Accelerating Galaxies.
Within the model described, the explanation is simple: while condensation of dark matter leads to a gravity well, after the explosion as matter scatters at some point the gravitational attraction outside the expansion zone will be stronger on the forward elements of the exploded mass than the gravitation attraction by the rest of the exploding mass. At this point, these galaxies would accelerate.
"Older than Thou" Galaxies.
It we accept that a given explosion may have led to fragments causing nucleation, one particular case would be fragments being close enough for their explosions to be close and contemporary. That means that some of the galaxies will "fly" into the other expanding cosmos. If one of these "foreign" galaxies was detected after it passed the centre of the second explosion, it would seem to belong to the Universe, only its direction would be somehow wrong and, if its own explosion was older, would give an aberrant "older than thou" reading when trying to determine its age.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Sunday, 12 June 2011
A Theory on the Origin of the Universe by a Spanish Chemist working as a Postman in England
I was working on my own papers (on colloid science, nothing to do) the other day, and then I suddenly had a doubt: why it has to be The Big Bang, in which all the matter of the Universe was concentrated? Why couldn't there be an explosion caused by the coalescence of part of the matter of a Universe composed of clouds of what in our environment are subatomic particles, resulting in the matter that composes our reality (electrons, protons, neutrons and above them atoms).
There does not seem to be a reason why from time to time masses of the "Universe" could not coalesce and explode very much like stars explode and reform from dust clouds within our "Cosmos" (let's mean by that the content of the bang). We would not see the outside because the energy level would be lower and therefore below our threshold of perception. Because there would be matter outside, as the Cosmos expanded the gravity pull from its center may be compensated by the pull of the outside matter. If so, the Cosmos would go to its thermal death, with its particles decaying and returning to the state they were before the big bang.
The big bangs themselves would help to create movement within the Universe, helping clouds of Universe matter to accumulate or disperse, and creating the fluctuations which would lead to other concentrations of matter and big bangs. If so, there is also the question that light from other big bangs may be able to cross the Universe towards other big bangs, maybe at velocities different from that within the gravity field of a Cosmos. That does not necessarily mean that a Cosmos would last enough for the light from another contemporary and "nearby" Cosmos to reach it.
I then started to think that all the exercise about the origin of the Universe does not make sense anymore: a theory like that will never be proved or disproved. It would even provide a qualitative explanation to the excess of baryons over antibaryons (the fact there is more matter than antimatter in a Cosmos): if the baryons and antibaryons are not "perfectly miscible" in the Universe matter, it may happen that when they condense prior to a big bang the antibaryons (antimatter) have a marked excess near the surface of the collapsing mass, and the core of the explosion is actually predominantly composed of baryons (matter). The "shell" of antibaryons would be blown away by the explosion's "super solar wind" and scattered across the "normal" Universe outside the big bang. By the way, you will notice that this would be basically a chemical explanation.... Did I forget to mention I AM a Chemist?
The Environment Around a Big Bang.
If the Cosmos is the result of an explosion let us think of it as a bomb. After it goes off, the exploding "gas"/"shrapnell"/shock wave must be a high energy environment compared with the environment outside the explosion. It also makes sense that on average it is not as dense an environment compared with the surroundings. It may have been very dense at the moment of going off, but not afterward. Therefore, the environment outside the explosion will be cooler and denser, specially in the earlier times after the explosion.
We know that in our Cosmos higher order atomic particles are formed from lower order atomic particles within the stars. We also know that every known component of an atom, even electrons, has a decay rate. That is, they will eventually decompose in smaller particles.Therefore, there is nothing forbidding that smaller subatomic particles at the time of a big bang form larger subatomic particles and these lead to atoms, which eventually will be "processed" in the stars of a Cosmos to produce larger atoms and, eventually, other more complex structures.
There is also nothing forbidding a particle which would not have possibly been created in an environment to remain stable in it. For example NH3 and SO3 would not form by mixing N2 and H2 or burning sulfur with oxygen. Special procedures are required, but once the chemicals are formed they remain stable in the same conditions in which they would not have formed in the first place. Therefore, if a Cosmos dilutes in the "outer universal space" as it expands, it could be expected that atoms and molecules would decay, but there is no reason for them to cease to exist.
