Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Is the physical world real?

It is entirely different. The galaxies are not falling towards the edge of the universe due to any force. The galaxy-clusters move outwards and their speeds increase. The energy required for this comes from the internal energy of the clusters. The internal energy includes the individual speeds of the galaxies, the individual speeds of the stars and other masses in it and the internal energies of these masses. So as the galaxies move outwards, the internal energies of masses change into external energies. The observable evidence is fusion in stars, where energy is released. The whole of the energy thus released is not radiated; it actually goes to increase the speed of the star; this increase in energy (speed)of the star is transferred to the galaxy, and from there to the cluster. This will continue until the speed of the cluster can no more increase. So the expansion stops. That state is a potential state where the speeds of the clusters are very high, but internal energies very low. So the system starts contracting so as to reach the normal state (speed and internal energy has a normal ratio). But the change from that 'potential state'to the 'normal state' takes it to the other extreme where the internal energies are high, and speed low. So it again expands. In the absence of any external force acting on the universes. it oscillates between the two extremes, and thus remains pulsating.

The logic of this escapes me. Let's take one bit at a time.

"This will continue until the speed of the cluster can no more increase. So the expansion stops."

This seems to say that when acceleration stops, everything stands still. What stops it?

"That state is a potential state where the speeds of the clusters are very high"

This seems to contradict the first bit - things are still on the move.

"So the system starts contracting"

Did everything stop, then start again in the opposite direction?

Sorry, it requires a little more explanation. As explained, the outward motion of the cluster is along a helical path. Just before the expansion starts, the motion was planar, in a plane perpendicular to the radius of the universe. As it moves outwards, the motion becomes helical. The outward component of the motion thus starts from zero, reaches the maximum when the expansion is half way, then decreases and reaches zero when the expansion comes to an end. But the planar component of the motion goes on increasing till the end of the expansion. At the end of expansion, the motion becomes planar again, and the speed is very high.

During contraction, the motion becomes helical again. The inward component goes on increasing till the contraction is halfway, then decreases and finally becomes zero. The planar component, however goes on decreasing till the contraction comes to an end. That is, the clusters never stands still, but the system as a whole expands and contracts due to the changes in the direction of motion.

I think he means this Bill S ... ignore the text its from a different thing the shapes what we need.



Now flatten it to 2D and think about a orbital like a normal orbital.

At the outer part of the spiral the speed is slowest almost stopped and it gathers more and more speed as it comes in to a crunch and then it will slow on the expansion out etc (Here but imagine the whole universe doing it http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection6.html)

I think that is what he means ... interestingly it is sort of an old idea if I have it right ... which I am not sure if finiter knows.

Assuming I am right finiter I would call such a system a constrained 2D Rossler attractor
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ssler_attractor ... 2nd image down)
You can even model it if I knew some characteristsics of the shape you want.

There are whole groups of these sorts of things that come under Lorenz mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor)

Thanks, Orac, that makes it a bit clearer, but it's still going to take me a while to get my head around it - if ever.

Thank you for having taken interest in the model. It is not exactly as you have visualized. The universe as a whole does not spiral. The galaxy-clusters, which can be regarded as individual units of the universe, follow such helical paths. Just cut off the the tapering end of the three dimensional conical spiral, and you will get the trajectory of the clusters.

In my model, the universe is spherical and the central region of the universe is empty. The galaxy-clusters thus remain distributed uniformly inside a spherical shell. To simplify it, let us assume that the clusters have same mass. Then, just as in the case of lattice formation in solids, the distances between clusters will be uniform. The only difference is that the clusters will be moving. Their motion can be taken to be circular in a plane perpendicular to the radius of the universe. As the clusters (simultaneously) move outwards, their motion becomes helical. The system to remain uniform, the radius of the helix has to increase (because the volume of the universe increases and so both 'the distance between clusters' and 'the radius of the orbits of the clusters' have to increase proportionately). Ultimately, the radius becomes very large, and the outward motion comes to an end, and so the motion is again circular. Then the reverse process happens, and the universe remains pulsating.

In this model, the outer clusters have to move faster. When the inner clusters move 'one unit' outwards, the next layer has to move 'two units' and so on. So the speed of the cluster will be directly proportional to its distance from the centre of the universe. In a pulsating system, the speed increases as the distance from the centre increases, whereas, in an orbiting system like the solar system, the speed decreases as the distance from the centre increases.

Then (http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection6.html) in 3D is what you are looking at.

Yes, you are right. The site you have referred portrays the planar motion of a three-body system when the centre is empty. The system is in eqilibrium, but the equilibrium will be lost if it is slightly disturbed.

