Expanding/Contracting + Bang/Crunch = Oscillating Universe

[Grant Nockolds]

All this talk about a expanding and contracting universes, background radiation and red shifts is the perfect intro to ask what you all think of the oscillating universe theory?

To my thinking it’s the only outcome that makes sense of the big bang theory, which is now considered gospel! The question of what was before the big bang can be simply answered - "as our previous universe's big crunch''.

I believe the universes origins and existence and fate will mirror quite directly that of the life of a star. The following is laid out in a - Star / Universe - format.

Formation of a star / Re-creation of Matter

Population 1 stars are predominantly formed from the matter of previous but since destroyed stars. Population 2 stars are predominantly formed from the post-cooled matter of the early universe. The early universe or big bang was predominantly formed from the matter of the previously destroyed universe.

Growth of a star / Creation of MASS:

A star will begin with its greatest energy and smallest volume and very rapidly however always at a decreasing rate it will create more mass, more volume... but less heat/pressure.
This mirrors just after big bang, red-shift galaxies and Hawking Radiation on the decline!!

Decay of a star / Equilibrium then Collapse

As the its mass increases so does its size and volume but its using up its fuel and its getting so big that the heat its now generating is only just enough to hold back the ever increasing Giant called gravity. The mass it keeps creating combined with the eventual lessening of fuels to power it leads to collapse and gravity's "slowly but surely" victory over all - begins.

Death of a star / Big Crunch

The star now collapsing begins to shrink and its density increase. The sun's thermo nuclear reactions make it worse because the sun's is still producing more mass (heavier elements) in these reactions. So it collapses and its density increases at an ever increasing rate. Eventually leading to a dead Neutron Star (contributing mass) a Black Hole (destroying mass) or a Super-Nova (re-cycling mass).

Fortunately for the new universe I suspect the first two options are impractical if not impossible!! For the Chanderasakah Limit will surely be well surpassed…

Wondering what you all think of that Oscillating Universe synopsis?

[irizarry]

In our universe mass was created at Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. That is, particles that either have mass or will contribute energy to a system that results in an increase in mass (i.e. protons, electrons, photons, neutrinos). Once the Universe has cooled down enough of these particles could then combine to produce the first atoms-specifically Hydrogen. After a while the hydrogen combined to produce hot clouds then eventually stars that began to produce heavier elements (I’m skipping steps here). The mass is there, no new mass is produced only denser mass in the form of heavier elements. In fact stars loose mass from the conversion of mass to energy in their thermonuclear engines. The accumulation of heavier elements can be thought of as analogous to ash. The ash of the star builds up making the star denser. The star is in hydrostatic equilibrium, that is the pressure generated by expanding electromagnetic fields is in near-equillibrium with the force of gravity that holds the mass of the star together. This is analgous to an onion with multiple layers each with a slightly different differential equilibrium. If gravity wins out in this tug of war then eminent collapse. If electromagnetic fields win out then the there is a nova. From this there is Supernova Nucleosynthesis where we get heavier elements than iron. All built you might say from the ashes of the previous star. Interesting enough the presence of heavy elements on earth is an indication that there was at least one sun before the one we have now. The shock wave from a supernova can kindle other masses into star formation (sort of a kick start). But all in all no new mass, just mass that’s been floating around in an old form. In a way there are mass producing events in the Universe called electron-positron reactions or proton-antiproton reactions (collisions). But there must be Baryon conservation which ensures protons don’t change into particles with less mass. But these collisions will produce new particles. If you consider the universe as a closed system the there is conservation of mass. You can convert mass to energy and energy to mass but this is not the principle phenomena in stars. They are just getting denser and hotter. The stellar aging process.

As for the oscillating Universe I have wondered this very terminology myself. If you have Big Bang followed by Big Crunch followed by Big Bang #2 and so on why not call it the oscillating Universe. In fact there is either a mathematician or physicist (If anyone finds his/her name please volunteer it-I’d like to read more) that has predicted that we are in the 11th cycle of an oscillatory Universe. Of course people smarter than me ask the really good questions like (1) If it is an Oscillatory Universe and we are in the 11th cycle what started it from a dead stop?, (2) What’s the beginning of the cycle Big Bang or Big Crunch?, (3) Isn’t an Oscillatory Universe another form of the antiquated Steady State Universe?, (4) How does an Oscillating Universe fit in with the Parallel Universes of Quantum Mechanics, and the ever popular (5) How do I stop the Universe-I want to get off?

