FAQ
It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:07 am


Author Message
davidjcarter
Post  Post subject: Hypothesis on successive Universes  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 5:27 am

Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:56 am
Posts: 2

Offline
Hypothesis of successive universes.
[Initial draft 1.0.7]
By David J Carter

Over many years our knowledge of the universe, its creation, history, components and many other aspects has developed into a vast catalogue of facts and theories.

Whilst many ideas can be proved through observation, there are many more that have experienced troubling anomalies and at the moment seem to defy a definitive explanation.

The Big Bang theory with its slight variations is accepted by most in the relevant scientific fields.

There are the Multiverse theories where parallel universes exist on their individual membranes (called branes) and there are different levels of thought on this.

There are also the cyclic Big Crunch or Big Bounce theories. Where the Universe has expanded and contracted many times.

Within this article when referring to the universe, I mean that place in which we currently reside that consists of space, matter, energy and experiences time.

When referring to matter, I mean visible or baryonic matter, with which we are mostly familiar.

It is estimated that our universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

This may appear to be a considerable length of time but when compared to eternity then it is just a drop in the infinite ocean.

Rather than limited in size, by the speed of light, to 13.8 billion light years wide, it is considered to be about 90 billion light years in diameter and expanding.

At the point of the big bang there was simply space and no time; time can only come into existence with the appearance of matter and movement.

According to a number of models, the big bang inflated and however large this space became, it would do so instantly since time was meaningless. This is the Planck Epoch.

It inflated until the first particles of matter formed, Quarks, Hadrons, Leptons etc. This may have occurred 1 second after the big bang but in that “time”, the area of inflation may have exceeded 60 billion light years.

Time then began and expansion of these particles took over from inflation.

As to the shape of our universe, theories include spherical, flat or disk and saddle shaped.

If it is a disk then perhaps our observable universe exists on the outside of this inflated bubble of space, like a tyre on an enormous wheel. If spherical, then perhaps we exist on the skin of a huge empty ball; if saddle shaped, well, let your imagination fly.

OK, so far none of this is new and is all fairly standard drawing room discussion.

However, it is when observable anomalies start to appear that we can really push the envelope.

A number of these anomalies bring forth the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

So what are they all about?

Let's take a look at how these terms came in to being.

A quick look at Isaac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is required.

According to Newton, the attractive force (F) between two bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, between them.

In order for an object to maintain an orbital path around another object, the speed of that object is determined by the mass of both objects and the distance between their centres.

The greater the mass, the greater the force of gravity, the greater the distance, the lesser is that force.

In our solar system, the huge mass of the Sun has a gravitational effect on the planets.

Mercury, the closest planet, has to travel at a speed fast enough for it to stay in orbit and not be pulled into the sun. Also not too fast, because it would then escape the gravity of the Sun and fly off out of orbit. Ignoring Mercury's tiny mass, it is the distance from the Sun that determines this speed.

The Earth, the third planet, is further away and doesn't need to travel as fast as Mercury.

The further away a planet is from the sun, depending on the mass, the slower it has to travel to maintain its orbit.

Newton's law was updated by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it is still valid in approximating the effects of gravity.

Then, in 1932, Dutch astronomer Jan Oort made a prediction, Fritz Zwicky found evidence and 40 years later, Vera Ruben and W. Kent Ford Jr measured the rotation rates of distant galaxies, and found that something strange was happening.

It was noticed that, in spiral galaxies, where stars were further away from the Galactic Centre and should have been traveling more slowly to maintain their orbits, they weren't!

The distances involved and the masses of these stars seemed to defy Newton's law; they were traveling too fast! Galaxies exhibiting these rotational speeds should fly apart.

The distances were known, so the only other variable was the masses involved.

There had to be more mass in the vicinity of the outer stars, in order to maintain the higher speed.

This invisible extra mass was given the term “dark matter”.

Without dark matter the laws of gravity break down.

The question now became “what is this dark matter and where did it come from?”

It is with this article that I humbly offer a possible explanation.

One current theory is that the universe is all that exists and that there is an infinite nothingness beyond its boundaries.

We can call this infinite nothingness, the Void.

Consider the following:

The universe is estimated to have been in existence for just 13.8 billion years.

