0 members (),
634
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Then that puts us at a special time. Scientists generally try to avoid assuming anything special about our place in the cosmos.
Thinking about the time required for the bigverse to form its stars and galaxies. It seems to me that because of the high density of the bigverse its star formation would be much accelerated with respect to our universe. After all the density would be so high that it wouldn't take as long for enough gas to be accumulated to start star formation since the gas wouldn't have as far to travel.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
If the bigverse had progressed to the point where it was composed mainly of supermassive black holes, would this not exert more gravitational attraction than a universe composed mainly of galaxies?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
No it would still have the same mass. When a star collapses to a black hole the only things that certainly conserved are mass and electric charge. I'm not sure whether you can say that entropy is conserved, but the entropy of the black hole is proportional to the area of the horizon. I believe there is still some question as to whether information is lost. Oh, yes I'm not sure about spin, but I expect angular momentum is conserved. But any way creating a black hole doesn't add mass.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410 |
Bryan, I thought I was going round in circles thinking along that line. Sorry 'bout that. Not exactly an example of quality writing on my part... Looked at another way, would it not be that gravitational attraction between bodies in the denser area would be greater than in the less dense area, so the net force would be outward from the less dense bubble? No. Net gravitational pull is towards the centre of mass. If you had a perfectly uniform field of matter there would be no net gravitational pull, as gravity would be equal in all directions. The presence of a low-density region disrupts that, but if you do the math of a low-density region in an otherwise uniform field of mass, the centre of mass of the whole will be centred on the centre of mass of the low density region. It is the distribution of mass, more than the absolute amounts, which lead to net gravitational movements. Yes, we would have to occupy a special position, but there might be numerous bubbles, so a near central position in one of them would not be that special. But it still would be. If you take into account the size of our observable universe (~12YL in radius), the region where we see what we see would be less than 1% of the total volume. Ergo, at best, the "special position" will always be about a 1% probability, regardless of the number of universes. Bryan
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Net gravitational pull is towards the centre of mass. How do you locate the centre of mass in a possibly infinite universe?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Bryan, I thought I was going round in circles thinking along that line. This was not a comment on your post, it was an admission to past circuitous thinking on my part. Not uncommon.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410 |
Net gravitational pull is towards the centre of mass. How do you locate the centre of mass in a possibly infinite universe? Gravity is though to travel at c. So the centre of mass of any region of space can be determined by the mass in the sphere around it equal to the radius "of the age" of the universe (in light-years). Mass farther away than that would not interact at all with the area you are measuring the COM for, as gravity from those regions would not have yet reached your COM. I.E. the centre of mass of any region in our ~14BYO universe would be determined by measuring the mass distribution in a sphere 14BYL in radius, surrounding that region. Bryan
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
So the centre of mass of any region of space can be determined by the mass in the sphere around it equal to the radius "of the age" of the universe (in light-years). This looks quite straightforward if you look for the centre of mass for an area of which the centre of the bubble is the designated point. Attraction would then be towards the centre of the bubble. What happens, though, if the designated point is close to the boundary of the bubble?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410 |
So the centre of mass of any region of space can be determined by the mass in the sphere around it equal to the radius "of the age" of the universe (in light-years). This looks quite straightforward if you look for the centre of mass for an area of which the centre of the bubble is the designated point. Attraction would then be towards the centre of the bubble. What happens, though, if the designated point is close to the boundary of the bubble? The same; assuming that the "surrounding" universe has relatively even density. In this situation the low-density region is surrounded by a 'C'-shaped region of higher density. The tips of the 'C' will experience a net gravitational pull towards each other, causing them to collapse inwards. I was thinking more about this, and the more I think about it, the more I'm sure this model does not work. We can measure red-shifts of the nearest galaxies to us, and have a rough idea of how quickly that shift is accelerating. Based on those numbers alone, we would have to be in a region where the outer "dense" universe would be observable, if this model was correct. To be more clear about that, if this model were correct, the accelerative effect of the outside universe would spread through ours at c, because gravity travels at c. The amount of time it would take the known acceleration of our universes expansion to accelerate the local galaxies to their current speed (generally around -300km/s) is far longer than it would take for light (and thus gravity) to travel the interceding distance to our own galaxy. Thus, this outer universe would *have* to be visible to us, if it existed, since both its gravity and photons would have had to arrive here long ago, inorder for the surrounding galaxies to be accelerated to their current recessional speeds. Since we observe these red-shifts, but not an outer galaxy, it likely does not exist. I'd also point out that the pattern of red-shifts that we see don't fit the model. Gravity strength changes due to the inverse-square of the distance of separation - i.e. move 2X as close to the source of gravity, gravity increases 4X. If this model were correct, we should thus see a such a relationship in regards to galactic distance verses acceleration. For example, if galaxy 'A' was 2X closer to the outer universe as galaxy 'B', it should be accelerating 4X as much. We don't see that - acceleration appears to be linear for a given length of space. Bryan
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
The tips of the 'C' will experience a net gravitational pull towards each other, causing them to collapse inwards. This suggests that the "designated point" close to the boundary could not exist, because the "C" would already have collapsed. However, the "C" would not have collapsed because, in the bigger picture, it is part of a complete circle; so what would cause collapse in that area when a measurement was attempted?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410 |
The tips of the 'C' will experience a net gravitational pull towards each other, causing them to collapse inwards. This suggests that the "designated point" close to the boundary could not exist, because the "C" would already have collapsed. However, the "C" would not have collapsed because, in the bigger picture, it is part of a complete circle; so what would cause collapse in that area when a measurement was attempted? You're half-right. The collapse would occur throughout the circle, thus causing the whole thing to collapse. That is why we would expect a denser "outer" universe to collapse - you'd have an "infinite" number of 'C's (due to travel speed of gravity), resulting on a net inward acceleration throughout the "interface". Bryan
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Well, that seems to squash the whole idea. It will be interesting to see what the proponents have to say.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410 |
Well, that seems to squash the whole idea. It will be interesting to see what the proponents have to say. The OP's article was from 2008, and nothing on the idea seems to have been published since...things that make you go "hummm" Bryan
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
New info on the subject. Hubble data says we aren't in a bubble. From Physorg.comUsing data from the Hubble Space Telescope researchers have refined the expansion rate of the universe, and found that it is too great to be accounted for by the bubble hypothesis. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Thanks for the link, Bill. It makes interesting reading.
Bryan, how does the following quote fit with your idea of the bubble collapsing?
".....the cosmic bubble theory. In this theory, the lower-density bubble would expand faster than the more massive universe around it."
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 212 |
Observing from within the bubble, but using distant supernovae as yardsticks, we would see a universe whose expansion seems to be occurring faster than it used to Cool. That's news to me. My theory predicts this. Thanks, now I gots more stuff to brag about.
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?
|
|
|
|
|