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[irizarry]

A co-worker stop by and read my comment and said, “What about stars that evaporate, sucked dry by a companion black hole, cool down or burn out?” In order not to end up writing a thesis a just jumped in on the part of the main sequence that a star goes through that I felt applicable to the argument. All of these things are also true. As of a SpaceNews article (May 5, 2003-printed issue) we can add still a new effect/phenomenon. V838 Monocerotis has been observed to flash enormous energy to illuminate a circular dust cloud around it, grow in size and yet have a surface temperature the article says equivalent to a light bulb. Just when you think you’ve heard it all nature rings your bell!

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[Grant Nockolds]

In the very early stages of the universe were not the high energy massless photons cooled to form particles of mass? Thereby creating mass.

[irizarry]

According to Gamow's modified version of the Big Bang the Universe began as a highly dense clump of neutrons that exploded, many with short half-lifes which decayed into protons and electrons. The expanding cloud is rich with photons which gave rise to helium (from hydrogen first). And this is the beginnings of matter that would eventually fill the Universe. A special note: the expanding cloud "is" the Universe -its back to that poor example of the expanding balloon.

Maybe I did not answer your question? Anyway this cosmology stuff is fun stuff to think and talk about. There are definately a number of theories in Big Bang Cosmology alone. I think what happens for me is someone reports some aspect of the Big Bang in a magazine or something and uses an analogy (or visual model) that dosn't do the theory justice. Then I go around with this poor model in my head until I have time to iron out its short falls. In the mean time the damage is done!

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[RCS]

Irizarry wrote

In our universe mass was created at Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

RCS: How?? How such a creation out of NOTHING??


As for the oscillating Universe I have wondered this very terminology myself. If you have Big Bang followed by Big Crunch followed by Big Bang #2 and so on why not call it the oscillating Universe. In fact there is either a mathematician or physicist (If anyone finds his/her name please volunteer it-I’d like to read more) that has predicted that we are in the 11th cycle of an oscillatory Universe. Of course people smarter than me ask the really good questions like (1) If it is an Oscillatory Universe and we are in the 11th cycle what started it from a dead stop?,

RCS: If it is an scillating universe you cannot say you are in 11th cycle. In an ever going process you cannot count it at all.

If you see a pendulam oscilling already before you arrived, can you say how many oscillations have taken place?? NOOOO.


(2) What’s the beginning of the cycle Big Bang or Big Crunch?,

RCS: Continous, beginningless cycle.


(3) Isn’t an Oscillatory Universe another form of the antiquated Steady State Universe?,

RCS: Not at all. Steady state universe assumes an expanding universe where matter id created continously so that the density remains constant.


(4) How does an Oscillating Universe fit in with the Parallel Universes of Quantum Mechanics, and the ever popular


RCS: Should it?? Why??

(5) How do I stop the Universe-I want to get off?

RCS: No way.

[iseason]

In our universe mass was created at Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. That is, particles that either have mass or will contribute energy to a system that results in an increase in mass (i.e. protons, electrons, photons, neutrinos). Once the Universe has cooled down enough of these particles could then combine to produce the first atoms-specifically Hydrogen. After a while the hydrogen combined to produce hot clouds then eventually stars that began to produce heavier elements (I’m skipping steps here). The mass is there, no new mass is produced only denser mass in the form of heavier elements. In fact stars loose mass from the conversion of mass to energy in their thermonuclear engines. The accumulation of heavier elements can be thought of as analogous to ash. The ash of the star builds up making the star denser. The star is in hydrostatic equilibrium, that is the pressure generated by expanding electromagnetic fields is in near-equillibrium with the force of gravity that holds the mass of the star together. This is analgous to an onion with multiple layers each with a slightly different differential equilibrium. If gravity wins out in this tug of war then eminent collapse. If electromagnetic fields win out then the there is a nova. From this there is Supernova Nucleosynthesis where we get heavier elements than iron. All built you might say from the ashes of the previous star. Interesting enough the presence of heavy elements on earth is an indication that there was at least one sun before the one we have now. The shock wave from a supernova can kindle other masses into star formation (sort of a kick start). But all in all no new mass, just mass that’s been floating around in an old form. In a way there are mass producing events in the Universe called electron-positron reactions or proton-antiproton reactions (collisions). But there must be Baryon conservation which ensures protons don’t change into particles with less mass. But these collisions will produce new particles. If you consider the universe as a closed system the there is conservation of mass. You can convert mass to energy and energy to mass but this is not the principle phenomena in stars. They are just getting denser and hotter. The stellar aging process.