If this is the first universe ever to exist, then prior to its creation there was infinite nothingness for an infinite prior period.

I understand that this last statement is meaningless because time itself cannot exist in nothingness, but you might like to bear with me here.

If this is the first and only Universe, then we can stop looking for anything outside our universe to explain the anomalies within it.

However, let's just postulate that this isn't the first universe; it is just the current one and there have been an infinite number of prior and different universes. This is not the idea of a Big Crunch, but new and separate universes having little or no relationship to the previous one.

Quantum Mechanics, with the idea of Quantum Fluctuations in a vacuum, allows for a future Big Bang, so I believe it is possible that there were earlier ones.

If this is true and there may have been historically many universes, perhaps there is some residue of those long dead universes.

What happens to matter at the death of a universe?

One theory is that the universe will eventually cool to almost absolute zero as it expands.

This idea has been given the term “Thermal Death” or the “Big Freeze”.

Stephen Hawking’s studies show that at the end, perhaps only Black Holes would remain and even they would eventually dissipate by way of the particle emission of Hawking radiation.

So I am taking a leap here and assuming many previous universes, not parallel to our universe, but in series with it. We might then be able to conclude that the Void, rather than just infinite nothingness, might consist of that vast and possibly infinite residue of previous universes.

The majority of that residue may have traveled out with an expanding universe and accumulated in an enormous area at the very edge of possibilities; we might refer to this area as the universe graveyard.

This may exist as a huge mass of this residue or possibly in many individual bands where previous universes simply stopped moving.

Most importantly for us though, there might also be a vast amount of randomly placed straggler residue throughout the void. Of course that would be outside of the initial Planck Epoch.

Why straggler residue?

As a universe dies, one would expect it to do so in stages; parts would die long before the very end.

As this matter dies it would be transformed into something no longer resembling the original baryonic matter, from which it came.

In an ever expanding universe the space between baryonic matter becomes greater and if the residue has no matter in its vicinity to attract it, then it would be left behind by the expanding matter.

The universe, prior to ours, may have left a vast amount of its dead matter behind for us to pick up on our travels.

Our universe would have been created, inflated and is currently expanding toward the graveyard through an existing, dead matter filled, Void.

The very fabric of the Void, this long dead residue, might well be the dark matter that is currently eluding us.

If this is correct then the amount of dark matter within the boundaries of our universe would be just a minute fraction of the dark matter outside our universe.

______________________________________________

My hypothesis, then, is that our universe is expanding toward a vast infinity of dark matter in the graveyard and is constantly picking up bits of the straggler dark matter as it expands.

The universe expansion would be accelerating because of the enormous mass of the dark matter outside the universe, providing a huge and increasing gravitational attraction as we approach it. This would be providing the so called dark energy.

However the amount of dark matter inside the galaxy would act as an increasing internal gravitational force that holds the galaxies together.

If this hypothesis is true, then I predict that the amount of dark matter within the boundaries of our universe would increase over time, as we expand into the void.

So what of the possible evidence?

Dark matter does not reflect, absorb or emit light but it does react to the gravitational force of baryonic matter. baryonic matter would therefore tend to attract any newly arriving dark matter.

As more and more dark matter is being collected by our expanding universe, then the dark matter in each galaxy would be increasing and this should be measurable.

Observations and comparisons of galactic rotation speeds, over an extended period, should show an increase in the speed of the rotation.

If this increased speed is observed, unless the laws of gravity are wrong, this may point to an increase in dark matter.

We might also be able to observe far distant galaxies with respect to their development.

The galaxies closer to us are younger and those far away are older, however since we are not seeing those galaxies as they are today, but as they were billions of years ago, we might expect that those images would be from a time when less dark matter had been absorbed.

If it is possible to measure the rotation of very distant galaxies we might find that, in the past, they were rotating at speeds much closer to those predicted by Newton’s gravity law.

That observation would be certain proof that dark matter levels are increasing.

Of course until we can determine exactly what dark matter is, we will have no instruments capable of actually detecting it directly.

Perhaps if we can discover what is produced at the death of neutron stars, which also exhibit some peculiar properties, we might glean some idea of what remains in a dead universe.

