Singularity or Something Else?

"What if the singularity and the big bang is a continuous process"

Now, do you mean, "What if the singularity and the big bang is a continuous process"

or do you mean, "What if the singularity and the big bang are continuous processes"? This MUST be cleared up before further debate.

I mean "is a continuous process" in that the 2 events are connected.

The singularity is at one end of this "core", that I spoke about and the big bang is at the other end.

Its a bit like a gas turbine engine with the suck at the front, (singularity), squeeze in the middle, (core), and the bang and blow at the other end, (Big bang).

It is not really 2 seperate events but 1 event spread over the length of the universe and whatever goes in one end eventually exits the other end to repeat the cycle. This would mean there was time before the big bang as we currently understand it.

I hope this helps you to help me.

In classical Cosmology, the original singularity and the BB were more or less the same thing. If we wind the cosmo-equations back in time, they break down at t=0, with infinite expansion rate and infinite energy density - hence the singularity.

Modern (post-2005) cosmology challenges the idea of a 'beginning' and proposes a number of models that are eternal, including "bounces" and "pinch-off universes". I'm waiting for the book "Beyond the Big Bang" (Vaas) scheduled about April, 210, which compares the new theories in an apparently accessible way. The technical articles available are too numerous and too technical for my liking. Hence, I cannot say much on topics beyond the present standard model.

I would be quite surprised if the "continuous process", as you described it, is amongst them, but you never know...

-J

This sounds like one for Jorrie.

Thanks for that Jorrie.

I'm no genius and as I stated earlier, its just a thought that was rattling around. When you stand night watch on the bridge you get to see the cosmos in a new way. Is there a major flaw in this theory of mine that is obvious to everyone except me?

The book you speak of has been added to my list of "must reads." Hopefully I will understand the book and it may give me a better insight to what the current trains of thought are.

Hi Kiwi Bloke. At a first view your approach doesn't seem to have a correspondence with the real world. If there is a "continuous process" (this reminds me the Steady State Theory) demands the existence -somewhere in our 3d universe- of a singularity which produces new energy/space-time (something like a White Hole?)... and -somewhere else- there is another singularity which squashes and "swallows" the energy/space-time of the universe (something like a Black Hole?)... If so, then everything in the universe should follow the same direction (path) going to the 2nd singularity (and to be crushed). But everything around us are moving away from us (actually everything is moving away from everything... this is why we assume that the space itshelf is expanding...). There isn't a "preferable" direction (so where this "2nd singularity" could be?).

Till now, scientists assume that the BB was just an (accidental?) event that happened -just once and all of a sudden- almost 13,7 billion years ago. The singularity of the BB is left in the past... (and, as it seems, there will be no other singularity, in the future, where the universe will end its life (i.e. a Big Crunch)...) This is the main difference of the BB singularity and a black (or white) hole singularity: The first (BB) was a kind of a "cosmic explosion" and existed only in "time zero", while the second (bh) exists for a long time (till its death due to "Hawking radiation").

G.K. I have thought about the universe expanding in all directions and while sitting quietly on watch with nothing better to do came up with this hypothesis.

Using the metaphor of the magnet and lines of flux, picture our part of the universe heading towards the equator of the magnet. We are possibly accelerating and expanding at the same time. We may be accelerating faster than the matter behind us but slower than the matter ahead of us. Could this portray the universe expanding in all directions from our perspective and also satisfy a linear movement of the universe as a whole? This is with the assumption that the observable universe is tiny in the big scheme of things.

What I am proposing is no different to the big bang big crunch theory other than the 2 events do not happen at the centre of the universe but at opposite extremities.

We may only be 13.7 billion years away from our origin and 200 billion years from our apex where the universe begins to reduce in size heading towards the other end of the "magnet".

I also read somewhere that scientist could not explain why parts of the universe seemed older than what they should be.

If nothing else I enjoy the discussion. I think I just had too much time to think and ponder the stars alone.

Hi Kiwi,

We are in the center of the observable universe and to us all directions look exactly the same. We see the same CMB pattern everywhere we look. There is absolutely no evidence that one end could be different from the other...

And BTW, the BB singularity happened everywhere at once, not 'here' in the center only. We are also not 13.7 billion years (distance) from 'our origin' - there is no such place. We are 13.7 billion years (time) away from the the last BB, as we understand it. The light from shortly after the BB (the CMB radiation) took 13.7 billion years to reach us, but that area (the origin of the CMB) is now 45 billion light years away from us, due to cosmic expansion.

Finally, I can see no sense in the "magnetic model' that you postulate, sorry! :)

-J

Jorrie,

no need to be sorry. I value good discussion and am only postulating an idea. I'm not saying that this is the truth because we don't know with any certainty what the truth really is.

"There is absolutely no evidence that one end could be different from the other..." and there is no evidence to say that they can't be different. Maybe we can't see far enough to notice the differences or we don't know yet what to look for.

13.7 billion years from the origin or 300 billion years makes no difference to my hypothesis as it is only a measurement of time.

As to seeing sense in my "magnetic model", that is up to you. I use the metaphor of a magnet to help describe how I see things. I do not necessarily mean that it is a magnet per se. But the general idea of how lines of flux look, and possibly move, does describe my thoughts.

But can I say with all due respect, that you haven't shown me where the fundamental flaw in this hypothesis lays. You have only said that you can see no sense.

To quote Einstein "I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Hi Kiwi,

In order to make any sense from your model, you will have to make it a lot more specific, preferably by giving some equations or graphs. In order to 'test' your model against the accumulated observations, you will have to make some specific predictions of standard things and especially some that differ from the standard model.

