When did I suggest that? I believe plugging the Schwartzchild radius into the the formula for denstiy is going to give you some weird numbers that don't have any physical meaning. As I said before using the Schwartzchild radius for the universe is not correct. For fun(?) I ran your numbers (once) and I got a wildly different number than you (I may have made an error - not going to check it). Did you convert your 1.3 H atoms to the proper units? 1.3 H atoms \( = 9 \times 10^{-26}\) kg. This is a bad assumption. The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. The red shift and several other pieces of evidence indicate that the age of the universe is 13.8 years old. That is a faulty assumption based on faulty assumptions. Dark energy is not about the expansion of the universe. The expansion of the universe was accepted long before the discovery of dark energy. Dark energy explains the ACCELERATION of the expansion of the universe - not the expansion itself.
I know you didn't, and I just offered it because unless someone can show differently, gravitational wave energy propagates through space spherically, presumably at the speed of light. I was brainstorming with you, taking your idea and putting in into a context that could explain it. The context requires preconditions to explain the expanding wave energy and I only suggested that you could imagine a cause for the expanding wave of energy that you invoke, and at the same time, avoid the "something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe. Silly me though, because I see that you are going for the infinitely small origin, presumably out of nothingness, and then attributing energy to it on the basis of the curvature of spacetime. You may still have trouble getting energy out of smooth spacetime though. The presence of matter and energy causes the curvature, and the tiny perturbations in the local curvature mean that the spacetime is not perfectly smooth, it is grainy, to use a term that I have heard used in regard to the evolution of structure out of the energy density of the early universe. But keep at it and go where it leads you.
I understand expansion at the boundary, and can imagine how you see it to be the place where the energy of the expansion of spacetime has to "put up or shut up", figuratively. Either there is energy there that can be converted to matter and particles, or there isn't. What is occurring at the boundary after a thousand years of expansion without there being matter formed as the boundary advances, that is different when the "expansion at the boundary" all of a sudden "puts up", and forms matter? Is some threshold reached or what, and why not sooner, or why not later, i.e. what event determines the point in time when the "expansion at the boundary" yields matter? The following is more respectfully offered brainstorming. When you equate "expansion at the boundary" with both expansion and with dark energy, and acknowledging Origin's clarification that dark energy is the mysterious force to which the current model attributes the acceleration of expansion, not expansion it self, you have an inconsistency. I understand that as an inconsistency from my perspective, but if it is not an inconsistency from your perspective, I will look for you to explain. Both the concept of expansion of the boundary, and accelerating expansion of galactic structure that forms from the matter that forms at the "expansion at the boundary" might show better consistency with observations of the redshift, and the acceleration, if there is an energy density differential at the boundary. I know, it is unheard of to consider anything outside the boundary, but if the expanding spacetime started at infinite energy density in zero point space, and if the energy density was declining as the finite volume of the expanding "bubble" increased, then you have the seeds for both expansion and accelerating expansion at the "expanding boundary", if the bubble was expanding because the high density inside the bubble was equalizing with some lower level of energy density, even zero energy density of a vacuum, surrounding the expanding bubble. I'm sure you already have a grasp on its expansion, and how expansion at the boundary causes matter to form at some point, for reasons you are going to reveal in response to the inconsistency question, (I hope). Then, the matter that forms, presumably, will have separation momentum imparted to it because it formed in an expansionary environment, wouldn't it? That would mean that if separation momentum is conserved, anything that forms as the new particles clump would result in the clumps all moving away from each other too. This would continue to be the case right on up to the formation of galactic structure, if expansion is an ongoing characteristic at the boundary. Strangely and coincidently, that brings us back to the description I gave very early in the thread about galaxy formation, see post #7, and see how it would fit nicely at the point that matter forms via the expansion at the boundary, but I'm just brainstorming this, so any response to it would help me get back on track with your model. Have fun with it. """"""""""""""""
The equations of general relativity indicate that mass curves spacetime but the objective is to show how curved spacetime can lead to matter formation. In the spacetime boundary model space is curved with spherical curvature at the boundary so if there were any light present it would travel in circular paths around the centre of the universe or in straight lines in a radial direction or on intermediate paths between these two directions and affected by the spherical spacetime curvature of the universe. The curvature is smooth while being spherical and radial. The potential energy of this expanding space exists throughout the universe as it expands. The equations of GR applied within this expanding space indicate that matter must form and here we turn to the observations of distant gamma ray bursts. These have been found to be so far away and contain so much energy that it was thought that they must be directional jets of some kind. If you take gamma ray bursts as a spherically radiating explosion then the energy is large enough to be attributed to galaxy formation. Regarding dark energy, my impression was that it was the only way that