Hopefully the hypothesis is interesting enough to have minds far greater than mine, attempting to disprove it.

January 25, 2017


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: Hypothesis on successive Universes  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 10:08 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 84

Offline
davidjcarter wrote:
time can only come into existence with the appearance of matter and movement.

Uh, what?
Time is a dimension. It's not reliant on either matter or movement.

Quote:
According to a number of models, the big bang inflated and however large this space became, it would do so instantly since time was meaningless.

No.

Quote:
Time then began

No.
The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the Big Bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultra-rapid but nevertheless continuous manner. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-1584819.html]

Quote:
Without dark matter the laws of gravity break down.

Huh?

Quote:
One current theory is that the universe is all that exists and that there is an infinite nothingness beyond its boundaries.

Could you provide a link to the theory that says this?

Quote:
So I am taking a leap here and assuming many previous universes, not parallel to our universe, but in series with it. We might then be able to conclude that the Void, rather than just infinite nothingness, might consist of that vast and possibly infinite residue of previous universes.

Too much of a leap.

Quote:
As this matter dies it would be transformed into something no longer resembling the original baryonic matter, from which it came.

Matter dies?

Quote:
The universe, prior to ours, may have left a vast amount of its dead matter behind for us to pick up on our travels.

No.
Universe - by definition - is all there is. Any "other universes" would not be accessible in this manner.

Quote:
Our universe would have been created, inflated and is currently expanding toward the graveyard through an existing, dead matter filled, Void.

Just... no.

Quote:
However the amount of dark matter inside the galaxy would act as an increasing internal gravitational force that holds the galaxies together.

Increasing internal gravitational force?

Quote:
Perhaps if we can discover what is produced at the death of neutron stars

Other than turning into a black hole or becoming a cold cinder?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hypothesis on successive Universes  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 1:42 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5566
Location: Iowa

Offline
Moved to New Hypotheses and Fringe Ideas

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
davidjcarter
Post  Post subject: Re: Hypothesis on successive Universes  |  Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 5:42 am

Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 4:56 am
Posts: 2

Offline
Thank you for taking the time to critique my ideas.

Carter wrote:
time can only come into existence with the appearance of matter and movement.

Quote:
Uh, what?
Time is a dimension. It's not reliant on either matter or movement.


Yes time is a dimension. However, if the universe was static, bodies completely at rest and all forces in equilibrium, down to the sub atomic level, then time would be meaningless. There would be nothing by which to measure it. Einstein said that time is relative to motion.

Carter wrote:
According to a number of models, the big bang inflated and however large this space became, it would do so instantly since time was meaningless.

Quote:
No.


Why not?

Carter wrote:
Time then began

Quote:
No.
The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the Big Bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultra-rapid but nevertheless continuous manner. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-1584819.html]


Can't argue with that, but it doesn't refute my idea.

Carter wrote:
Without dark matter the laws of gravity break down.

Quote:
Huh?


I thought this was self evident. The laws of gravity don't fit the observation of the stars in a spiral galaxy traveling too fast for their mass. They should be spinning out of their orbits.

Carter wrote:
One current theory is that the universe is all that exists and that there is an infinite nothingness beyond its boundaries.

Quote:
Could you provide a link to the theory that says this?


Try searching for "infinite nothingness".
Of course that idea is absurd, but so is the existence of the universe in the first place.


Carter wrote:
So I am taking a leap here and assuming many previous universes, not parallel to our universe, but in series with it. We might then be able to conclude that the Void, rather than just infinite nothingness, might consist of that vast and possibly infinite residue of previous universes.

Quote:
Too much of a leap.


I am reminded of the "Everyone knows..." statements that have stifled imagination through history.
Everyone knows that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the stars and planets revolve around it.
Any other idea was ridiculed and people stopped looking for a long time.

Carter wrote:
As this matter dies it would be transformed into something no longer resembling the original baryonic matter, from which it came.
Quote:
Matter dies?


Yes the "cold cinder" you refer to later.

Carter wrote:
The universe, prior to ours, may have left a vast amount of its dead matter behind for us to pick up on our travels.

Quote:
No.
Universe - by definition - is all there is. Any "other universes" would not be accessible in this manner.