This means that the Universe could be formed by low energy matter and remains not yet decayed of big bangs, including remains of whole galaxies. Such remains may have been cooled down by entering in contact with matter for the outer universal space, but because the outer universal space would be a low energy region, that does not necessarily impose the need for any reactivity. The cooling may facilitate or not isotopic decay. That would be linked to whether the outer universal space is "cold" enough for basic subatomic particles to loose the qualities which allow them to aggregate: if it is possible to have a star core with a temperature of million Celsius in a Cosmos with a background temperature of zero Kelvin (which is an arbitrary value) and the outer universal matter is cooler, why could not subatomic particles there lack quantum/relativistic behavior. What if the background temperature is -500.000K? If this quantum/relativistic behavior is responsible for their ability to form atomic structures, then decay would be accelerated, but not necessarily in a dramatic way, rather it could be a slow process.
An interesting question is that, if the average gravity field in the outer universe is smaller than that of the cosmos, then eventually as the gravity field changes the velocity of light should change, and its speed in the outer universal space may be higher. On the other hand, if the gravity in the outer universal space is higher, then light there will be slower. That would slow light between Cosmoses and make them look further apart. The later case seems more likely.
Let us assume that the matter in the outer universal space drifts around, and may accumulate in an analog way than matter amasses to form stars even currently in our own galaxy. We could picture it as some sort of fluid denser than the average density of our Cosmos but composed of very small particles and having a very low viscosity. There would be no particularly good reason for the material to be free of contamination by "cosmic matter", the refuse from big bangs. In fact, such debris may act as a gravity well and be a seed for the accumulation of material leading to another big bang.
The idea of a low energy fluid encompassing nucleation points which may or may not be too distant to interfere with each other (a mass forming to lead a big bang may start to steal material from a nearby accumulation at a certain point of its growth, particularly if both masses have started due to the effect of debris from the same Cosmos on the Universal matter) brings the problem of what are the limits of such environment and how it came to exist. Taking a step back, looking at the whole picture and acknowledging that we have a time scale for measuring things (our existence) and that incoming signals travel at a speed (and may not reach us during our existence), and that therefore anything outside of range in either account cannot be measured should not be that painful. From there, that we will not have the opportunity to know certain things should not kill us. I am not suggesting that because clear evidence of the nature and origin of the Universe cannot be given, it should be acceptable to come around believing things for which there is no evidence.
The Explosion
In this scenario of a Universe where clouds of low energy fundamental particles interspersed with clusters of stellar objects from exploded Cosmoses, if we think of a big bang as the detonation of an explosive charge, there is no particular reason for accumulation of anything in one point. Remember, to begin with we are proposing that the Cosmos is NOT the Universe and is not a closed system at all. That changes completely the initial conditions of the problem. Rather, matter would just begin to pile up and, because it would be in a low temperature environment, diffusion of material and mixing must be slow. Fragments of cosmoses may have an eccentric position in the accumulating mass. If the old cosmic material is not particularly reactive, eccentrically placed cosmic material may disrupt the propagation of the explosion. Conversely, if it happened to be a particularly energetic "explosive", its explosion might tear apart part of the explosive mass or induce a different set of fusion reactions.
This means that big bangs may come in different ways: from homogeneous balls of pure universal matter eventually exploding as a supernova in a rather homogeneous way, to explosions occurring either in a core of cosmic matter or AROUND a core of cosmic matter (depending of what would explode first). The explosion of universal around a core of cosmic matter may cause the explosion of the core or not. If it does, thenfragments of the high aggregation matter there may project becoming new nucleation points for galaxies. Other combinations involving eccentric masses of cosmic matter in both the reactive or the inert scenarios may lead to fragmented cosmoses with several points which could be sources of matter projection, or cosmoses where propagation was so poor that they became scattered without the generation of higher particles and atomic matter.
