|
The Renewable Universe.
When we take into consideration the model of expansion (above) and the
proposition that expansion is actually accelerating, we begin to formulize an appreciation for "the big picture": A perfectly efficient universe that is constantly renewing itself.
That is, when we apply basic ideas of electrodynamics to these models, we begin to
see an endless recycling of energy...producing, not only space, but both light and matter.
Maxwell's revolutionary discovery that an accelerated electric field invokes a
magnetic field fluctuation...which invokes another electric field...invoking another magnetic field...and on and on indefinitely, through empty space, begs the question: "Does an accelerated magnetic field induce an electric field in space?" (Or, rather...an "electromagnetic field?")
The reasonable answer is..."yes", of course it does. Magnetic fields radiated
from galactic cores extend for millions of light-years. Hence, accelerated expansion of the universe is inducing an electromagnetic presence throughout space. From this electromagnetic presence (within the vacuum energy), particles of matter are constantly popping in and out of existence. Some of those particles somehow survive...coalesce and make the stars. Those stars form nebulae...then galaxies. Those galaxies implode into black holes...which expand space...for new galaxies to occupy; and so on...an endless cycle which has no need for a beginning or end.
Does the universe expand forever? Well, it sort of looks like it does. At least it
appears to...to the observer at rest in a certain location. However the edges of space are folding back into galactic cores (in the form of matter) as if galactic cores were some sort of scattered horizon where the universe perpetually rises and sets. |
|
Space
|
|
Section 8
|
|
Vacuum energy and Expansion of the Quantum Foam.
In my original 1995 thesis (of which this website is meant to be a synopsis), I
propose that space is being created by black holes; along with its magnetic field property. This seemed to me the necessary view if we wanted to retain all energy of our universe within the universe. [At the time, this was only a crude deduction--without documentation to support it. Though there is, now, a more recent study that lends some weight to this proposition. Please see Link 10]
In 1995 the idea of black holes in galactic cores was unknown to me. The
proposition seems very reasonable; and it engenders a concept pertaining to
the connection between the creation of space and the expansion of space:
The vacuum energy is often described as having a spongy, foam-like structure.
(This is apparently an aspect of string theory as well. [Link 17]) Hence,we might easily imagine this foam as a 3D flux of minute "cells"--each cell representing a certain volume of (geometric) 'space'. Theorists have, in fact, defined the specific quantum dimensions of such cells; which in turn defines the specific physical nature of the quantum foam. The dimensions of the "cells" are derived from the reduced Plank distance (called the Dirak constant); designated as h-bar.
h-bar = h/2pi = 1.054 571 68 x 10^-34 j*s
This is tiny...according to quantum mechanics, the absolute smallest measure
of distance possible. Nonetheless, it is a distance...and when applied to a three dimensional cell structure, represents a specific volume.
So, if space is expanding, there are more and more of these physical
quantum cells being created in the universe as time goes on. For example, as the volume of (geometric) space doubles, the number of quantum--h-bar cells within that space also doubles.
In other words: space--as a physical thing--is being created, if the universe is
expanding geometrically.
This, to make it clear, is the connection between the creation of space and
the expansion of space. |
|
Physical Space and some properties there of:
It is often confusing to think of space as something real. It seems like so much
nothing that it even earns itself such labels as"vacuum" and "void". It is, however, only our limits in perception...(or "perspective" might be a better word)...that keeps us from acknowledging space as a formidable part of reality. When, in fact, space has many easily recognizable physical features that distinguish it--some so obvious, they are easily overlooked. Some not so obvious and are therefore also easily overlooked. Here are a few such characteristics:
>Space is Big. Nothing in the physical universe bigger than space. It contains all
matter and light within it. It is the field on which all matter and light interact.
>Space is cold. Indeed, space is absolutely cold. Any measure of heat in space is
actually a property of the radiation passing through it.
>Space is continuous. Very much unlike matter...which is discontinuous from
piece to piece--on every level, space is smoothly continuous, from end to end.
>Space is everywhere. Wherever there is (geometric) space to be filled,
(physical) space is filling it...between every sub-atomic crevice...as far as the eye can see.
