Seeking Evidence of Cosmological Inflation:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Apr 26, 2016.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Having opposite agendas of no pre-conceived ideas and wanting to learn, I ran across a picture which stirred my imagination in regard to the concept of a *multiverse*.

    It seems to me that an important question in regard to a multiverse is if they are all the same size and if they have some fundamental properties (potentials) in common with our own universe.

    I recently was drawn to a discussion of the mysteries of what goes on inside a Black Hole.
    I think the current view is that at the center of a BH lies a *singularity*, so massive as to be surrounded by a gravity field so strong as to prevent *light* from escaping the *envelope* of gravitationally warped space.

    Then I ran across this picture of a light cone and I saw a possible analogy to the concept of a multiverse. The picture shows a *singularity* (mass/energy source) at the bottom of the top cone and a *singularity* (energy source) at the top of the bottom cone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now comes the tricky part of explaining why this triggered a vision of a multiverse.

    If we placed an *event horizon* (a black lid) on top of the green cone, we would be unable to see beyond that into the cone and observe the singularity. However as the BH, during its travel keeps absorbing matter and the singularity becomes denser, could it eventually reaches a limit which causes it to explode and release all the trapped energy, where would that energy go? Would it create a White Hole elsewhere.

    To my knowledge the only WH our universe has ever experienced was the BB, which created our universe and at that time did not seem to obey our current universal laws of gravity and FTL expansion which would suggest that a * virgin permittive condition" existed before the BB spewed it's energy into it and created our universe as we know it today.

    Suppose we kept the purple cone open (assuming a possible pathway (tunnel) into an *empty* non-gravitational condition), then the energy from the exploding singularity would pour out through the purple cone as a BB creating another fledgling universe. A *White Hole" in another dimension, separated from our universal 3+1 dimensions.

    In my imagination this new universe would start with a rapid inflation, eventually cooling down and creating particles, just as our universe experienced.

    I know this presents several problems with current scientific knowledge and may well be a *flight of fancy*, but I have always wondered if a BH has limits and what would happen if and when that limit is reached.

    Question: is there any reason why our universe should be the only one in existence? We cannot even see the edge of our universe, making it impossible to observe another universe in a multiverse within an infinite permittive condition of Nothingness.

    Is this proposition worthy of discussion or is my logic based on a completely false premise?
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 2, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Of course it is, although, yes there probably are a couple of problems; There is nothing wrong in speculating, cosmologists do it all the time, and even little old me too....The trick is not to get your speculative dreams/ideas mixed with reality.
    I've thought myself about the BB being the arse end of a BH in another spacetime: A White Hole no less.
    But I also remember a young GR theorist professional telling me that WH's just cannot exist.
    I'm not sure of his exact reasons now though:
    Another idea I like perusing is imagining what happens if one were to enter a Kerr/spinning BH from a calculated trajectory at the polar regions so as to pass through the middle of the ring singularity directly at the center. One theoretically could enter without too much harm, as the gravity would be pulling from all sides and equalised or the effects cancelled out: Leading to the $64,000,000 question as to where one would emerge....another spacetime, another newly made universe??? All awesome speculative ideas!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    Probably just out the other side of the ring singularity, but it would be worth the ride if you lived. Your trajectory would have to be incredibly precise for that to happen, I think.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I never could reconcile the expression "light cannot escape a BH" with the assumption that a BH is black inside of the event horizon. If there is light (that cannot escape) then is it not possible that beyond the event horizon a BH is in fact a very brightly lit space with all that trapped light inside and we just cannot see it because the event horizon prevents this light from escaping.

    From what I understand pressure creates heat. If the center of a BH consists of dense matter, how could it be black and not as bright as say a neutron star, which is considerably less massive (dense) than the singularity of a BH.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2016
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    The point being? I have not said anything bad about him, instead, I have said "I would guess Sean Carroll would also see no reason to object", thus, I would guess he agrees with me about this.
    The same what applies to me, if you invent what I think, applies to your inventions about what Carroll thinks too: Support your defamations and inventions with an explicit quote. Instead, here is my quote from him: "There are galaxies sufficiently distant that their apparent recession velocities today are greater than the speed of light."

