It should be noted here that that the 2 x 5D universe that started it all did not input any `energy` into the big bang.

The creation, or break up, of the 10 dimensions into our space time and compactified dimensions and mass and gravity was not really a creation of something `new`.

The sum of the universe is still zero.
Simply, the matter is balanced up by gravity and space-time.
-1 + 1 =0

It’s like finding 10 UK pounds in your purse and thinking you`re 10 pounds richer, but you still owe the shop ten pounds for the bag….

It has to do with the paths and directions of world lines. In the BB singularity, all the world lines appear to start at the singularity. In a BH singularity, all the world lines appear to end. I put appear there simply becuase we don't know what happens at the singularity.

Well, if he's doing that, I have no objection (well, I have a few, but the other objections to his idea aren't part of his use of singularity). His first few posts sounded to me as if he was claiming the singularity itself was responsible for the creation of matter. I was just pointing out that he misunderstood what a singularity is and needed to get away from that specific idea.

Aki, I know you (and Russ) have more questions out there (and I have a few in other threads) and I will try to get to them over the next couple of days. We have people out at work and I'm having to spend more time there and some at home, which is cutting into my posting time. I will get to them (not necessarily in the order they were asked), it's just gonna take a bit of time.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Good explanation.

I think that is what he claims, in the same way that BB models propose all baryonic matter was created from the BB singularity. (see my next post)

No worries, take your time.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

If I may paraphrase what I think RussT is proposing (or perhaps my own variation):

When a BH forms it recreates the conditions of the BB on a smaller scale (not quite infinite heat, but off the charts asymptotically, beyond the boundaries of GR), the fallout being identical to the accepted post-BB evolution, only creating a single galaxy rather than an entire universe. The role of the singularity here is really just a placeholder for our lack of understanding of how we get from BH back to a matter-creating mini-BB. (to fill this dreaded theoretical void, I would suggest that sub-Planck length physics are at work and wave my hands at superstrings)

Some questions I would have for such a model:
- if the BB functions directly in relation to expanding space, how does each 'mini-BB' affect expanding space?
- is there any evidence that GR only works up to a 'limit' of mass/energy, at which point unknown physics take place?

Problems this model might answer:
- quasars would be an excellent candidate for 'matter-creating post-BH objects' from which galaxies are born (explaining their rediculous energy output as direct evidence of 'new physics' at work)
- Dark Matter is reinterpreted as a product of the 'new physics' associated with a matter-creating galctic core, which exposes the 'limit' of GR over galactic scales

It's interesting to note that this model doesn't appear dependent on either an expanding-space BB or an SU cosmology (but I could be wrong).

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

If we were to assume that a `matter-creating post-BH object` did exist, why would it not spew just out 10 dimensional space-time like our big bang?

(A space-time that of course would not be part of our space time)

Blob wrote;
[If we were to assume that a `matter-creating post-BH object` did exist, why would it not spew just out 10 dimensional space-time like our big bang?]

[`matter-creating post-BH object`]..........I hope this means before the BH object...the Friedmann naked singularity, but not 'spewing' what will eventually become the whole universe, but 'spewing' what eventually will become a galaxy!

From RussT's paper;
[ The after glows from 10, 20, and 30, second duration GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to start nucleosynthesis (just like how the BB says it happened in the Early universe, only one galaxy at a time), ]

Blob wrote;
[why would it not spew just out 10 dimensional space-time like our big bang?]

Very simply, because the Friedmann Naked Singularity did not make our universe.

akirabakabaka
Senior Member wrote;
[When a BH forms it recreates the conditions of the BB on a smaller scale (not quite infinite heat, but off the charts asymptotically, beyond the boundaries of GR), the fallout being identical to the accepted post-BB evolution, only creating a single galaxy rather than an entire universe.]

This is exactly correct!!! The GRB singularity forms the black hole and in the process...see below for more

akirabakabaka wrote;
[The role of the singularity here is really just a placeholder for our lack of understanding of how we get from BH back to a matter-creating mini-BB. (to fill this dreaded theoretical void, I would suggest that sub-Planck length physics are at work and wave my hands at superstrings)]

[how we get from BH back to a matter-creating mini-BB.] This, I believe, is one of the misconceptions.

When the GRB Singularity explodes 'into' our universe, the Gamma Rays, Gamma Radiation, Energy, is what is 'spewed'. The duration of this explosion determines, how much Gamma Radiation is 'spewed', (the size of the galaxy) and once it cools enough to start forming Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium, and is gathered back together enough by the "Black Hole" created by the GRB explosion (size, also determined by duration), then it can begin the star making process for that galaxy.

akirabakabaka wrote;
[I think that is what he claims, in the same way that BB models propose all baryonic matter was created from the BB singularity.]