>Space possesses energy. Sometimes called the "vacuum energy" or "quantum
foam" [Link 16]; space possesses its own unique form of energy that can neither be called "kinetic", "atomic", or "nuclear". [In my original thesis I say that "space owns the magnetic field."; which would fall into this category as magnetic energy. But, for now, we will exclude that from this list.] |
|
"At the last dim horizon, we search among ghostly
errors of observations for landmarks that are scarcely more substantial. The search will continue. The urge is older than history. It is not satisfied and it will not be oppressed." --Edwin Hubble |
|
Website Indexes:
|
|
On This Page:
|
|
When, about 1929, Edwin Hubble announced the ascending red shifts of the
distant stars, many scientists opted for a scenario that was soon nick-named the Hot Big Bang--basically, the idea that the universe spontainously expands from some single geometric point. Since then, Big Bang theory has evolved to include a more relativistic dynamic; and the current view is called "the inflationary lambda cold dark matter model". Many scientists seem content that this revised model fits the observed picture of the universe. Though, high tech data gathered from the satellites COBE and WMAP show the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) predicted by the theory, is not exactly what it should be. While the data is likely compromised by unexpected anomalies, there is a chance that it might mean back to the drawing board for inflationary models.
Below, we propose an entirely different model for the observed expansion of
space. This model may seem a bit strange at first. Though, with all due respect for today's brilliant cosmologists, it can't be any stranger than the idea that 'our vast universe popped out of a single dimensionless point...15 billion years ago.' |
|
"That theory is worthless. It isn't even wrong!" --Wolfgang Pauli
|
|
Please remember: This isn't even physics (but a mathless generality). There
are, however, several real physics sites linked to this page that you may find useful; and others that support the thesis.
[Note on the format: Due to technical problems, some links are referenced by
number in the text...Example: [see Link 1] or [Link2]. I apologize for the inconvenience] |
|
The Creation of Space and Expansion of the Universe:
Let's assume that the universe is expanding, according to observation and
interpretations of modern cosmologists, and that this expansion is, in fact, accelerating.
It occurs to me that space may be expanding out from the galaxies
themselves. In other words, that galaxies are actually producing space; and therefore expanding it. The concept is not difficult to accept if we regard space as a real, physical thing--retaining its own form of energy -- just as both matter and light are physical things, retaining their own forms of energy.
The modern view of space is that 'space is not empty'; but retains physical
properties--however elusive those properties to us. The form of energy attributed exclusively to space is called "vacuum energy" or "zero-point energy"; as evidenced by a very weak force called the Casimir effect.
Also, I believe that 'galactic-centered expansion' would agree with the
geometry of current inflationary models. That is, ongoing inflationary models arise from the observation that galaxies are moving away from each other. The popular stand is that space, itself, expands from all points--everywhere. While galaxy-centered expansion (presented here) would yield the same observed effect--galaxies moving away from each other. [See links 1,3,4.]
Black holes were once thought to be invisible spots in the sky; with gravitation
so intense that nothing--not even light--could escape a certain radius about them. (This radius called the event horizon.) [It's from this conception that they were called "black"] Though, more recently, cores of some galaxies have become promising candidates for black holes. [See links 6 and 7.]
A black hole, from what I gather, is basically a convoluted configuration in
space...literally made of space...derived from general relativity. Its physical function is to draw matter (and energy) into itself. It is thought that, once within the event horizon, matter undergoes what might be described as terminal accretion--it is stripped of its particle properties and reduced to pure electromagnetic energy. But...even that energy is unable to escape due to the extreme (if not infinite) gravitational pressure within the event horizon towards the singularity. All this...drawn from conclusions arising from Karl Schwarchild's stunning 1916 analysis of general relativity. [See links 8, 8a.]
The questions then arise: "What happens to the energy trapped in a black
hole?" "Where does it go?" "Is it torn from the universe forever? ...destroyed? ...defying the first law of thermodynamics?" Some scientists say that it escapes through the hole to another dimension...to another universe. [Yikes!] But I say, that's silly...not only silly but, "silly science"--since you need to go to another universe to test the hypothesis. [See link 9.]
An alternative answer to "Where does the energy of decomposed matter
trapped within a black hole go?" is: This energy is instantly and continuously conveyed by the Schwarchild mechanism to the black hole's surface...then radiated back into space in the form of pure magnetic energy. [Please see this article in regard to studies of magnetic fields of black holes; which supports this notion] So, while electromagnetic energy is forbidden from escaping the event horizon, magnetic field energy--exclusively--is allowed to escape; in fact, it is forced out--into space by extreme gravitational tidal pressure. [Note: this is my own generalization...not physics. Though, it seems reasonable that the measured energy value of the radiated magnetic flux should reflect the mass-energy value being consumed by the black hole.]