In 3D, it will be like this: six bodies remain on the six sides sides of an empty cube, each moving along a circular path having diameter equal to that of the side of the cube. The system as a whole, I think will be in equilibrium, even though there is no central mass any where(This will also be fragile). Suppose the cube expands. Then the motion of the bodies will be helical.

When there are a large number of bodies occupying a 'spherical shell' surrounding an empty centre, and if the bodies remain moving outwards and inwards along helical paths in a synchronized manner, the system will be in a dynamic equilibrium. That is the model of the universe that I put forth.

Yes I understood what you meant .... I will write some java and put up on a site for visualization which should help Bill S.

As I said if you thought you were to think of that configuration you are in good company ... do you know the history of that idea?

The original concept does not ressemble yours in the slightest but the resulting movement does so I am not claiming you stole or plagarized the idea like I might taunt preearth because I am mean :-)

In fact, I have not heard of any such idea regarding the structure of the universe. The picture is of a spherical structure expanding and contracting; the members that constitute the structure should always remain in motion, because energy is their basic quality. So mathematically the motion should be like that. The picture that I create in my mind makes me think that the model will be mathematically viable if the speeds of bodies are directly proportional to the distance from the centre of the universe. So as the members move away, their speeds increase and the internal energies decrease. Just before expansion, the internal energies are high (a potential hot state), and at the end of expansion speeds are high (a potential cold state). The system oscillates between the two, and thus we get the picture of a finite universe that remains pulsating.

I would like to know the history of such a configuration. Though I think that the model is mathematically viable, I have not tried to verify it by consulting experts. In the model having three bodies moving in a plane, I had such a picture in mind, but did not know that there is a ready reference available in the net. In the actual model of the universe, the galaxy-clusters are not the of same size, and the distance between them depends on their masses. I think that the extended model will also be mathematically viable, if the simple model is proved correct.

Finiter, Wouldn’t Mazur and Chapline’s gravastar idea give rise to the observed Universe, with a simpler mechanism than you are proposing, and without a Big Bang?

'Gravastar' uses both GR and QM. The model is not simple. In my model, the universe has no beginning. It always exists as we now observe it, as a 'system of huge masses of atoms/molecules'. During expansion, the internal energies of these huge masses change into their speeds and during contraction, the speeds change into internal energies. The system always tries to attain normal internal energy and normal speed. But the thermodynamic changes lead it to the extremes and the system remains pulsating. The model is thus very simple. Not only that, in my model there are only three arbitrary physical constants, the mass, radius and speed of the fundamental particle of matter. Other physical constants including the mass of electrons/neutrons, can be derived from these three, and so my model is the simplest model possible.

This might be true if it were not for one thing.

Your model has an infinite series as a central factor.

The infinite series may be a mathematical "reality", but it cannot be a physical reality as it involves infinite regression, which, by its very nature, militates against real understanding. It is "faith" rather than science.

Einstein's initial guess at the universe was based on the same sort of lines ... keep it simple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe



Your version looks identical to what an Einstein big-crunch version looks like in motion. As you adjust the curvature you can get less or more crunch so your version would be sort of a mild crunch.

So you are in good company :-)

Ultimately your model fails for the same reasons as Einsteins model.

-The expansion of the universe is increasing according to your model it should be slowing.
-There is no centre of the universe
-How do you explain the cosmic background radiation
-How has the universe not run out of hydrogen

The main difference is that in my model, energy and matter are separately conserved. The expansion is due to a simple thermodynamic change. The internal energies of the galaxy clusters change into their speeds. At the beginning of expansion, the internal energies are high, and so the acceleration is the maximum. At half way of expansion, internal energy and speed are equal, and so the acceleration is zero. Thereafter the the acceleration is negative. So the speed of expansion reaches the maximum at halfway. That is, up to halfway of expansion, there is an increasing expansion; only after that will the expansion slow down.

In my model the universe is spherical and has a centre. There has not been any observational evidence to the contrary.

The E-m radiations and atoms are two types of systems created by the fundamental particles. The former has no internal energy and so moves at the speed 'c'. The latter has internal energy and so can never attain the speed 'c'. The universe contains a system formed by atoms (a system of galaxy-clusters) and a system formed by e-m radiations. Both exist simultaneously and there is always interaction between the two. The system of radiations have no source and remains as back ground radiation. It also cools along with the system of galaxies; both have the same cooling rate. The present average temperature of the system of radiations is 2.7 K, and so the average temperature of the system of galaxy-clusters is also the same. In another 7 million years, the average temperature will be 0K (the wavelength of back ground radiation will be nearly 4.8x10^-3m). There after the temperature will go below absolute zero.

