (Non-Baryonic) and ~73% Dark Energy, leaving 4% for the Baryonic Matter.

Originally Posted by Bogie
I guess they are saying that if it is "made" by the big bang as part of spacetime, then it came from the big bang,
This is what the big hoopla is all about, since the Supernnova 1a paper in 98', showing that the universe was expanding (Hubble expansion), then was decelerating, and now is expanding at an even faster rate, they had to bring back Einsteins Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy), which actually acts an an anti-gravity. So, what does all this mean? It means that first with Inflation (a false vacuum), then the Hubble flow and now Dark Energy (Anti-Gravity), that the Big Bangs explanation of Dark Empty Space is purely mathematical, and that no one has yet been able to say where the Non-Baryonic Dark Empty Space comes from or what it is. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that shows how this "Something" was made or where it comes from.

Originally Posted by Bogie
I can see energy/matter coming from radiation since radiation is the spectrum of lowest to highest energy EEPs. EEPs endlessly go through the process of both radiating and being radiated as they take on different "stabilized" characteristics based on the various environments that exist and are ever-changing.
Again, this only applies to Baryonic Matter.

Originally Posted by Bogie
Do you mean that "our" universe was intended (conceived) before it began?
Intended...No. Conception is simply a process in nature.

Originally Posted by Bogie
Where did the black hole come from?
Ah, the biggest question in modern cosmology, how are SMBH's and IMBH's made, besides of course, what is 96% of the universe made of and where does it come from, and how are galaxies made and how do they actually form, and how does gravity really work universally, and oh yes, what you are working on, how does the micro merge into the macro. All in due time.

25. Originally Posted by czeslaw
I found an article:
"Since the new theory suggests strings continue to exist inside a black hole, and the nature of the strings depends on the particles that made up the original source material, then each black hole is as unique as are the stars, planets, or galaxy that formed it. The strings from any subsequent material that enters the black hole would remain traceable. That means a black hole can be traced back to its original conditions, and information about what entered survives. " http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/...eFuzzball.html
I would be skeptical that there is any difference in the individual strings, and if the elemental energy/wave particle is equivalent to a string, then I would predict that there is no tracing back to original conditions except that the string or EEP exhibits its characteristics faithfully through out its process of nucleosynhesis and negation (reversal of nucleosynthesis, primarily inside an ultimate black hole).

If the space-time is not empty - there are moving and vibrating virtual particles - it might be Dark if it is in an equilibrium and there are no particles with a rest mass nor photons.
Interesting concept. If a string at rest has no mass it would be pure energy. I am thinking that the vibrating of the string is equivalent to the pulsing between a wave and a particle like the EEP that I envision. I have been thinking that the rest state would be pulsing but not interacting with other EEPs, and with the lowest energy level.

I don't think this rest state is possible in any EEP environment that contains more than a few stray EEPs because of how readily they interact, but in theory, the rest state would have mass in my view. The mass of a single EEP in the rest state is m=e/c^2, i.e. EEP1.
If this pure gauge energy field would be locally transformed in a special way (Black Hole density ?), there might be conditions for a Baryon Matter creation.
This process is not sure for me, but Big Bang theory claims the Baryon matter is created in this high dense energy concetration.
Negation is the term I use to describe the flooding of quantum particles by extremely excited EEPs capable of "overcoming" the ties that bind. Sun burn for example.

In a black hole this can happen on a large scale under extreme pressure and heat, kinetic energy, matter/anti-matter formation and annihilation, cosmic rays (Gamma and X) unable to escape, etc., which produces large environments of EEPs excited to the max. This environment is capable of negating all quantum particles into highly excited EEP environments.

I think, our Observable Universe began of this first concentrated Black Holes.
I think you are right, and those black holes were ultimate black holes that incorporated enough matter and energy to reach the critical capacity necessary to complete negation of quantum particles and then lock the EEPs at the core under near infinite pressure where they cannot express their wave phase, i.e. locked in their particle phase and building up potential energy until a big bang is sparked when the pent up energy exceeds the force containing them.
Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Apr-19 at 09:54 PM.

26. Originally Posted by RussT

The simple answer is Yes, I am insisting. The explanation is rather simple too, since 'our' universe is evolving (and it definitely is), it had to have a begining!
Hmmm … read the OP to get my view on this.

[What is Dark Empty Space if it isn't empty space?]

This is answered above...Dark Empty Space Means the Non-Baryonic part of the darkness...Space...but we know it is no longer empty. Mainstream breaks this out to ~23% Dark Matter (Non-Baryonic) and ~73% Dark Energy, leaving 4% for the Baryonic Matter.
Aren’t these the same people who came up with the Inflationary Epoch to maintain the causal connection between the big bang event and the particle horizon? .