This also correct.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor
It has to do with the paths and directions of world lines. In the BB singularity, all the world lines appear to start at the singularity. In a BH singularity, all the world lines appear to end. I put appear there simply becuase we don't know what happens at the singularity.

Good explanation. ]
[In the BB singularity, all the world lines appear to start at the singularity.]

This is simply talking about the Friedmann/GRB naked singularity. Did it make the Universe or does it make a Galaxy???

[In a BH singularity, all the world lines appear to end.]........ And that is because it is "in" the Black Hole. And I believe that Steven Hawking is right, that once in the Black Hole, cosmic censorship does apply and the singularity can never be 'naked'...can never be seen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
In all the posts, no one really got to the point of my challenge of the Big Bang. For years it was assumed that the math proved certain things. The math never proved anything about the "INFINITY" that is reached to create the singularity. The "assumption" that the "total density of the universe" was locked up in the singularity, is NOT MATH!

akirabakabaka wrote;
[Also not really fair. The (GR and particle) math describe a general BB evolution to some degree of accuracy compared to observation, which is what makes the BB so popular (along with certain 'common sense' aspects of the 'beginning of time').]

akirabakabaka...In the first part of my paper I stated that all the math to get to the singularity was exactly correct. The math shows that an 'infinity' is reached to get there. What is the infinity that is reached to cause the singularity? Since the math breaks down at the singularity...there is no way to prove, by math, what the infinity is. So, what I am simply saying is...that it has always been "assumed"...that the infinity was "infinite density"...why, because it has always been thought that the 'whole universe' was locked up in the singularity.

It might help, if the begining part of the paper was re-read with this in mind.

There is a lot more I could cover here from the above posts, but I don't want to make this post too long

Thanks akirabakabaka

RussT

S=G

TravisM
Senior Member wrote;
[Tensor knows BB physics and the mainstream version quite well. He doesn't represent us in the BB community (at least not officially, there's still a vote pending )]

So, when is the vote??? lol

When, in your opinion then, did the mainstream take the 'singularity' out of the Big Bang Model?

And Last but not least...What did you think of my concept on page 1 of this thread???

Thanks

RussT

S=G

Well, I don't like the idea of a naked singularity, white hole, or anything of the sort. But, just because I don't like the idea doesn't meant it can't be. It lacks those grand terms used to self-justify old theories; grand, beauty, geometric... [edit to add] Besides the implications with Entropy such objects bring about...

The best the big bang can describe, IMO, is that very early on the universe whas much more dense, a lot smaller, and had a hellish amount of energy. The math that is used to describe these conditions just can't touch those sub-planck sized time frames (t<10e-43). Anything that claims to is just so much guessing. Maybe when the LHC gets up and running, and Maybe when we get verification of M-Theory, and Maybe when we come up with a quantum field theory for gravity, then just maybe we can probe those extreeme conditions that we think exist in and around what our math tells us (currently) is a singularity.

P.S.: The vote is still pending.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

If nominated I will not run, if elected, I will not serve.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

OK I understand what you're saying now. Let's look at some numbers then to see if this makes sense:

Planck's constant (h) = 6.626e-34 J/s
gamma ray wavelength (λ) = 1e-12 m
GRB luminosity (L) = 1e50 J/s

"Only about one baryon for 10^9 photons, as inferred from the 3K background and density estimates. Since the conservation of baryon number is a strong conservation principle, it is inferred that the ratio of photons to baryons is constant throughout the process of expansion."

The energy (E) of a gamma ray photon is hc/λ or ~2e-13 J. This means a typical GRB emits L/E = 5e62 photons/sec. Observations estimate the photon:baryon ratio of this process to be 1billion:1, so our GRB is going to create ~5e53 hydrogen atoms per second. If a typical star weighs 2e33 grams then it contains ~2e57 atoms of hydrogen. This means a GRB wouldn't generate enough energy for even a single star in terms of baryons. We would need a photon:baryon ratio of about 100000:1 to generate enough for 1 star per second of GRB duration, still far short of the billions of stars needed for a large galaxy.

So your model as it is fails the OOM (order of magnitude) test, RussT. A 1:1 ratio starts to bring things into line, maybe you can do some research into how that ratio is determined?

(edit: 1^9 typo fixed to 10^9)

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

To TravisM

Your post above is the best explanation I've seen so far!