It is not the hydrogen fusion that causes the expansion. Hydrogen fusion is a consequence of the expansion. The most abundant element in the universe will be the middle elements, especially iron. The black holes will contain mainly iron (as is evident from the remnants of the died out stars). The 'abundance' of hydrogen and helium is a myth; even from the present calculations they account for not more than 10 percent of the expected mass of the universe.

Wrong almost all the observational evidence denies that fact. You should be able to construct orbitals for the galaxies about a universe centre ... you can't. You should see red and blue shifts from the galaxies you don't you see only red shifts. On the contrary noone has been able to construct any support for a static universe not even Einstein.



So why does the radiation have anisotropy and polarization?
There is far more to it than just it exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)



Do you have any evidence for any of that?


There are so many observational problems with your theory which is why science taking it serious is a big problem. Einstein realized his version had problems that he could not explain so you need to consider how you explain the observations if your theory is right.

The question of infinite regression is still extant.

I don't see infinite regression in this discussion the question is do we use scientific principle

There are ONLY 3 proposals for space

Newton: Absolute space and time.

Mach: The reference frame comes from the distribution of matter in the universe.

Einstein: There is no reference frame.


We have a massive number of observations Newtons absolute space and time is shown by many observations to be falsified. Mach has got some problems but it is not definitively been falsified.

We scientifically test these very basic tennants here is a summary of the results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism)

The answer is clear THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME either of the other two options or create a new one.

Finiter wants an absolute space and time and that violates all the observational data so that alone kills the theory.

But apparently you can be selective about what observations you accept because we just throw GR and QM out even though they match observation because we don't like them.

SORRY THAT IS NOT SCIENCE ... If you want that then this thread needs to move to not quite science area.

In my model, the galaxy-clusters do not revolve around the centre of the universe. They just move away from the centre and come back. Their paths are helical, the centre of the helix lying on the radius of the universe. The average distance between clusters increases during expansion and at any time the universe is uniform on a large scale. The expansion causes red shift (radiations get cooled). So any blue shifted ray gets subsequently red shifted, and so beyond a certain distance, all galaxies will show red shifts.



The anisotropy and polarization has been explained at present based on certain 'assumed possibilities'. These may or may not be correct. In my model, it is a black body radiation;it has no source, and hence does not have any spectral lines corresponding to any element. That far is correct. Regarding the fluctuations from this uniformity, I am not sure whether my theory will be able to answer it or not.




In my model hydrogen fusion is a consequence of expansion. So I can say that hydrogen fusion happening in the stars is an evidence for my model. The fusion reactions in stars normally end up with iron for some unexplained reasons. So we can logically assume that black holes contains iron. It is just a proposal based on my theory.

My theory agrees with the basics. Starting with only one type of fundamental particles, which have finite mass, finite volume and finite speed, everything including the structure of the universe is explained, not just qualitatively, but using mathematical models. It contains only three basic physical constants. The rest of the physical constants can be derived from these. However,the fine tuning (required to explain all the minute details like the anisotropy of the background radiation,etc.) is a laborious process (and I have not attempted it so far).

In short, the theory is logical (in my opinion), agrees with all basic observations, has the minimum number of arbitrary constants, can explain why electron, proton and neutron have the respective masses, can explain why inertial and gravitational masses are the same, why there are no unit polls, why the universe has to remain pulsating, and proposes the time required for pulsation as 51.4 billion years, which is the period of revolution of the fundamental particle (derived from speed of light, mass of neutron and the planks constant).

Newtons equations for gravity requires correction when you consider two bodies moving 'independently' of each other (The equation is valid only when the two bodies remain relatively at rest). However in my opinion, such a correction is possible without resorting to the concept of space-time. First, you have use a variable G (proportional to their speeds)for each of the bodies, and then use the geometric mean of the constants. Secondly, you have to add a negative factor that represents the velocity component that acts against the force. So the net equation gets the form, (GG')^(1/2)x MM' /d^2 - (M'v^2)/d. I have not verified whether this equation will be in conformity with that of alternate equations suggested for approximations based on GR.

One thing that I don't agree with you is the argument that 'the concept of absolute space and time has been falsified'. It has 'never' been falsified. The Wikipedia reference you have given deals with gravity only. From that we cannot conclude that space and time are not absolute. There have only been 'doubts' regarding the nature of space and time. The explanations based on GR and QM (as pointed out by you) match observations. But that does not mean there cannot be other explanations, especially when the two are at loggerheads.

So my argument is that the concept of absolute space and time does not 'by itself' violate any observational data, and so that cannot be a case against my theory.