This is what the big hoopla is all about, since the Supernnova 1a paper in 98', showing that the universe was expanding (Hubble expansion), then was decelerating, and now is expanding at an even faster rate, they had to bring back Einsteins Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy), which actually acts an an anti-gravity. So, what does all this mean? It means that first with Inflation (a false vacuum), then the Hubble flow and now Dark Energy (Anti-Gravity), that the Big Bangs explanation of Dark Empty Space is purely mathematical, and that no one has yet been able to say where the Non-Baryonic Dark Empty Space comes from or what it is. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that shows how this "Something" was made or where it comes from.
So we agree? The big bang has some fizzle? But still, it is the standard cosmology so my model accommodates it. If changes in the standard occur as new evidence is obtained, then progress towards the true nature of things occurs as well.

Ah, the biggest question in modern cosmology, how are SMBH's and IMBH's made, besides of course, what is 96% of the universe made of and where does it come from, and how are galaxies made and how do they actually form, and how does gravity really work universally, and oh yes, what you are working on, how does the micro merge into the macro. All in due time.
I suppose you mean progress will continue to be made.

27. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
Originally Posted by Bogie
Hmmm … read the OP to get my view on this.
Let's examine that alittle bit.

Originally Posted by Bogie
Theoretically if neither space nor time is necessary for the big bang itself to occur, it is logical for the big bang to be making its own space-time as it expands.
I already covered this, but to reiterate...yes, they say space time was created and is expanding (and the real 'something' is), but as I explained, it is all mathematical. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis explains how the basic elements came into existence, a tremendous amount of great work went into developing
a very tenable timeline for the elements to come out of the cooling of TEV Gamma Radiation, however that is about the Baryonic Matter only!

Originally Posted by Bogie
But on the other hand, before the instant of the big bang can you logically deduce that there was no space; that there was no time?
Let's look at this both ways. If there was a Big Bang, that would be the conception of "OUR" universe, so for "OUR" universe, that would be the beginning of time for us. Now, did another process in a universe bigger than ours cause the BIG Bang to happen? Something had to "Cause" the Big Bang, right? Did that universe have "time" that existed before our time started, sure, you see what I mean.
So, to get away from the 'singularity' issue, since they couldn't get closer than 10 ^-43 seconds to it (and because of the Infinite Energy Density), which is the biggest reason Inflation was needed, now they simply say, we don't know what happened before 10 ^-43, which is absolutely true.

So, since our universe is evolving, it had to have a beginnng, and some process in nature had to start it, was that the Big Bang...I don't believe it is, for all the reasons that came after ah, in my last post.

Originally Posted by Bogie
As the big bang universe expands, the density is said to be thinning and the curvature is said to be flattening. Current estimates show that the expansion of the known universe is accelerating and if that is the case it is "open" or "flat" as opposed to "closed" and will expand forever.
[As the big bang universe expands, the density is said to be thinning]

You have to be careful here, this could be ambiguous. If you mean, the density of the galaxies is thinning, that would be close, but if you mean the density of space is thinning, that's different. This has been asked many times in many different ways, but the basics are...if space is expanding, why isn't the density of space actually thinnning? Their answer...space somehow, someway, just makes more of itself. I believe it is in the OP of the Supernava 1a thread that says that the Dark Energy (Cosmological Constant/Anti-Gravity), should be a "Positive" factor, but that would mean that the orginal expansion (Hubble Flow) would have to be a positive factor too (VS a false vacuum), and they certainly don't know how to make that work with the Big Bang, so they can't even go there.

Originally Posted by Bogie
But I can see how increasing entropy in the expanding big bang universe would eventually cause it to cool and disburse until no life could exist.

Even though this severe entropy isn’t likely to occur for billions and billions of years, I am concerned about it.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

Maybe it isn’t that way.
It isn't, rest easy. But let me suggest this...Not knowing what the 23% Dark Matter and 76% Dark Energy is made of or where it comes from, is a huge monkey on mainstreams back. If it weren't a "huge" problem for them, they would have already figured out a way to say that the Dark Empty Space "was" already here, and that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis happened in the already existing space...trust me on that one. That's why they say that didn't happen so strongly!
Last edited by RussT; 2006-Apr-20 at 09:23 AM.

28. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,540
Originally Posted by Bogie
In a black hole this can happen on a large scale under extreme pressure and heat, kinetic energy, matter/anti-matter formation and annihilation, cosmic rays (Gamma and X) unable to escape, etc., which produces large environments of EEPs excited to the max. This environment is capable of negating all quantum particles into highly excited EEP environments.
I think you are right, and those black holes were ultimate black holes that incorporated enough matter and energy to reach the critical capacity necessary to complete negation of quantum particles and then lock the EEPs at the core under near infinite pressure where they cannot express their wave phase, i.e. locked in their particle phase and building up potential energy until a big bang is sparked when the pent up energy exceeds the force containing them.
I would like to search the processes and relations where the pure energy may be transformed into baryon matter. I have asked last year on this forum
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16869 - how to produce a matter/antimatter in cosmos like in CERN. Nobody wants to discuss.

The Black Hole is an interesting object - almost closed space, like our Observable Universe.
There has to be a critical capacity where it starts.

29. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,540
Originally Posted by RussT
Let's examine that alittle bit.

I already covered this, but to reiterate...yes, they say space time was created and is expanding (and the real 'something' is), but as I explained, it is all mathematical. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis explains how the basic elements came into existence, a tremendous amount of great work went into developing
a very tenable timeline for the elements to come out of the cooling of TEV Gamma Radiation, however that is about the Baryonic Matter only!

Let's look at this both ways. If there was a Big Bang, that would be the conception of "OUR" universe, so for "OUR" universe, that would be the beginning of time for us. Now, did another process in a universe bigger than ours cause the BIG Bang to happen? Something had to "Cause" the Big Bang, right? Did that universe have "time" that existed before our time started, sure, you see what I mean.
So, to get away from the 'singularity' issue, since they couldn't get closer than 10 ^-43 seconds to it (and because of the Infinite Energy Density), which is the biggest reason Inflation was needed, now they simply say, we don't know what happened before 10 ^-43, which is absolutely true.

So, since our universe is evolving, it had to have a beginnng, and some process in nature had to start it, was that the Big Bang...I don't believe it is, for all the reasons that came after ah, in my last post.
!
We can observe our Observable Universe only and this Observable Universe has a begining. Do you think there was an Infinite Dense Energy ?

For me the Big Bang (expansion of our Observable Universe) began just from a volume after inflation epoche and the energy was transformed into a baryon matter immediatelly simultaneously in this volume. That way we do not need an inflation epoche.

30. Originally Posted by czeslaw
I would like to search the processes and relations where the pure energy may be transformed into baryon matter. I have asked last year on this forum
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16869 - how to produce a matter/antimatter in cosmos like in CERN. Nobody wants to discuss.

The Black Hole is an interesting object - almost closed space, like our Observable Universe.
There has to be a critical capacity where it starts.
I'll try to describe a seed idea, but is will be lengthy to convey my thinking and has to be considered pure speculation on my part.
These links are not particularly important, but are just examples that have helped me toward my speculation.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020812gamma.html

http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_quickl...rn_ID=1&loc=ql

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHL...ght0202_e.html

There are many sources that indicate that highly accelerated matter collisions produce matter/antimatter pairs that produce gamma rays when they annihilate.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JonathanStarr.shtml

“Sufficiently high-energy gamma ray photons can create matter in the form of matter-antimatter pairs.”

Put together the various sources and you get the possibility of what I call Gamma Chaos in and around a black hole.

Accelerated matter collisions as matter nears a black hole would seem capable of reducing matter to its constituent parts, i.e. quantum particles, so the matter entering the event horizon is already processed to the point of destruction of the atomic particles into quantum particles. Neutrons and protons are now quarks and leptons.

Between the event horizon and the core of a black hole, the quantum particles are bathed by the Gamma Rays which excites them to the point that they break down. The break down or “negation” of quantum particles must result in sub-quantum particles which I call elemental energy/wave particles.

My theory is that when the excitement level of these EEPs is lowered as the emerge from a big bang, they reform into quantum particles. The process, I believe, must be related the EEP environments. Follow my idea of the process:

EEP environment is an important subject. These environment can be very vast or very tiny and all sizes in between. For example, at the instant of a big bang from a big crunch, the very center of the core of the big crunch (I call it an ultimate black hole) would be EEPs excited to the maximum limit.

This particular environment is very vast and has some unusual characteristics. Being at the very center of an ultimate black hole, the compression is as near to infinite compression that it is possible to get in the universe.

Maximum excited EEPs under maximum compression become “locked”. If the EEP characteristic of pulsing between particle and wave is a fact, then in the center of the UBH, the compression is sufficient to restrain the EEP in its particle state, too compressed to move via its wave state (a pulsing EEP: I can imagine it pulsing between a particle state and a wave state in such a way that at one instant this tiniest patch of energy can be expressed as a particle and at the next instant that particle transforms into wave movement of that particle in a pulsing sequence.
If one could follow that specific tiny patch of energy it would appear to be a particle at point A, then wave movement of that particle, and back to a particle at point B. Thus the EEP takes the form of a particle at point A and point B and it takes the form of wave movement between point A and point B as it moves with angular momentum.)

When locked, the repressed wave state is a building potential force or potential energy in proportion to e=mc^2. So the very center of the core is an EEP environment composed of locked EEPs at maximum energy level.

Surrounding this EEP100 environment (for discussion purposes I have assigned an energy level of 100 for this environment) is an EEP99 environment. This EEP99 environment is surrounded by and EEP98, etc. etc.

As the ultimate black hole grows, energy is forced inward as quantum particles are “negated” into excited EEPs because EEPs energy levels are quickly averaged across their environment (especially when under compression). If we say that negation of quantum particles begins when they are flooded by EEP50s, and because an EEP50 environment is easily achieved inside the event horizon by Gamma Chaos, the pure EEP core ultimately consists of EEP environment layered like an onion inward from EEP50, EEP51, EEP52 … EEP98, EEP99, and finally the max EEP100 at the very center.

The flow of energy inward as negated quantum particles contribute EEPs and the energy is passed toward the very center, the size of the very center (the EEP100 core) grows and the locked core grows and the potential energy of the repressed wave state grows.

The big bang occurs when the build up of repressed energy exceeds the force of compression.

At the instant of the big bang you have these layers of EEPs of decending energy as you go out from the very center. The EEP100s that have been locked and repressed are now instantly freed and are forced out into the lower level EEPs where interaction is chaotic and it is a game of chance as to what level any particular EEP will be at when it emerges out of the frey into a less excited environment.

What can be predicted out of such chaos though is that there will be layers or patches of EEP environments that emerge as excitement is reduced by expansion and cooling. If the layers that emerge are EEP49, EEP37, EEP25 … etc. and if these various layers have become stable in those various energy levels (EEP environments tend to stabilize by interaction), and if mixing of the stable layers is occurring between these different energy levels due to turbulence, then the combining among the mixed layers will begin to form quantum particles.

The reason form the formation of stable quantum particles is explained by the characteristics of the EEP itself, i.e. they interact in three ways (The EEP can carry various amounts of energy and can transmit that energy to objects that it interacts with. The amount of energy is expressed by the length of the wave state. It seems backwards, but the amount of energy carried is inversely related to the length of the wave phase.

The change in wave phase (energy level) occurs only when particles interact. They can interact in three ways. (1) Two particles can be “in phase” so that they express their particle state in the same place at the same time, i.e. “coincident expression”. When this occurs, those particles are “fused” (probably another bad choice of word) and the next wave phase expresses the energy and mass of both particles, two EEP49s that fuse would be energy value = 96 (EEP96), and the direction of movement is altered into forward movement that bisects the angle between the paths of the two former particles. In this interaction there is no net loss of energy, and there is no emission from the interaction. It is not a collision, but coincident expression of the particle state in the same space. The resulting wave/particle is an EEP with twice the energy and mass and a shorter wave phase.

The “coincident expression” is just one way these particles can interact. (2) If they cross each others path in the wave state, the path of both particles is altered in an equal exchange of angular momentum caused by the interference but no energy is transferred between particles.

(3) If one EEP expresses its particle state in the path (in the wave state) of another EEP, it gains or loses energy (shortens or lengthens its wave state) and it takes or gives energy to the other EEP. This type of interaction averages out so that on average the EEP with the lowest energy and longest wave state gains and the EEP with the most energy and shortest wave state gives energy in a particular environment. Both remain EEPs but at different energy levels. Their value would be EEP + or – the exchanged (gained/lost) energy, i.e., two EEP49s cross paths and you might get an EEP48 and an EEP50 or something like that. This type of interaction insures that the average energy state in a particular EEP environment is maintained.

Fusing causes jumps in energy level while the energy exchange due to passing interactions is very dynamic, i.e. it is “ever-changing” with each interaction always tending towards equalization if the energy of the EEPs in the environment and therefore towards stabilization of the EEP environment.)

Mixing of layed EEP levels like say EEP49s and EEP37s would be interesting. A fusing between a 49 and a 37 would give us an EEP86, which would quickly give up energy through interation. An interaction between a 49 and a 37 could transfer enegy so that you get two EEP43. Two 43 could fuse to another EEP86. Play out all of the combination of a mixing of EEP49s and EEP 37s and you get a stable EEP43 environment. The stable bands widen as the turbulent mixing continues.

There is a seed idea here that goes to the subject of stable quantum particles being formed from mixing stable EEP environments that emerge from a big bang.

I will continue to work on describing the interaction to see if some logic can be made out of the characteristics of the EEP and the formation of the tiny environments that would be individual quantum particles.
Last edited by Bogie; 2006-Apr-21 at 03:38 PM.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•