    Behind "most likely" one can expect a defamation. And, indeed. Think about the possibility that I criticize you for the errors you make. You seem unable to recognize that scientists care about arguments, not about "strong opposition" if it is not supported by arguments. You know that the quantization of GR is very problematic, not? You know that, instead, usual condensed matter is described by quantum condensed matter theory, which has found a lot of interesting things, from superfluidity to phonons ("particles" of sound)? You may be able follow, therefore, the argument that if we would describe the gravitational field with a classical condensed matter theory, we would be able to quantize it? And that, if one compares a theory with is unable to be quantized, with a theory which can be quantized following standard quantum condensed matter theory, the latter make more predictions, because it also predicts quantum gravity effects?

    But this is your main problem - you do not follow arguments. You continue to name a purely sociological, economical argument, which does not include any hidden wrongdoers, a "conspiracy".

    You do not argue at all - the repetition of the same negative feelings is not argumentation, and even less a strong one.

    And what has been said above about your fantasies about Carroll remains true about your fantasies about me. I fully agree with Carroll about the following: "There are galaxies sufficiently distant that their apparent recession velocities today are greater than the speed of light."
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Question: Can distant galaxies actually have a recession speed greater than the SOL?

    If not why would distance have any effect on the light they emit? I can understand that light from a distant object may be diffused or delayed by all the stuff it has to go through, but assuming a vacuum, would it matter how far an object is for it's light to continue until it is observed or absorbed?

    p.s. If two galaxies recede from each other at 51% of SOL, I can understand that the combined recession speeds would be greater than SOL and neither would be visible to the other.
    So my question should be "do galaxies travel at greater than half SOL"?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2016
  10. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    Your proper time as you fell into the hole would appear to run slower and slower to someone watching outside; eventually each of your seconds would be a billion years to someone outside. To you, of course, proper time is proper time and you'd notice nothing but the tidal effects of the hole; if somehow you made it past the event horizon alive, no one can predict what you'd see with current theory. Kip Thorne has some pretty good speculations in Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. I'd trust him to guess pretty well considering his past exploits.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Thank you for that reference. I shall read it.
     
  12. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    Tomorrow when I can think better I'll hunt up some references for you on galaxies receding faster than the speed of light. Short answer is, yes they do, and in fact most of them we can see are, and many of those always were. Which may surprise you since it's hard to figure how light from a galaxy that was always receding faster than light could be seen; there is an answer, the light never travels faster than light, and it has to do with how space expands. It's surprisingly counter-intuitive until you've thought about it a while.

    Just to whet your appetite.
     
  13. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    I found a paper you will find interesting, Write4U, on exactly the subject you're curious about, though it's a bit heavy. Give it a try and tomorrow I'll try to explain it to you if you have questions.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808v2.pdf
     
    Write4U likes this.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I've been subject a few times by your own defamations and adhoms, that you somehow weirdly see as not being defamations and adhoms, while expressing concern about criticism from me and the use of words such as "squirming"
    Another word comes to mind actually...Prima Donna.
    Wrong: I stand by all I have said in this thread and again claim this is simply you and frivolous pedant. The point is of course that I dare stand up to a professional........and further dare question your motives.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This illustrates what I have said and claimed.
    Back in post 6 I said.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I'll leave you now schmelzer to do what you do best.........
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2016
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Nice one Schneibs and the same I linked to earlier to illustrate my point.
     
    Schneibster likes this.
  16. Schneibster Registered Member

    Messages:
    390
    I liked it then and I like it now.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Yes.

    A general problem is that GR does not have even a definition of velocities between far away galaxies. But in case of the expanding universe we have a preferred time coordinate: Time after the BB singularity as measured by clocks in rest relative to the CMBR. In fact, it is simply the time coordinate in the FLRW ansatz $ds^2 = d\tau^2 - a^2(\tau) (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)$. With such a preferred time coordinate, one has also a preferred contemporaneity - so that it makes sense to ask at which distance some galaxy is now.

    So, if we are now ($\tau=\tau_0$) at (0,0,0), and the galaxy is at the coordinates (l,0,0), then the distance now is $a(\tau_0)l/c$, it will be $s(\tau_0+\Delta \tau) l/c$ some $\Delta\tau$ later, thus, will have the relative speed of $v = (l/c) \frac{a(\tau+0+\Delta\tau)-a(\tau_0)}{\Delta \tau} = l a'(\tau_0)/c$. Thus, if l is large enough this velocity can be as large as you like. All you need for this is that there is some expansion at all, $a'(\tau_0)\neq 0$.

    No, you have not been the subject of defamations by me. If you see a defamation by me, quote it, we will see. Don't forget, simply something negative about you is not defamation, it has to be negative and also wrong.