However, here is my opinion of the problems;

The BB says that everything in our universe was created from an initial "Hot" energy source, that evolved into the cooling primordial early universe, that evolved into the Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium to start star formation.

So why is only 5% of our universe Baryonic Matter?
How can the Big Bang ever explain, how it made the 95% of the other "stuff"?
When doing the math on this, so many 'assumptions' are made that the end result, IMO, are meaningless. Planck time (which IMO, is just an exercise in math), density of Baryonic matter in the universe, Inflation math and times, are all assumptions that skew the numbers and winds up having very little value in finding the truth.

"Dark Matter", "dark Energy" (repulsive force), Super Massive Black Holes, Galaxy formation, cluster formation, super cluster formation, the Giant voids, IMO, will never be able to be answered by the Big Bang, because the Big Bang says everything got here at once, and it didn't, IMO!

By the way, IMO, "M" Theory is much closer to being right than anyone realizes!
The BB taking the singularity out, does not help their cause (or does it?).
Their whole 'multi-universe' concept is directly caused by the BB saying that a singularity created the whole universe. So, when "M" theory says that...when the membranes touch, it causes a singularity (which is math before the singularity, how did they do that?), they go on to say that...every time the membranes have touched (billions) since the Big Bang, it causes another universe, outside our universe to be made.
If you read my paper again, I am saying that when the membranes touch it does cause a singularity "INSIDE" our universe, and the touching trillions of times, causes trillions of galaxies to be made, one day at a time!

See my post below to akirabakabaka for more

Thanks for your response

RussT

S=G

To akirabakabaka;

I have truly appreciated your assistance in trying to get others to at least understand (Not necessarily agree) what I am proposing!

I also hope that your above post is a test to see if I know what I am talking about!!!

akirabakabaka wrote;
[OK I understand what you're saying now.]

If this is true, how could you use all the BB lingo and concepts to refute my case???

[Planck's constant (h) = 6.626e-34 J/s]
From RussT's paper;
Like the “duration time” of the GRB singularity explosions determine how much “stuff” explodes ‘into’ our universe, and ultimately the size of each galaxy, as stated above. Doesn’t this make more sense than the BB saying that trillions of galaxies worth of “stuff” exploded, and a split second later “inflated” tremendously. How could trillions of galaxies worth of “stuff” explode in a split second??? We find this totally implausible.

[gamma ray wavelength (λ) = 1e-12 m
GRB luminosity (L) = 1e50 J/s]

According to the mainstream, Ever since Martin Rees came up with his "beaming" hypothesis, the energy released from a GRB has been
10^47 ergs to 10^53 ergs, But as stated in my paper, the Energy released from a GRB is stubstancially higher, because before the "beaming", it was BREAKING E=MC SQUARED! I have "PROOF" of this!

Because "ALL" the scientists in the world agree that "Infinite density" is the infinity reached to cause a 'singularity' (if they believe one could exist), when the GRB was Breaking E=MC squared, they didn't believe or even think of it being a 'singularity'!!! So, NO ONE EVER QUESTIONED THE BEAMING!

So, what needs to be done, IMO, is to take the "Beaming" out, and re-anylize what amount of energy is really coming from GRB's and what it 'may' really mean!
They automatically think that every GRB must be in a galaxy (if it weren't, what could it possibly be?), but time, after time, after time, when the after glow fades, they can't find the galaxy! Their explanation is the galaxy 'must' be to dim. If "ONE" GRB is determined not to be in a galaxy, they cannot be "HyperNova's"!!!
As I said in an earlier post, I saw 1 abstract, that said they were possibly seeing nucleosynthesis in a GRB after glow like in the primordial universe of the BB. They can search for this.
In the paper I sent to you, it had the part about the "Dark Matter Galaxy"
(Which I am going to post soon), they can look for more of these with my theory in mind.

akirabakabaka wrote;
["Only about one baryon for 1^9 photons, as inferred from the 3K background and density estimates. Since the conservation of baryon number is a strong conservation principle, it is inferred that the ratio of photons to baryons is constant throughout the process of expansion."]

Aren't you assuming here, that the Big Bang made the whole universe???


akirabakabaka...you were the one in an earlier post that suggested what I was doing was an order of magnitude test...I'm not sure that is exactly what I am doing?

I am saying that the singularity the BB used to talk about, the one that made the whole universe at once, is tooooooooooo big! ( when I ask that of them, they say too big for what?) lol

Think of this...Is the singularity we have a pretty good handle on, the one in a black hole, "BIG" enough to make our whole universe?
Do you think that the singularity that is in a Super Massive Black Hole is the same size as the singularity in a stellar black hole? I don't!
Do you think that the singularity that is in the SMBH, is "Big" enough to make our whole universe?
So, why do we think there is a singularity "BIG" enough to make our whole universe???