According to the simple model of the universe [outlined on this website] "the
magnetic field is an exclusive physical property of space." That is, Where there is magnetic field energy, there is space...and visa versa. [I've been told this is a naive approach, but I'm sticking with it--for now.] Although this is a tenuous assumption, we will speculate a bit further by guessing: Interactions between magnetic fields, radiated by different sources in space, induces the vacuum energy into being. And the vacuum energy , in the vocabulary of today's science, defines space. [Please see link 18.]
So, when a black hole--in this case, located within a galactic core--radiates
magnetic field energy, it is also producing physical space. In this way, the energy for the expansion of the universe (and even the acceleration of expansion) is justified: The energy released in the terminal accretion of matter (in the grips of a black hole) fuels the accelerated expansion of space. As more and more physical space is being produced (requiring more and more geometric space to accommodate it), the further and further galaxies (or clusters) drift away from each other...the universe expands. (Please see the further treatment of this concept below: Vacuum energy and Expansion of the Quantum Foam.)
A black hole at the core of a galaxy, then--with its convoluted geometric
configuration--is, in effect, a mechanism that is constantly turning the energy of the universe in-side-out. It is the energy recycling bin of the cosmos-- wonderfully efficient; obeying the laws of thermodynamics (rescuing us from other universes, esoteric dimensions, and from endless hypothetical particles) --it devours the energy of stars and churns out the energy of space...and, in the process, produces space itself. |
|
copyright/van/2005
|
|
Note that with this model, not all galaxies/clusters will necessarily contribute equally to
expansion--due to varying degrees of mass consumption by individual galactic cores; hence a potential uneven overall expansion might be observed. |
|
"A theory known as the inflationary lambada cold dark matter model explains
many properties of the universe very well. When certain data are analyzed, however, a few key discrepancies arise. ...The data may be contaminated...but even so, the otherwise highly successful model of inflation is seriously challenged."
From: Scientific American; August 2005; "Is the Universe out of Tune?"; page 50
|
|
Related link:: http://www.case.edu/news/2005/2-05/starkman.htm
|
|
WMAP view of the microwave sky
|
|
The Renewable
Universe |
|
<<Pretend these are three galactic
clusters within a super cluster. The inflationary model offered here says that space is expanding from nodes at the center of the galaxies; via black hole mechanisms at those locations. (The small arrows represent space expanding from galactic cores.) However, as with other inflationary models, galactic clusters might not expand very much (and may even contract) due to relatively close proximity of galaxies with each other and the gravity between them. [Note: Here we would have a natural force weaker than gravity, at this range.] Greatest expansion, in this case, takes place between clusters; as apposed to between galaxies. (The bigger arrows represent expansion from the center of gravity of clusters.) The overall result is: the universe expands on a grand scale. This expansion would appear similar, if not identical, to other modern inflationary models...I think. |
|
<<This cartoon flow diagram
shouldn't be taken too literally. The dynamics of this model are too superimposed upon each other to separate them like this. The point is: The universe is a unique system; and space is a physical part of the system. All energy stays within the system; (Re: thermodynamics 1.) Black holes, at galactic cores, play a central role in recycling energy. |
|
C-1
|
|
C-2
|
|
C-3
|
|
The universe expands from...also contracts into...black hole
galactic cores--the energy recycling bin of the cosmos. |
|
Physical space; vacuum energy; quantum foam; Higgs field; zero point energy; strings;
luminiferous aether....all, basically, different names for the same STUFF. Each reflects the need for a real-field continuum, throughout space, to fill the gaps between Relativity, quantum, and even classical mechanics. [Link 13.] (Note EM radiation is not on this list.) |
|
Galactic-centered expansion and big bang expansion would appear
the same to the casual observer...but the dynamic is very different. |
|
"Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" --Albert Einstein
|
|
Problems with this model:
In that space is both expanding (geometrically) and being created, this model seems
to violate thermodynamic law one. i.e. We're getting something from nothing. (It's no better than the Big Bang in that respect.) This model, I think, might work better in a steady-state universe. There may also be a whole variety of physical observations that contradict this model; and even other problems whose physics alludes me. Though since Big Bang expansion was currently having its own problems (again), this crazy, alternative concept for expansion of space occurred to me...and I thought it was worth mentioning. |
|
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn't matter how smart you
are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." --Richard P.Feynman |