The explosion of the big bang would fling all around "exploding" dark matter changing into more complex subatomic particles or even atoms, unreacted dark matter, which would still be cooler than the properly exploded even if it got part of the "heat" of the explosion, and cosmic matter in a similar situation, although of course, by definition any cosmic matter scooped up during concentration would still be warmer by its own nature.
Dark matter "observed" within the Cosmos may be the result of an interfered with explosion as outlined in the above paragraph, or simply of the mixing of the materials of the explosion with the outer universe materials.
Space curvature.
Space would not be expanding, or curved. It would just be the case that scape velocities from the Cosmos would be so high (at least until it had expanded enough that gravity from outside became meaningful for items in the Cosmos peripheryy) that anything would be eventually falling back towards the nearest relevant center of gravity. But that would be a matter of possible trajectories of bodies being limited, not to "space" itself being curved, expanding or whatever. Space would be reachable or unreachable, not existing or non existing. Just because if you fire upwards a bullet and it only goes up 500 m does not mean that all the space above it does not "exist".
Matter-Anti Matter: Does it Matter?
As mentioned at the beginning of the blog, a plausible explanation to the imbalance between matter and anti matter could be that they are not perfectly miscible, and that anti matter may be left out and pushed away by the shock wave from the big bang. Alternative, within the conditions in the outer universe, it may be less stable and the actual "explosive" in a mixture of dark matter. It is mostly irrelevant because ignoring what the conditions are in the outher Universe, we do not know if there is a mandatory reason for a balance between matter and anti matter, as their properties in the outer universe may not lead to anihilation, in the same way that some chemical reactions require some sort of incentive (heating, etc) to take place in our own environment. If the nature of matter and anti matter outside the Cosmos resembles more that of alkali and acid than that of positive and negative, there is no reason for an exact mass balance between both forms.
Conclusion.
If the Big Bang of all the matter of the Universe was a big bang in a region of the Universe, there could be other Cosmoses there and in theory it could be possible to build a spaceship and travel to another Cosmos. Apart from the little problem the ship would be unable to find a Cosmos through the outer universe because anything detected would be an image even older than we would expect in our own space and there would be nothing there by the time the ship arrived, and all atoms in the spaceship would have gone back to be bosons and suchlike. But there would also be the thrill of trying to find a pocket of cosmic matter from which to fashion a new ship and supplies. So, hypothetically, within this model Mankind would not necessarily be confined to extinction by the end of the Cosmos/Universe. Well, it actually would have no chance, but you know what I mean.... Here, they can use the idea for a new Star Trek Series.
© Federico Talens-Alesson 2011
There does not seem to be a reason why from time to time masses of the "Universe" could not coalesce and explode very much like stars explode and reform from dust clouds within our "Cosmos" (let's mean by that the content of the bang). We would not see the outside because the energy level would be lower and therefore below our threshold of perception. Because there would be matter outside, as the Cosmos expanded the gravity pull from its center may be compensated by the pull of the outside matter. If so, the Cosmos would go to its thermal death, with its particles decaying and returning to the state they were before the big bang.
The big bangs themselves would help to create movement within the Universe, helping clouds of Universe matter to accumulate or disperse, and creating the fluctuations which would lead to other concentrations of matter and big bangs. If so, there is also the question that light from other big bangs may be able to cross the Universe towards other big bangs, maybe at velocities different from that within the gravity field of a Cosmos. That does not necessarily mean that a Cosmos would last enough for the light from another contemporary and "nearby" Cosmos to reach it.
I then started to think that all the exercise about the origin of the Universe does not make sense anymore: a theory like that will never be proved or disproved. It would even provide a qualitative explanation to the excess of baryons over antibaryons (the fact there is more matter than antimatter in a Cosmos): if the baryons and antibaryons are not "perfectly miscible" in the Universe matter, it may happen that when they condense prior to a big bang the antibaryons (antimatter) have a marked excess near the surface of the collapsing mass, and the core of the explosion is actually predominantly composed of baryons (matter). The "shell" of antibaryons would be blown away by the explosion's "super solar wind" and scattered across the "normal" Universe outside the big bang. By the way, you will notice that this would be basically a chemical explanation.... Did I forget to mention I AM a Chemist?