As for the oscillating Universe I have wondered this very terminology myself. If you have Big Bang followed by Big Crunch followed by Big Bang #2 and so on why not call it the oscillating Universe. In fact there is either a mathematician or physicist (If anyone finds his/her name please volunteer it-I’d like to read more) that has predicted that we are in the 11th cycle of an oscillatory Universe. Of course people smarter than me ask the really good questions like (1) If it is an Oscillatory Universe and we are in the 11th cycle what started it from a dead stop?, (2) What’s the beginning of the cycle Big Bang or Big Crunch?, (3) Isn’t an Oscillatory Universe another form of the antiquated Steady State Universe?, (4) How does an Oscillating Universe fit in with the Parallel Universes of Quantum Mechanics, and the ever popular (5) How do I stop the Universe-I want to get off?

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

Hi Irizary

Wouldn't There need to be two elements in any universal model.
1. A minimum density/mass
2. A maximum density/ mass

In order for them to be conservative , wouldn't they need a common link which WAS ALWAYS constant?

Currently the model has numerous transitional states , but none which are governing over all. Time, motion,mass,velocity and their various definitions are all the explaination of varying states of 'something'.
Why not call that something "one" and use the outer parameters of it's behavour rather than trying to explain the inner working so 'peicemeal'.

I know this sounds like such a simplification of all the hard work being done by science, but if you see the available energy as one, then it can have only two states .
1. fully volumised
2. fully compressed

When these two states are in oscillation , there is no difference between the energy used or conserved. Provided , they are both repeated continually.

Arguements against a singular particle are overcome by starting the oscillation in the volumised state. But to cement them , The energy state of the volumised universe needs to be a dispersion of the compressed state.

To reiterate.......Because we can "find smaller mass/energy" we must not have reached the "compressed state yet", but to use quanta as a guide.

The smallest energy packet is the singular particle. But there is only one of them .
So the expanded universal state can only have "one quanta" dispersed over it's entire volume. (like having a drop of green in an ocean of blue)

Because the expansion/ contraction is a closed system , the energy is always conserved, but by recycling it by varying it's occurence there appears to be much more of it than there really is.
consider a circle (for want of another picture) from volumised to compressed , the densty changes to a constant level "a quanta" then it return to the original. But Variation has already changed it .If it compresses to the same point within it's volume , It would meet itself, putting it in two places at the same time. This would also that the available energy within the universe has changed or increased.
So instead the occurrence avoids itself at all costs and occupies an opposite position within the volumised boundary as it compresses..

Once again variation has formed.....there are two positions unavailable for occurences. But not only that , The volumised quanta cannot occupy them either (meeting itself again)
so with each cycle the volumised quanta increases in pressure while the compressed quanta changes and varies it's occurences. Eventually you end up with expanded quanta of the same density/mass and volume.

Meanwhile , the "anti-Quanta" become a medium for motion eventually becoming possible. And because it holds the outer universe at it's prevous limit , the compressed quanta is free to occur with huge variations in how it could before.

Remember we started with volumised. but this cycle replaced volumised quanta with anti quanta. so compressed quanta can now occupy TWO "Quanta Spaces" and many variations of upward occurrences.


it's like having boards to cross holes.If the Quanta remains at it's minimum size , it can fall into a hole , but if it expands to 2 quanta volume , it can straddle 2 holes....this variation can fill the universe with twice as many occurences of the quanta as before.

two can be straddled by three and so on . But the rule of constant remains....a two or a three volumised is just the same energy as a singular quanta, and cannot recurr within the same position..

the variations on this behavour are unlimited. AND it hasn't even created anything yet..At this stage it's just "occurring.The buildup will eventually lead geometrically to the mass/velocity/ momentum which we observe.......

but one quanta at a time..........the same quanta

Cheers
Iseason

Much like a flikker on a screen becomes a movie

[ninjashoes]

The big bang theory pretty much asks for a miracle so I have a hard time with it.

[timeshifter]

It's also important to remember that in almost every scientifically plausible theory for the beginning of the universe, physics as we understand it ceases to exist. But the killer question really is, where did it all come from? If only we knew...