Ah, the everybody knows statement. That is a definition and we can all stop imagining an alternative.

Carter wrote:
Our universe would have been created, inflated and is currently expanding toward the graveyard through an existing, dead matter filled, Void.

Quote:
Just... no.


In an impossible universe, with no real , proven beyond a doubt, answers, is anything "just no"?

Carter wrote:
However the amount of dark matter inside the galaxy would act as an increasing internal gravitational force that holds the galaxies together.

Quote:
Increasing internal gravitational force?


Galaxies do not fly apart - The mass of dark matter creates that greater gravity effect, internally in the galaxy.

Carter wrote:
Perhaps if we can discover what is produced at the death of neutron stars

Quote:
Other than turning into a black hole or becoming a cold cinder?


Ah cold cinders !!! Yes perhaps dark matter is just cold cinders. :-)

I do appreciate you taking the time to read my ideas, as crazy as they are, and you are probably correct in all of your comments.


Yours fondly,
David Carter


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: Hypothesis on successive Universes  |  Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 6:15 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 84

Offline
davidjcarter wrote:
Yes time is a dimension. However, if the universe was static, bodies completely at rest and all forces in equilibrium, down to the sub atomic level, then time would be meaningless.

Would it?
Is "meaningless" the same as "non-existent"?
Photons decay - what "motion" is involved in the "timing" of that?

Quote:
There would be nothing by which to measure it. Einstein said that time is relative to motion.

Not quite.
Measured time being relative to motion is not the same things as "time relies on - or is predicated on - motion".

Quote:
Why not?

Actually this is the wrong way round: YOU made the claim it's up to you support it. But, briefly,the inflation occurred AFTER the "initial" Big Bang - thus the universe existed thus time existed. Plus there is a "timescale" for that inflation. Plus - BY YOUR ARGUMENT "time can only come into existence with the appearance of matter and movement" if there was movement then time must exist.

Carter wrote:
Time then began

Quote:
Can't argue with that, but it doesn't refute my idea.

Um, the statement, which you have no dispute with that time emerged in a continuous manner (continuity implies- relies on - duration: time) doesn't refute "time THEN began"?
Plus (your own argument again) "1 second after the big bang" followed by "Time then began". How can time "begin" one second after something else? If there's no time there's no "after". If there's no time there's no"1 second".

Quote:
I thought this was self evident. The laws of gravity don't fit the observation of the stars in a spiral galaxy traveling too fast for their mass. They should be spinning out of their orbits.

We did manage to formulate those laws before we even knew about DM. Can you show that DM is integral to the laws of gravity?

Carter wrote:
One current theory is that the universe is all that exists and that there is an infinite nothingness beyond its boundaries.

Quote:
Try searching for "infinite nothingness".

No: YOU made the claim, it's not up to me to look for whatever links MIGHT support that claim. I took a quick look via Google and there's NOTHING to suggest that there is a theory (at least a scientific one: plenty of nutcase claims) says this.

Quote:
I am reminded of the "Everyone knows..." statements that have stifled imagination through history.
Everyone knows that the Earth is the centre of the universe and the stars and planets revolve around it.
Any other idea was ridiculed and people stopped looking for a long time.

Doesn't actually support your leap though, does it?

Quote:
Yes the "cold cinder" you refer to later.

Ah, the "cold cinder" that's still matter? That one? Unless your definition of "matter dying" is radically different from what the words actually mean.
I'll wait..

Quote:
Ah, the everybody knows statement. That is a definition and we can all stop imagining an alternative.

Oh well. Imagine. That's okay then. It's not like this is a science forum that relies on things like evidence, support etc. Imagination is the absolute best basis for claims, isn't it?

Quote:
In an impossible universe, with no real , proven beyond a doubt, answers, is anything "just no"?

Exactly. Made up sh*t with ZERO SUPPORTING evidence is always "just no".

Quote:
Galaxies do not fly apart - The mass of dark matter creates that greater gravity effect, internally in the galaxy.

How does this imply INCREASING gravity?

Quote:
Ah cold cinders !!! Yes perhaps dark matter is just cold cinders. :-)

There's no "perhaps" about it. The correct answer is "no". Look up the definition of dark matter and why it's called that.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy