It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Humble Theory of the Universal Expansion

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Ok, so i am at work and i dont have much as far as paper work goes, so i will lay the basics down. maybe i can get some good insight and make it better! (or can it all together lol)

We know that the universe is expanding, in all directions, as best we can tell. This can be seen with the red shift that we observe in far space.

scientists originally theorised the bg bang, saying that all matter in the universe was once held in a singularity, and that singularity was unstable and it exploded outward creating what we know today.

well that leaves a few mor questions than answers, as far as what was or wasnt existing in the space surrounding the singularity prior to the big bang, and what is our universe expanding into and so many more.

now they are saying there is a big bounce, whereas this is a repeating process.

it never really did make much sense to me. what force will cause the big crunch? especially now that we know the expansion of space is accelerating?

we know that in nature, and space and so on, there seems to be a pattern. that is that say, our solar system, is roughly a disk like feature with most of the mass at its center. this pattern can be seen in larger frames, such as galaxies, and even galaxy clusters.

i say, why stop there?

put on your imagination caps, lean back in your chair and try to see what i describe to you as i dont have an image available for upload at the moment lol...

imagine a disc like universe. at the center, imagine a dense cluster of matter. this cluster would be sufficiently dense so that any light or information trying to cross from onse side of the system to the other would be trapped in the center or slig shot around hyperbolically and at a tangent.

imagine this disc is not perfectly circular, that is the shape is more egg like or eliptical with the center mass being off center.

now imagine a line measuring from the center mass to the far reacing edges of the shape.

on one end the length of the radii would be greater than the other end, so that as matter rotated around, it would expand and contract, relative to where it is.

as a sector of our eliptical disc rotates, it would not be visibly aware of anything except what would be locally available, considering we hold true maxwells dilation due to the relativistic speed of light. and the sector would also be unaware of the contracting portions of the universe as it expands, because that information cannot reach through a dense center.

entropy would be minimal, as these objects are in a state of fluctuating energy transfers in a true vacuum.

now if we were in the part of the ellipse that was just down stream of the smallest side, we would see expansion in all directions.

ALSO

it would make perfect sense for us to not be able to account for 95% of the mass of the universe.

we would not be expanding into "nothing"

it explains the big crunch.

what do you think?




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
This is fairly interesting.

Basically, it is applying the "As above, so below" concept to the universe, relative to the spiral galaxy?

I, personally, ascribe to Brane Theory, or something akin to it. Two (or more) brane separated by the slightest of distances in a fourth dimensional direction (as in a tesseract, in the direction of "in" as opposed to forward, backward, side, up, etc).

These branes are not stable independantly, and will go through quite a bit of physical flux. Gravitational force is what pushes them away from each other.

Therefore, a lack of mass would create a lack of stability in the brane, or universal wavefront, creating perturbations in the fabric of our reality, as well as in the "sister" universe located "in" from where we are.

As these perturbations grow, the two branes eventually touch, creating a supermassive explosion known as the big bang. The stability of the system is restored until the matter spreads out far enough to create the critical instability required to repeat the cycle.

Edit to add: to clarify, gravitational force is present where there is mass. It is attracted toward the mass, flowing "in" to the tetradimensional space that repels the "sister" brane.

I also want to clarify my "i believe this to be" to something more akin to "this is the theory i have been mulling over the most lately".

[edit on 26-3-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
nothing too wrong with that.

but in science we see that generally the simplest answer is the most correct.

the brane does not explain why we are over calculating or under observing the total mass of the universe.

the multiverse theory has one good thing on its side, and that is that it explains what exists in the space outside of where the universe exists.

but...

i guess i dont grasp why a gravitational force would keep two branes apart in an inward manner.

you say:


Therefore, a lack of mass would create a lack of stability in the brane, or universal wavefront, creating perturbations in the fabric of our reality, as well as in the "sister" universe located "in" from where we are.


are you suggesting that the amount of mass in the universe is a non-constant?

if we allow for a non-constant mass in the universe, then that opens up a BIG can of worms, such as, where does the mass go/come from?


OR

are you suggesting that the matter spreads outward creating a less dense universe which allows the branes to collapse?

if that is the case, what mass is available to explode? does the mass come from the brane itself someway?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


Is each "universe" a closed system, or is it interconnected with the other environments surrounding it.

I would suspect that the concept of "energy transducer" is not a human only invention. I would also suspect that we see matter form where there are bottlenecks in energy flow caused by the matter contained there in.

Then again, perhaps this other "brane" is our universe, too. I would suspect that, if it exists within this dimensional system, it is "this universe". It wouldn't be like we were changing the amount of matter/mass/energy in our universe in this case.

Really, most of my thoughts on this have arisen out of my attempts to comprehend tetradimensional space, and the true nature of the tesseract.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
BTW, i want to apologize. I don't want to steal your thread.
You have some good stuff to discuss. I meant to clarify what you were describing as what my post was about, and included my thoughts as an aside.

My apologies for being so obtuse.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
no need for apologies i have had this theory for some time and have only briefly bounced it off a few people to get feedback so i can find holes in my theory or make it better.

i posted it here in response to a few people showing interest and i take no criticism to be negative!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
imagine a disc like universe. at the center, imagine a dense cluster of matter. this cluster would be sufficiently dense so that any light or information trying to cross from onse side of the system to the other would be trapped in the center or slig shot around hyperbolically and at a tangent.

imagine this disc is not perfectly circular, that is the shape is more egg like or eliptical with the center mass being off center.

now imagine a line measuring from the center mass to the far reacing edges of the shape.

on one end the length of the radii would be greater than the other end, so that as matter rotated around, it would expand and contract, relative to where it is.

as a sector of our eliptical disc rotates, it would not be visibly aware of anything except what would be locally available, considering we hold true maxwells dilation due to the relativistic speed of light. and the sector would also be unaware of the contracting portions of the universe as it expands, because that information cannot reach through a dense center.


You seem to be missing a few things to put your description in perspective. Our view of the universe is basically a sphere with a diameter a little over 13 billion light years radius which I'll call "our sphere". We can see and map a lot of the visible matter within that sphere and now even the dark matter within that sphere. This video shows what's probably one of the best maps you will see of what we have mapped so far inside that sphere at 7 minutes:

George Smoot on the design of the universe
www.ted.com...

It's incomplete due to lack of telescopes, views blocked by our own galaxy, etc, but you can get an idea of matter distribution through "our sphere" by watching it.

Cosmologists pretty much agree that the limit of our ability to see is not the edge of the universe, that the universe extends beyond "our sphere" in all directions. One of the reasons we will never see past this sphere is because the recessional velocities actually exceed the speed of light at distances greater than about 13 billion light years or so.

Another theory of course is that the universe isn't much older than that age (13 billion years, maybe a little older like 13.7 billion years) but the cyclical universe theories have questioned that assumption as you point out.

Now what your description is missing is where our 13 billion light year sphere would be within the disk you hypothesize. If the center of your hypothetical disk is greater than 13 billion light years away, it can't really block any information from within "our sphere". The distances and recessional velocities are already great enough to block the transfer of light or "information" as you put it.

So if the center of this disk you imagine is outside "our sphere", it's probably both unknown, and unknowable.

If you are proposing that it might be within our 13 billion light year radius sphere, then it should show up somewhere as we continue to map what's inside our visible sphere, unless it's in a location blocked from our view by our galaxy.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now what your description is missing is where our 13 billion light year sphere would be within the disk you hypothesize. If the center of your hypothetical disk is greater than 13 billion light years away, it can't really block any information from within "our sphere". The distances and recessional velocities are already great enough to block the transfer of light or "information" as you put it.

So if the center of this disk you imagine is outside "our sphere", it's probably both unknown, and unknowable.

If you are proposing that it might be within our 13 billion light year radius sphere, then it should show up somewhere as we continue to map what's inside our visible sphere, unless it's in a location blocked from our view by our galaxy.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]


one of the reasons why my theory is not helpful to science, and is more of just a quizzical thought experiment all my own is that it isnt provable.

i do believe that the center would be outside of our current edge of known universe. if it wasnt then we would not see a uniform expansion. the only way to really know is to wait a few hundred billion years and see what happens.

think about this though. when we do cross the point of expansion into contraction, does it happen uniformly across "our sphere" or would we see blue shifting in one direction and red shifting in another? would it be similar to a dopplar effect?

if the transition happens uniformly and instantly at all points, would this be information travelling at +C? and what forces would be required to change the direction of all bodies in a universe? and where would that energy come from?

it just makes more sense to me to be moving forward in a system so that the very forward direction would provide inertia to all bodies in the system allowing it to move to a more constrained frame, where as we are now moving into a less constrained area allowing for the expansion to take place.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
one of the reasons why my theory is not helpful to science, and is more of just a quizzical thought experiment all my own is that it isnt provable.


