Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 54.0: Big Bang Can't Be "Rounded Off"
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2006 01:37:07 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 54.0: Big Bang Can't Be "Rounded Off" |
From Osher Doctorow
The idea of "rounding off" the Big Bang, so that the Universe "bounces"
some "distance" away from a singularity and never actually reaches it,
arguably arose as an effort of theoretical physicists to avoid the
embarrassment of allowing singularities to disrupt the finiteness
implicit in Mainstream theories including Superstring/Brane and Loop
Quantum Gravity (LQG). However, because the argument involves the
"remote past", in practice it was carried on by proxies in Astrophysics
who found it useful to simultaneously agree in part with the Mainstream
while introducing their own Nonconformity in the form of time loops,
neo-cyclic theories, etc. The one exception is Nathan Seiberg of the
Princeton Institute, who correctly (in my opinion) argues that the
Universe goes through the singularity without bouncing.
The indications from Probable Influence/Causation (PI) all support the
idea that the Big Bang was indeed a singularity and oppose the idea
that it was "rounded off".
Briefly, there is no indication of a "rounding off" mechanism in PI,
but a very strong indication of a singularity at time t = 0. Recall
that PI in the P' version is:
1) PI = P' (A-->B) = 1 + y - x, y = P(B), x = P(A), y < = x
If we simply let x = t (normalized time) or "probable time" and y be
the Universe or a measure of its size (one, two, or three dimensional)
in space, then although y = x maximizes PI at 1, the only time
"naturally" selected in preference to other times by PI is t = 0,
because if t = 0 then y = 0 in (1) and thus the Universe at the initial
time had "zero size" in the sense of Lebesgue Measure. In
3-dimensional space of Euclidean type or even severely curved
distortions of such space, zero size means a planar or 2-surface or
linear/curvilinear section/segment or a point. Since a singularity is
a "limiting point" or a "limiting line", it would be to quibble about
words to worry about which of these alternatives hold.
By a similar argument, it appears that the initial singularity has to
have caused the occurrence of energy and/or matter which appear
"(almost) immediately after the initial time". While black holes are
not proven by this to be the exact type of singularity that began the
Universe or its current cycle, it is extremely difficult to escape the
conclusion that supermassive black holes near galactic centers (which
are known to be associated with creation of new stars) are not
responsible for the creation of matter in and near galaxies.
Osher Doctorow
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 54.0: Big Bang Can't Be "Rounded Off" |
24 Dec 2006 02:06:53 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
The usual intuition in astrophysics and physics is that the collapse of
"over-massive" stars causes black holes, although Mainstream scientists
are careful to point out that such collapses are not actually observed.
Since now PI is indicating that the reverse process is (also)
operating, namely that black holes are actually creating energy/mass,
we might have a "complete cycle".
In other words, the Big Bang did indeed create energy/mass, but
eventually the overmassive stars of the Universe undergo gravitational
collapse and turn into new Big Bangs. We could say all this in terms
of "singularities" instead of Big Bangs or Black Holes, but I think
that it is best to get used to regarding these as interchangable.
Instead of a Big Bang leading eventually to a Big Crunch in what we
regard as the Universe as a whole, a Big Bang leads to local Big
Crunches via collapse of over-massive stars. The signs of these Big
Crunches are what we know as Black Holes, and each of them creates a
new Big Bang "at the other side" which we don't observe. The Hawking
finite evaporating Black Holes don't happen. To put it metaphorically,
why would the Universe go to the trouble of creating a Black Hole only
to have it fizzle? (Note: similarities with Life are not overriding
here.)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