    I have never claimed that I never use ad hominem arguments, feel free to use them against me too. All I have said is that such arguments are, in general, weak, and arguments about the content are in general of much higher value.
    I have criticized your use of "squirming" for a simple reason: There was no such squirming.
    First, this whole text does not show at all that there was something wrong with my claim. Which was: "But this is your main problem - you do not follow arguments. You continue to name a purely sociological, economical argument, which does not include any hidden wrongdoers, a "conspiracy"."

    You stand, indeed, by all of your claims. Without even caring about the arguments proposed against them. A behavior I name "uneducable". What means "dare"? Is there any risk questioning my motives without any evidence? Is there any risk making unprofessional claims about whatever, ignoring professional refutations, and simply to say "I stand by my claims"? For reasonable people, there would be a risk - such behavior would destroy their reputation. You have no reputation you could loose with such behavior.

    This illustrates only that about the simple fact that "take two objects far enough apart, and the recessional velocity, due to spacetime expansion will be in excess of "c" there is no disagreement. Note, I have not objected to this claim. Your fantasies about my "total denial of the validity of recessional velocities of galaxies exceeding FTL" are nothing but your fantasies.

    I have objected to your "And of course the universe could be said to be expanding FTL." The problem is that while pairs of galaxies may have relative speeds, the universe as a whole has no expansion "speed" which could be compared with the speed of light.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2016
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The thing is that once anything crosses the EH, which is the Schwarzchild radius in a non rotating Schwarzchild BH, further collapse according to GR is compulsory.
    Everything has only one path to travel in this curved spacetime, and that is to the center where the Singularity resides according to GR.Nothing remains within the EH between it and the Singularity, including light....just critically curved spacetime: At the same time at this Singularity at the quantum/Planck level of spacetime, GR is not applicable. So, yes it would be black and more worringly the tidal gravitational forces will spaghettify you on your way to the singularity and eventually rip apart all your atoms and even further down to the most basic consituents, overcoming even the strong nuclear force.

    Most physicists though believe that the point Singularity where spacetime is infinitely curved and density is infinite does not really exist.
    Somewhere below the quantum/Planck level and the point singularity the mass that makes up the BH should reside in an as yet unknown condition or form. A future QGT may reveal the true nature of what is there.

    Simply because nothing gets out from the singularity, not even light.
    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Ignoring your rant and usual denials you can object as much as you like.....The phrase is used in both pop and professional aspects of science literature and still stands as an apt description of spacetime expansion at FTL.
    And is one I will use when and where I believe it necessary.
     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    The phrase is, indeed, used. And it is unprofessional. If pop-science journalists use it, one may forgive them, journalists ... If professional scientists use it, they show their own incompetence and disqualify themself. If you use it, it proves that you are uneducable. Different from pop-science journalists, who simply don't know better, you have been told that it is wrong, with explanation why it is wrong, have not given any counterarguments, but nonetheless ignore it and continue to use it.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Unprofessional or not [which is your opinion] it is not wrong in the message it conveys successfully.
    You have it all screwed up Schmelzer.......
    The phrase is indeed used by both amateur and professional.......It conveys a picture of reality that's easily understood.......Professionals use it for that reason.....Schmelzer's claim that professionals should disqualify themselves as a result is nothing more than a Prima Donna performance worthy of an Oscar as is his own less than professional approach in keeping this nonsense going simply because I refuse to listen to his emotional excuses and instead stoops to the usual adhoms and insults, which according to his own Prima Donna reasoning, are not insults and/or adhoms......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In essence than the universe can be said to be expanding FTL and is by reputable professionals.
    Take two objects far enough apart, and the recessional velocity, due to spacetime expansion will be in excess of "c"
    I also would not be to fond in belittling pop science and professionals, as you yourself claim to have an ether hypothesis that does more than GR, yet languishes uncited in oblivion.
    You take it easy now Schmelzer.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2016
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I am getting confused.
    May I ask if my view comes close to acceptance.
    I thought space was expanding at a local rate that is somewhat insignificant but when we look at galaxies many billions of light years distant from each other the "insignificant rate of expansion" manifests that the relative speed of these galaxies can be even faster than light.

    Alex
     
    Schneibster likes this.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Thanks Paddo, for the link, I'll dl the PDF so I can read at my leisure.[/quote]
    ---------------------------------------------------
    p.s. @Schneibster, have perused a few pages of Thorpes' work and I am hooked.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Schneibster likes this.

Share This Page