The Environment Around a Big Bang.
If the Cosmos is the result of an explosion let us think of it as a bomb. After it goes off, the exploding "gas"/"shrapnell"/shock wave must be a high energy environment compared with the environment outside the explosion. It also makes sense that on average it is not as dense an environment compared with the surroundings. It may have been very dense at the moment of going off, but not afterward. Therefore, the environment outside the explosion will be cooler and denser, specially in the earlier times after the explosion.
We know that in our Cosmos higher order atomic particles are formed from lower order atomic particles within the stars. We also know that every known component of an atom, even electrons, has a decay rate. That is, they will eventually decompose in smaller particles.Therefore, there is nothing forbidding that smaller subatomic particles at the time of a big bang form larger subatomic particles and these lead to atoms, which eventually will be "processed" in the stars of a Cosmos to produce larger atoms and, eventually, other more complex structures.
There is also nothing forbidding a particle which would not have possibly been created in an environment to remain stable in it. For example NH3 and SO3 would not form by mixing N2 and H2 or burning sulfur with oxygen. Special procedures are required, but once the chemicals are formed they remain stable in the same conditions in which they would not have formed in the first place. Therefore, if a Cosmos dilutes in the "outer universal space" as it expands, it could be expected that atoms and molecules would decay, but there is no reason for them to cease to exist.
This means that the Universe could be formed by low energy matter and remains not yet decayed of big bangs, including remains of whole galaxies. Such remains may have been cooled down by entering in contact with matter for the outer universal space, but because the outer universal space would be a low energy region, that does not necessarily impose the need for any reactivity. The cooling may facilitate or not isotopic decay. That would be linked to whether the outer universal space is "cold" enough for basic subatomic particles to loose the qualities which allow them to aggregate: if it is possible to have a star core with a temperature of million Celsius in a Cosmos with a background temperature of zero Kelvin (which is an arbitrary value) and the outer universal matter is cooler, why could not subatomic particles there lack quantum/relativistic behavior. What if the background temperature is -500.000K? If this quantum/relativistic behavior is responsible for their ability to form atomic structures, then decay would be accelerated, but not necessarily in a dramatic way, rather it could be a slow process.
An interesting question is that, if the average gravity field in the outer universe is smaller than that of the cosmos, then eventually as the gravity field changes the velocity of light should change, and its speed in the outer universal space may be higher. On the other hand, if the gravity in the outer universal space is higher, then light there will be slower. That would slow light between Cosmoses and make them look further apart. The later case seems more likely.
Let us assume that the matter in the outer universal space drifts around, and may accumulate in an analog way than matter amasses to form stars even currently in our own galaxy. We could picture it as some sort of fluid denser than the average density of our Cosmos but composed of very small particles and having a very low viscosity. There would be no particularly good reason for the material to be free of contamination by "cosmic matter", the refuse from big bangs. In fact, such debris may act as a gravity well and be a seed for the accumulation of material leading to another big bang.
The idea of a low energy fluid encompassing nucleation points which may or may not be too distant to interfere with each other (a mass forming to lead a big bang may start to steal material from a nearby accumulation at a certain point of its growth, particularly if both masses have started due to the effect of debris from the same Cosmos on the Universal matter) brings the problem of what are the limits of such environment and how it came to exist. Taking a step back, looking at the whole picture and acknowledging that we have a time scale for measuring things (our existence) and that incoming signals travel at a speed (and may not reach us during our existence), and that therefore anything outside of range in either account cannot be measured should not be that painful. From there, that we will not have the opportunity to know certain things should not kill us. I am not suggesting that because clear evidence of the nature and origin of the Universe cannot be given, it should be acceptable to come around believing things for which there is no evidence.