This is exactly why they can't figure out how the SMBH"S are made!!!

So, doesn't it make much more sense that the GRB That Breaks E=MC squared, is a singularity that makes the SMBH's, the singularities being approximately the same size!!!

Note: only 1/10 GRB's makes a SMBH, a galaxy with an Active Galactic nuclei.
Read my paper at the begining of this thread to see how this is.

Akirabakabaka...The power and energy being released from GRB's is tremendously higher than currently portayed, and that is a direct result of the "BEAMING" hypothesis!!! Take the "Beaming" out, and they can't even talk about them mathamatiaclly! That's why it's there!!!

Hope this helps

RussT

S=G

We won't know for sure unless we try, right?

I'm just using research that's already out there to test your ideas. What I did was take current observational values and integrated a typical BB process (exploding singularity) to try to create a galaxy rather than the whole universe.

Richard Feynman once said, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." Our own common sense has no bearing on the properties of the universe we find ourselves in.

I was very lenient in my initial conditions. 10^53 ergs = 10^46 J/s, so I already gave you a 4 orders of magnitude head start by using 10^50 J/s. A higher energy GRB (shorter wavelength) only reduces the amount of baryons the process would create (less photons per total luminosity). I also used the mass of the sun, which greatly underestimates the mass of a 'typical' star. So I've already weighted 3 parameters to favor your model, and it still came up way short.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about before with 'beaming' but now I've done some research into Rees' idea. Apparently our accepted model of GRBs is that if they were really releasing as much energy as we can detect in ALL directions, it would violate E=mc^2. So instead we assume that all of the GRB's energy is actually being detected, meaning it was 'beamed' directly at the Earth.

The more I read of this 'hypernova' theory the more it sounds like total balogna. Is this really the 'accepted' GRB theory? Now I see why you're so distraught, RussT!

When I get a chance I'll redo the calculations using better 'real world' numbers and a GRB output that isn't restricted by the 'beaming' assumption.

This sounds like a good test against mainstream theory, much like Arp's quasars.

Could you find this paper? It might greatly help your argument.

I was assuming that galaxies were created by the same process as the BB, just with less energy. How the universe was actually created becomes another question.

You did a very simple OOM test, by relating the ratio of short:long duration GRBs with the ratio of small:large galaxies in the universe. I went a step further and tested the actual mechanism that you suggested created this relation.

It's interesting that someone would accept the relativity-defying energy of the never-before-observed BB, but won't accept that an observed GRB violates E=mc^2 (as it would without the 'beaming' hypothesis).

They can't? I know they've been indirectly observed (at least supermassive something-or-others have been observed).

Very interesting, I wasn't aware of such a dependence on 'beaming' to prevent observations from breaking E=mc^2. I'll look into this some more.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

To akirabakabaka
Senior Member

Kudo's, Kudo's, Kudo's, Your post above shows "EXACTLY" the kind of open-mindedness that all scientists should strive to achieve!!!

Now that we have hit the nail right on the head, this is where all the Scientists in this forum should get involved in this discussion!

akirabakabaka wrote;
[I wasn't sure what you were talking about before with 'beaming' but now I've done some research into Rees' idea. Apparently our accepted model of GRBs is that if they were really releasing as much energy as we can detect in ALL directions, it would violate E=mc^2. So instead we assume that all of the GRB's energy is actually being detected, meaning it was 'beamed' directly at the Earth.]

This is exactly where my 'proof' was coming from. In addition to "ALL" the investigation I had done on GRB's, When I watched "Death Star", this hit me like a ton of bricks, and if I were better at this writing thing, I would have included the link you put in above, right in my paper!

akirabakabaka wrote;
[The more I read of this 'hypernova' theory the more it sounds like total balogna. Is this really the 'accepted' GRB theory? Now I see why you're so distraught, RussT!]

Yes, this is the 'accepted' theory. There are still minor discussions about other possible progenitors, but those are usually about neutron star-neutron star collisions or neutron star-stellar black hole mergers or collisions or stellar black hole-stellar black hole mergers, and really only apply to the less than 2 second in duration GRB's.

akirabakabaka wrote;
[It's interesting that someone would accept the relativity-defying energy of the never-before-observed BB, but won't accept that an observed GRB violates E=mc^2 (as it would without the 'beaming' hypothesis).]

This is the whole focus of my paper! The answer to this is in part of my previous post(and in my paper)...Because "ALL" the scientists in the world agree that "Infinite density"(the whole universe being locked up in the BB singularity) is the infinity reached to cause a 'singularity' (if they believe one could exist), when the GRB was Breaking E=MC squared, they didn't believe or even think of it being a 'singularity'!!! So, NO ONE EVER QUESTIONED THE BEAMING!

akirabakabaka wrote;
[They can't? I know they've been indirectly observed (at least supermassive something-or-others have been observed).]is refering to how SMBH's are made.

NO, "THEY" CAN"T!!! The BB mainstream, or any other theory that I know of!
Unfortunately, because of the 'tired light' problem, Quasar problem, the true nature of gravity, but mostly (IMO) because of the BB's interpretation of the 'singularity', most of the alternative theories don't even believe in GR and SR, so they don't even think that SMBH's exist (which turns out to be quite convenient, because then they don't even have to explain them!)

As far as I know, the BB mainstream doesn't know, wheather the SMBH comes first, or if the galaxy comes first and then the SMBH's are formed. They either think that they are formed from many, many black hole mergers or that they are formed from the gravitational collapse of a huge "dust" ball (gas cloud).

My Theory answers all of this quite nicely, IMO!

akirabakabaka wrote;
[You did a very simple OOM test, by relating the ratio of short:long duration GRBs with the ratio of small:large galaxies in the universe. I went a step further and tested the actual mechanism that you suggested created this relation.]

I see now! I thought you were talking about the BB singularity vs the GRB singularity being the OOM test.

akirabakabaka wrote;
[I'm just using research that's already out there to test your ideas. What I did was take current observational values and integrated a typical BB process (exploding singularity) to try to create a galaxy rather than the whole universe.]

I see, but I would suggest that using Planck time in relation to any parameter at all would corrupt that data.

akirabakabaka wrote;
[A higher energy GRB (shorter wavelength) only reduces the amount of baryons the process would create (less photons per total luminosity).]

It sounds like this is saying that anything that produces Gamma Rays is creating Baryons, or Baryonic Matter. I don't believe this is the case, because the less than 2 second GRB's are probably neutron star or BH related and aren't creating Baryonic Matter. Plus, once the after glow fades from the over 5 second GRB's, the Baryonic Matter is still there with no photons or luminosity. So, I am not sure that the photons or luminosity applies to what is being created.

[Could you find this paper? It might greatly help your argument.]

I will attempt again to do so!!!

[Richard Feynman once said, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." Our own common sense has no bearing on the properties of the universe we find ourselves in.]

Feynman
>~~~~<

Is this the infamous TravisM from above??? LOL

I agree to some extent...ie...my roommate still cannot 'get' the concept that if you drop a 50 lb ball and a 1 lb ball at the same time from the Empire State Building, that they both will hit at the same time, even when explained. However, even though common sense will never prove anything, I still contend that it can certainly steer you in the right direction.

I also contend, that figuring out how the SMBH's are created and therefore, how galaxy birth and formation occur, which in turn IMO tells us how the Baryonic Matter gets here is the key to Cosmology!!!

It certainly does not confirm if our Universe has always existed or had a begining and is expanding, which is why I include both possibilities in my paper(I am using "I" because I am the only one posting). If our Universe is expanding, I can definitely show a model that does not require a "Hot" BB, primordial early Universe!!!

Again, akirabakabaka, kudos! and I believe we are now on the right track!

Thanks

RussT

S=G

Good observation.

There appears to be some observed evidence for the beams, coming from 'breaks in the light curve'.

"The clearest evidence for a jet can be found in the sharp achromatic break in the light curve of GRB990510."

A search for this terminology brings up many more papers. However it is unclear in that paper if the 3x10^54 ergs is the observed energy output of the GRB before or after compensating (reducing) for beams. If 10^54ergs is really the directly observed energy output, I'm not sure how to justify changing (increasing) this value to support your model. It might still break E=mc^2, but not in a way (according to BB evolution/nucleosynthesis) that could create enough mass for stars or a galaxy to form (as I showed in my other post).

Hehe, I'm not sure about this. Any ATM theory that decides GR or SR is 'wrong' had better prove it with some intense math before they even think about creating their own theories, or they are already discredited.

I think you are right here, about the chicken-and-egg problem of galactic evolution. We don't have any model of galactic formation that even closely explains a decent amount of observations, and the ones that do rely on highly arbitrary dark matter halos.

I didn't use Planck time at all. The equation to determine the energy of a photon is (Planck constant)*(speed of light)/(photon wavelength), or hc/λ. No arguments allowed here.