cosmologists could find of matching the expansion of space with observation. This has been described as acting like a cosmological constant to fine tune the expansion. My point is that this is not needed in the spacetime boundary model as the expansion of space is paced by expansion at the boundary. I have taken the expansion of space at the boundary to be the speed of light because it seems to fit with the data as I understood it, but I think there is no physical reason why it could not be greater or less than c. It just seemed to me that observations of red shift seem to approach the speed of light as you go further and further away and extrapolating to the boundary would seeem to be around the speed of light as a recession velocity. In the spacetime boundary model the energy density is zero prior to galaxy formation since the only form of energy around is the changing curvature of spacetime. The galaxies form throughout space and follow the local expansion of space at the point of formation. They would carry momentum corresponding to this initial velocity and the entire galaxy would evolve and move together (initally hydrogen atoms and subsequently stars) with the same velocity. The explanation of the observed acceleration of the expansion of space is explained in: https://www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe and I will try to describe it here. It does depend on the idea that the radius of the universe is increasing at one light year per year. Then the average expansion of the universe at a particlular time is proportional to 1/R where R is the radius of the universe. This means that the expansion of the universe was greater in the past but when we observe distant galaxies we have concluded that it is accelerating. It took me some investigation to find out what is actually observed and that is that the distant supernovae appear to be fainter and moving more quickly than we expected. This is explained in the spacetime boundary model by realising that the distant galaxies formed during a period when the universe was expanding more rapidly and therefore they have a greater velocity than we expected. It may be significant that our point of observation is close to the centre of the universe based on calculations of the redshift of the CMB background. Regarding the calculation of the radius of the universe, I tried to use density of matter because of the point made in an earlier post that using an estimate of the mass based on other theoretical assumptions is invalid. I used a mass of the hydrogen atom of 1.673 {10^-27} Kg. Richard
You have brought up questions about current theory and addressed them in your posts and links with new and different interpretations. We disagree on a variety of things, and our views are much different, but if the math works, and you are more comfortable with assumptions you make and with the unknowns, that is the important thing. You may get comments from other interested parties in response, and I'll keep watching.
Please supply evidence that the equations for general relativity state that expanding space means matter must form or retract that statment. No, gamma ray burst have nothing to do with galaxy formation. Why would an explosion make a galaxy? The reason most gama ray bursts are far away is because they rarely occur. You are just using circular logic. Again Dark matter is theorized as the cause for the ACCELERATION of the expansion of the universe. I suppose you would say the expansion is acclerating because the boundry is accelerating. It does not fit at all. When we see light that is 13.7 years old that means that at the time it was emitted the source was MUCH closer than 13.7 ly. It also means that the source is now much farther the 13.7 ly and it will have a recession velocity greather than c so the milky way will never see light from the source again. Completely unevidence wild speculation that has no basis in science. The expansion of space does not impart any velocity or momentum to galaxies. This is just something you made up which shows you do not understand the concept of an expanding universe.
Now that you have a good response based on a perspective from the consensus, I can play the devil's advocate. Forget the "surrounding environment" idea that I thought might be so useful, lol. Brainstorming again, if you want the initial expanding space and time to pre-date the formation of matter, then there are ways to imagine that scenario that don't have to be rejected, and that don't have to violate the EFEs. Your scenario suggests that the space that is being created as the expansion of the boundary takes place drives a declining ratio of some sort. I say that because as the radius increases, and the spherical volume increases, the denominator of some equation is also increasing. If the numerator of that equation is some fixed finite value, perhaps representing the energy value of the universe, then you are saying that as the ratio between the energy and the volume declines, it reaches a point where it becomes possible for matter to form at the boundary. Does that correspond to your scenario in any way? Just in case it does, that is not utterly and totally inconsistent with the scenario that would consider the earliest moments of our universe to be the densest. Particles are thought to get their mass from more massive decay products as the expansion of the hot dense ball of energy expands. You could simply insert volume and time parameters necessary before the expansion can be capable of producing matter. If that is a thousand years, and a radius of the volume of space a thousand light years, then so be it. Do you like it? I still hate the something from nothing beginning, but for each of the three major explanations of the existence of the universe, there must be scenarios. Any response to this?
I see it more as something from "nothing that as yet we are able to understand", and is not covered by current cosmological models.
That is a way to put it. The distinction is that we might "understand" a variety of scenarios, but no one of them has yet gained enough support to change the consensus. The scenarios are out there, and as you reported earlier, some lose ground and some gain ground. There are alternatives in the race to greater or lesser degrees, just not successful as things stand.