For example, if you think the CMB may be anisotropic, you have to quantify that in terms of some parameters. Then you can comb the accumulated evidence for any tell-tale signs.

Other than that, I cannot give any more advice, apart from maybe studying cosmology to a level of understanding what you will be up to.

Burt

Hi again, Kiwi Bloke. I made some drawings to show you why your model can't be right. (I always say that a good picture is better than a thousand words). Let's suppose that we are moving away from the 1st singularity in a linear way, i.e. in straight lines (we are still somewhat close to the singularity). Then we have the following:

We are at A. Concerning the X axis we see that the other objects (e.g. B & C) depart from us. The distance of C is (e.g.) twice that of B and the apparent velocity of C (v_C=2L/Δt) is also twice that of B (v_B=L/Δt). This seems to be in accordance with the observations of the real world. (The same is also valid for the Z axis in a 3d model.)

However, this is not the case for the Y axis. Near the signularity the distance between us and the other nearby objects (which are in front of us and behind us) remains almost constant. And when we are far away from the singularity, the objects which are in front of us are moving slower than us (as they are gradually decelerated) while the objects which are behind us are moving faster than us. So, we see all these objects -apparently- moving towards us. The following figure shows this issue.

You see that in t2 the objects B and C are much closer to us (A) than in t1. Actually there must be a period (in the middle between the two sisgularities) where many objects will be crowded (great proximity). [By the way, we get the "opposite picture" as we approach the 2nd singularity: on X (or Z) axis the objects are moving towards us and on the Y axis the objects are moving away from us.]

Nevertheless, this "picture" is not in accordance at all with the real world. In other words, in your theory there should not be a "symmetry" between the X or Z axis and the Y axis. But in the real world we see an absolute symmetry in all directions: All objects around us are moving away from us... and the further an object is, the faster is moving away from us... Hence, your theory must be wrong...

I hope that I helped.

I am well outside my area of expertise here, but it strikes me that the popular depiction of a black hole as some sort of whirlpool cannot be correct.

Basically, it is a sphere,whose entire surface is sucking things into it.

The sphere simply gets bigger as it swallows more.

If entering one, you never catch up to what went before as the predecessors are moving at light speed just as you are. Actually, you are travelling at the speed of light, yet from the reference frame of center of the hole, you are stationary, while the event horizon moves away from you.

As time has stopped, you have the odd effect of having movement of the boundary in zero time! (I think I am scrambling reference frames here.)

From the reference frame of the event horizon, you are travelling away from the horizon towards the center. Travelling at the speed of light you couldn't move relative to this frame, so your velocity in this frame must be less than light speed as there will be apparent movement.

Either way, from your own reference frame, you would be at light speed and in time stasis.

Hi Sceptic, I'm afraid your depiction of a black hole is somewhat contra to the scientific view. My take is the following:

Things like gas and dust generally spiral into a black hole in the form of an accretion disk. This is the path of least resistance (friction) for particles 'rubbing shoulders'. This happens whether the black hole spins or not, though most is thought to spin rather fast. In the case of a non-spinning hole, it is however possible for isolated particles/persons to fall in radially ('straight in'), although unlikely.

There is no 'reference frame of the center'. One has to choose very specific coordinates if you want to study the effect of the black hole interior on particles, e.g., the second one shown in this Blog post on CR4, called "free-fall coordinates". Inside the horizon, these coordinates say you will observe the singularity 'coming up' at more than the speed of light to crush you, while you will observe the horizon (if you could see it) and the outside world to recede from you.

You won't go into 'time stasis' while you fall in - in fact, time would appear quite normal to you, while things outside would appear slowed down and things closer to the singularity would appear sped up...

-J

Hi Kiwi_Bloke,

There is no center of the universe, but as Jorrie said, wherever you go, you're in the center of the "visible universe". A singularity is hypothetical. One version of the Big Bang starts the universe out as one, but if it was continuous, the universe wouldn't exist now. However the Big Bang could be continuous (present observation points in that direction).

-S

Hi S. You said: "However the Big Bang could be continuous" What do you mean by "continuous"??? In which way??? And you said: "(present observation points in that direction)." How is that???

G.K.

Hi G.K.

I meant that present observation (since about 2003) has backed up the ACDM model which has the universe forever expanding (continuous BB) without a "Big Rip" occurring. Of course inflation has stopped, but that's only part of one version of the BB. Unless I have missed something more recent. Feel free to step in Jorrie.

-S

Hi S,

Strictly, the past inflation epoch is not considered to be part of the BB. The BB was meant to be just the infinite density and expansion rate (i.e., singularity) at t=0. Inflation was invented to solve some problems, e.g., the initial infinite expansion rate and some others. Since the energy density was still infinite at t=0 (despite expansion rate ~ 0), I suppose it is still a singularity, but not quite the original 'bang'.

Inflation also do not form part of the ΛCDM model, which starts to be valid only after the original inflation stopped. I think what you referred to as 'continuous BB' is more like 'continuous inflation', albeit at a very sedate rate. Present observations point to non-zero vacuum energy density being the cause of current accelerated expansion. The original inflation was probably not caused by vacuum energy, although it cannot be completely ruled out as a possibility.

Jorrie, et al,

I am trying to digest the information that you have all given me, and obviously I have had an oversimplified view of proceedings. I must thank you all for your input and it seems I will have to investigate the subject more. It has raised the question of my understanding of a singularity and the big bang.

At the moment I am in the middle of mid-terms and still holding down a full time job so the time alloted to this cause is minimal. I will continue to read this forum and seek more information.

Again thank you all and I look forward to learning more.

Rob