If it's not about science, but just a thought experiment, maybe the thread should be in a forum other than the science and technology forum? Like skunk works perhaps? There's no proof or evidence required in skunk works, but in the science forum such things are nice to have. While thought experiments are fun, there are so many real mysteries in real cosmology, we don't have to make up stuff to puzzle ourselves, we can truly be puzzled by the real facts and I prefer to spend my time trying to figure those out.


i do believe that the center would be outside of our current edge of known universe. if it wasn't then we would not see a uniform expansion. the only way to really know is to wait a few hundred billion years and see what happens.

think about this though. when we do cross the point of expansion into contraction, does it happen uniformly across "our sphere" or would we see blue shifting in one direction and red shifting in another? would it be similar to a dopplar effect?


Are you talking about this theory?

Daily Galaxy


Frampton and Baum circumvented the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each “causal patch” become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. “The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction,” Frampton said. “The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model.”


Vanishing into nothing in this universe and disappearing into another universe might solve the momentum problem you asked about, if that's the theory you are referring to.

Prior to about 1998 when we first discovered dark energy, it was thought that the force of gravity might eventually slow down the expansion to the point where the universe stopped expanding, then began to collapse. However unless dark energy is found to be some kind of colossal mistake, that theory appears to be on the back burner for now, if not dead.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If it's not about science, but just a thought experiment, maybe the thread should be in a forum other than the science and technology forum? Like skunk works perhaps? There's no proof or evidence required in skunk works, but in the science forum such things are nice to have. While thought experiments are fun, there are so many real mysteries in real cosmology, we don't have to make up stuff to puzzle ourselves, we can truly be puzzled by the real facts and I prefer to spend my time trying to figure those out.


it is science. alot of einstiens theories were based on thought experiments. i am not simply making things up just to make them up. the problems that i am addressing are "real" questions that cosmology has yet to answer completely. when contemplating evidence, the only real substance we have is hubble and some mathematics.



Are you talking about this theory?

Daily Galaxy


Frampton and Baum circumvented the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each “causal patch” become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. “The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction,” Frampton said. “The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model.”


Vanishing into nothing in this universe and disappearing into another universe might solve the momentum problem you asked about, if that's the theory you are referring to.

Prior to about 1998 when we first discovered dark energy, it was thought that the force of gravity might eventually slow down the expansion to the point where the universe stopped expanding, then began to collapse. However unless dark energy is found to be some kind of colossal mistake, that theory appears to be on the back burner for now, if not dead.


no, you dont get the problem that i am trying to point out with the big bounce

they both suggest that at some point our universe will return to a singularity. that means that all the matter in the universe that is currently expanding at an accelerating rate will have to not only slow down, but stop and move in an opposite direction at some degree to return to its pint of origin.

knowing that, what force will act upon the bodies of the universe? considering the force that was hypothesised to send it outward to begin with... thats a pretty far fetched idea.

and on a side note.

dark matter is by no means scientific fact, and has not been discovered. only hypothesised based upon imagery and inconsistencies in computation.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
no, you dont get the problem that i am trying to point out with the big bounce

they both suggest that at some point our universe will return to a singularity. that means that all the matter in the universe that is currently expanding at an accelerating rate will have to not only slow down, but stop and move in an opposite direction at some degree to return to its pint of origin.

knowing that, what force will act upon the bodies of the universe?


Apparently I still don't get what you're after because even after you re-explained it just now, that's exactly the question I posted the answer to both in the pre-dark energy model, as well as in the cyclical model.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


The only way i know how to answer your post is by explaining my version of this theory.

We all know that everything is expanding in every direction. In my opinion that is the clue. As you can tell by a expansion it is not expanding into a singularity of matter like many like to imagine, but rather back to what matter and energy used to be before it was compressed into what we can observe as finite energy and matter.

Before we had finite energy and matter we must have had infinite energy (Pure Energy). That is what finite is expanding back to.

Infinite energy cant actually change without a form of intelligence. Because by it self it is static. Not changeable.

Infinite energy must have intelligence,because we have intelligence. We humans cant have something that infinity dosent have (Intelligence). Because we exist within infinity. This is probably hard for some to comprehend.

A singularity cant be infinite small without being infinite big. That to is hard for some to comprehend.

The only way infinity can create finite is by a compression. If not finite would be greater than infinity. And that is not possible. A compression also fits in with our observations of finite energy and matter (Finite is expanding).