Hi origin, The evidence that I would like to present from general relativity comes from the book General Theory of Relativity by P.A.M. Dirac. I refer to chapter 24 Modification of the Einstein equations by the presence of matter and chapter 25 the material energy tensor. The equations in these chapters refer to the fact that a distribution of mass energy curves spacetime and provides a relationship between the mass energy distribution and the curvature of spacetime. My qualitative deduction is that, if there is an externally applied change in spacetime curvature to the spherical region of the universe then there must be a corresponding formation of mass energy to balance the equations. At the end of chapter 24 is stated: In curved space the conservation of energy and momentum is only approximate. The error is ascribed to the gravitational field working on the matter and having itself some energy and momentum. This is why I think the law of conservation of energy should be modified to comprise mass, energy and spacetime curvature representing total energy. Then the total energy of the universe stays at zero and an externally applied change in spacetime curvature must lead to matter formation. Richard
Let me explain the idea of total energy in another way. Suppose we had a universe which contained a single massive object in otherwise empty space. This massive object would cause spacetime curvature and this spacetime curvature would extend throughout the universe with diminishing magnitude. The Newtonian approximation for gravitational force varies as the inverse square of the distance so the diminishing magnitude of spacetime curvature with distance would be similar. Now imagine that this mass were suddenly removed. Instantaneously the extended spacetime curvature is unaffected since a change can only propagate at the speed of light. This extended spacetime curvature is relevant to the total energy of the system. We have to consider the mass plus its associated spacetime curvature when considering conservation of total energy of the universe. Now instead of starting with a mass plus its spacetime curvature we start with an empty universe and apply change to spacetime curvature in the way described earlier. Then we have an imbalance in the total energy equation and we have spacetime curvature without the presence of mass. To balance the total energy equation we need the formation of mass. This gives an explanation for the source of energy for matter formation in the universe. Richard
Why would spacetime be curved without the presence of mass or energy. To answer this point I would like to explain my line of reasoning and at the same time make a distinction between assumptions, deductions, conjecture and observation. The initial assumption is that the universe is finite with three space dimensions and one time dimension. The deduction from this is that the universe has a space boundary. The alternative assumption that the universe is finite with no space boundary is ruled out because it would require a fourth space dimension and that contradicts the initial assumption. It is a conjecture that the boundary of the universe is spherical. This is a reasonable conjecture by consideration of symmetry. It is a conjecture that the curvature of space within the boundary is spherical. This is a reasonable conjecture in that the curvature of space within the boundary can be expected to match the shape of the boundary. It is an observation that the universe is expanding everywhere. It is the spherical curvature of space which, as the universe expands, implies an increase in the radius of curvature of space. This has the potential to provide energy for matter formation. Richard
If all the mass/energy in the Universe/space/time were removed, there would be no space or time or Universe to speak of. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. Sten Odenwald: """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
That's your choice to disagree....but to ignore the evidence? And really, coming from someone who believes in ghosts and goblins, giants and Alien origin UFO's, you really have zero credibility. But let me explain...... Space/time is warped and twisted in the presence of mass Gravity warps both space and time...... Space separates all mass/energy, without space everything would be together..... Time stops everything from happening together, without time, there would be no Universe...... Time and space have a flexibility about them.....they are not absolute as was once thought [hint: You need to keep up with the times] Space and time [space/time] evolved from the BB.......the Superforce gradually decoupled creating phase transitions, and along with the reduction in temperatures and pressures, allowed matter to evolve. You see matter could not possibly exist in the very early conditions of the Universe. Space, time, space/time, gravity, energy, matter are all interconnected...Without one, the others would not be able to exist.....without any one component, there would be no Universe/space/time.
I have looked in more detail at online sources regarding intergalactic stars and also references to them in this thread. The conclusion seems to be that any intergalactic stars that exist are the result of events related to the central black hole or from galaxy collisions. The basic point is that star formation always occurs within galaxies. There are no individual stars that have formed in intergalactic space. This seems to me to be a basic problem for the Big Bang theory which proposes that during the evolution of the universe there was a single all pervasive cloud of hydrogen gas which then collapsed under its own gravity. This being the case, we would definitely expect to see some isolated star formation outside galaxies and this is not observed. Richard
That's not the way it works. The all pervasive primordial gas clouds [note plural] were "convinced" to form and collapse under gravity and in conjunction with the very slight near uniform, tiny variations in the CMBR. These tiny variations were the seeds of galactic formation/ The individual huge clouds of hydrogen collapsed, broke apart and underwent nuclear ignition. The huge first Generation pop 3 stars lived fast and furious lives, undergoing supernova within 10's of millions of years. BH's were a result...some merged...that bound the other stars in their vicinity, to form our first galaxies....Galaxies merged, collided etc I don't see any problem for the BB.
Addendum: I don't believe single stellar formation is against any known scenario. I cannot see any reason why it would not be possible, but being on there own, they would be hard to detect.
There are theories on where the intergalactic stars came from but it is stil somewhat a mystery so it is not ruled out that these stars formed in the intergalactic space - however it is highly unlikely. This does not seem to me to be an issue with the big bang since the 'clumping' of the mass of the universe that led the formation of galaxies, galactic clusters and super clusters concentrated the gasses into small areas leaving the rest of the universe with very little materal. The mass in the intergalactic spaces has been basically starved by the clumping of the gasses that formed the galaxies. So there just is not enough material concentrated in the intergalactic medium it intiate the formation of stars. The intergalactic stars are more a mystery involving cosmology in general and do not seem to be a big question about the big bang.