The Explosion
In this scenario of a Universe where clouds of low energy fundamental particles interspersed with clusters of stellar objects from exploded Cosmoses, if we think of a big bang as the detonation of an explosive charge, there is no particular reason for accumulation of anything in one point. Remember, to begin with we are proposing that the Cosmos is NOT the Universe and is not a closed system at all. That changes completely the initial conditions of the problem. Rather, matter would just begin to pile up and, because it would be in a low temperature environment, diffusion of material and mixing must be slow. Fragments of cosmoses may have an eccentric position in the accumulating mass. If the old cosmic material is not particularly reactive, eccentrically placed cosmic material may disrupt the propagation of the explosion. Conversely, if it happened to be a particularly energetic "explosive", its explosion might tear apart part of the explosive mass or induce a different set of fusion reactions.
This means that big bangs may come in different ways: from homogeneous balls of pure universal matter eventually exploding as a supernova in a rather homogeneous way, to explosions occurring either in a core of cosmic matter or AROUND a core of cosmic matter (depending of what would explode first). The explosion of universal around a core of cosmic matter may cause the explosion of the core or not. If it does, thenfragments of the high aggregation matter there may project becoming new nucleation points for galaxies. Other combinations involving eccentric masses of cosmic matter in both the reactive or the inert scenarios may lead to fragmented cosmoses with several points which could be sources of matter projection, or cosmoses where propagation was so poor that they became scattered without the generation of higher particles and atomic matter.
The explosion of the big bang would fling all around "exploding" dark matter changing into more complex subatomic particles or even atoms, unreacted dark matter, which would still be cooler than the properly exploded even if it got part of the "heat" of the explosion, and cosmic matter in a similar situation, although of course, by definition any cosmic matter scooped up during concentration would still be warmer by its own nature.
Dark matter "observed" within the Cosmos may be the result of an interfered with explosion as outlined in the above paragraph, or simply of the mixing of the materials of the explosion with the outer universe materials.
Space curvature.
Space would not be expanding, or curved. It would just be the case that scape velocities from the Cosmos would be so high (at least until it had expanded enough that gravity from outside became meaningful for items in the Cosmos peripheryy) that anything would be eventually falling back towards the nearest relevant center of gravity. But that would be a matter of possible trajectories of bodies being limited, not to "space" itself being curved, expanding or whatever. Space would be reachable or unreachable, not existing or non existing. Just because if you fire upwards a bullet and it only goes up 500 m does not mean that all the space above it does not "exist".
Matter-Anti Matter: Does it Matter?
As mentioned at the beginning of the blog, a plausible explanation to the imbalance between matter and anti matter could be that they are not perfectly miscible, and that anti matter may be left out and pushed away by the shock wave from the big bang. Alternative, within the conditions in the outer universe, it may be less stable and the actual "explosive" in a mixture of dark matter. It is mostly irrelevant because ignoring what the conditions are in the outher Universe, we do not know if there is a mandatory reason for a balance between matter and anti matter, as their properties in the outer universe may not lead to anihilation, in the same way that some chemical reactions require some sort of incentive (heating, etc) to take place in our own environment. If the nature of matter and anti matter outside the Cosmos resembles more that of alkali and acid than that of positive and negative, there is no reason for an exact mass balance between both forms.
Conclusion.
If the Big Bang of all the matter of the Universe was a big bang in a region of the Universe, there could be other Cosmoses there and in theory it could be possible to build a spaceship and travel to another Cosmos. Apart from the little problem the ship would be unable to find a Cosmos through the outer universe because anything detected would be an image even older than we would expect in our own space and there would be nothing there by the time the ship arrived, and all atoms in the spaceship would have gone back to be bosons and suchlike. But there would also be the thrill of trying to find a pocket of cosmic matter from which to fashion a new ship and supplies. So, hypothetically, within this model Mankind would not necessarily be confined to extinction by the end of the Cosmos/Universe. Well, it actually would have no chance, but you know what I mean.... Here, they can use the idea for a new Star Trek Series.
© Federico Talens-Alesson 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)