How can a finite expand?

A finite can expand because of the differential between it self and the infinite. This is very easy to explain,but hard to understand.

When the infinite compressed and created finite something very important happens. When the infinite compressed. The finite Energy would immediately begin to emit different type of energies. Like light for instance. Light is emitted energy. The emitted energies create a differential between the different types of energies created by the compression. Its easy to imagine if you think of pressure differentials. Pressure is a good example of expansion. And more solid the energy is the greater distance it would have from the infinite. Because it will take longer to change by emitting energy. A rock would take millions of years to disappear. Because the amount of energy is very compressed.

The pressure differential creates time "changes" because energy and matter have to go through many changes to become what it used to be.


As God said: I Will be with you until the end of time. Until there is no more changes.

When finite becomes infinite energy again. Only the infinite can decide if a new creation (compression) will happen again. There is no way we can know for sure that this event is a cycle that will repeat it self. But according to the Bible it will. But science can not prove it.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Cool thread and glad to see people throwing theories out there.


Ok, I personally think that we can only see back about 13 billion years because at that point is the event horizon for the light, and it will never be able to reach us. As far as we know the universe could go on for trillions of light years.

Maybe there is 'neighborhoods' set up were each one almost shares their energy and matter losing/gaining only to the universes recyclers, black/white holes. Super/hypernova's explode and because they can only go so far they supply their higher elements we have more solar systems around more energy, hence the supermassive black hole in the middle of ours.

Maybe rather than explaining pulsars as earlier remnants of the universe maybe they are in 'neighborhoods' with different physical properties then ours causing them to spew, rather than suck in energy. I like the idea of different physics in different 'neighborhoods' sounds more intriguing to me.


I have read quite a bit about string theory and like their ideas, but to me it is more of a mathematical formula rather than a physical picture of the universe. I like my idea more,
I would think of everything as webs, close to m-theory. It sounds corny but I think everything is connected, it would explain how particles know what happened to other ones ftl.

I also think that the universe is part and parcel with our brains. I know it sounds weird, but I am using my imagination rather than hard thoughts.
I think the more we start to understand our brains the better the picture we will have about our universe. I think as the universe expands, so does our brains, and vice versa. I know that would lead to never ending expansion, but what is happening now?

Just like a poster before me said about intelligence being in the infinite I think that is what our brains are connected to. We pull from the infinite to give ourselves consciousness and with pulling from there we have access to everything, everywhere, we are just not sure how to tap into it yet.

I also think as m-theory states, that black holes are just portals for expelling our energy to another universe/dimension/membrane. We have white holes, wouldn't that be the only thing that makes sense?


I love this topic and love to think about it, just to use imagination to try and answer questions is when the best answers come out. Feynman had a great imagination and always claimed that was the only way he ever thought of anything, so I like to keep it going sometimes.

Thanks for a great discussion.


I will come take a look again in a bit as I am sure we will get quite a few intelligent posts and it is fun to bounce ideas off of other intelligent minds.

I just hope they thing with their imaginations.


Pred...



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by wx4caster
no, you dont get the problem that i am trying to point out with the big bounce

they both suggest that at some point our universe will return to a singularity. that means that all the matter in the universe that is currently expanding at an accelerating rate will have to not only slow down, but stop and move in an opposite direction at some degree to return to its pint of origin.

knowing that, what force will act upon the bodies of the universe?


Apparently I still don't get what you're after because even after you re-explained it just now, that's exactly the question I posted the answer to both in the pre-dark energy model, as well as in the cyclical model.


in the pre-dark model you describe, gravity is the reason the collapse occurs. we understand that gravity weakens as distance between two masses increases. this means that as the expansion accelerates that gravitational attraction between the two bodies will weaken, and as they accelerate, the force required to slow/stop/compress the bodies increases.

gravity alone cannot slow the expansion.

in the wake of the dark matter theory, there is an introduction of much more mass that can act upon visible matter. however, the basic principal still exists.

now if we step outside of MOND gravity into GRT, then we can play with the gravitational force a little more, where as the measured force can be affected by the reference of the observer, and depending on the solution, or rather how you address the effect of mass on space-time.

interestingly enough, i did enjoy (finally) the video link you posted, and i like the model simulation depicting the repeating flux where as mass does not crunch back to a singularity, but is like a pulsating wireframe of matter.




top topics



 
1

log in

join