- #1
Tiapan
- 6
- 0
If the universe is shown to have angular velocity, is this evidence of a physical universe prior to the "Big Bang"?
Several studies are being undertaken currently to determine the rotational velocity of the universe. So far they have all indicated a positive velocity although the values determined are not all the same depending on the computational model used.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t42n638233258641/fulltext.pdf
Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. Now let's shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 billion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the "big bang" proto-universe was probably spinning, and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast, we have one very large amount of angular momentum.
Of course there are paradoxes, if the universe is spinning where is its axis? When we look at the universe it seems uniform all over with no indication of an actual physical center. That aside I continue.
My question is if the proto-universe has all this angular momentum, where did it come from? Could I hypothesis that it is possibly the legacy of some pre-existing massive spinning object obeying the conservation of angular momentum law? Could I further hypothesis that it is implied evidence of real physics prior to the "Big Bang" phenomena, such as a previous rotating universe's "Big Crunch".
I know this is a place where angels (and scientists) fear to tread, but it does work on the basis of normal natural physics. If the universes rotational velocity is measured, could this not be a priori evidence for a closed oscillating universe.
I am fully aware that current evidence indicates the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate. This would lead to the conclusion that, contrary to the above, the universe is open. Its fate the same as a flat universe, cold, dead, infinitely diluted, spread across a dark cryogenic void. This would indicate the big bang was a one off event and generates paradoxes such as how do you get such a massive amount of something like a universe, from a void of nothingness. The intellectually simpler answer is a closed universe eg oscillating universe, with no beginning or end thus removing the paradoxical question of how did it begin.
However, to be closed we need to account for the mass that appears to be missing, that would be required for the total gravity of the system to counter the expansion, slowing it, causing a reversal and eventual collapse into the next "Big Crunch".
This has prompted us to look for the "hidden" missing matter and has led to the discovery of dark matter/energy, although its exact nature is unknown it is apparently non-Baryonic.
It appears to me that a closed universe must take into account all energy/matter equivalence. During the "Big Bang" expansion phase, and matter antimatter annihilation stage, massively vast quantities of gamma radiation were emitted these would have radiated out at the speed of light in an expanding shell like process. (ever seen the old footage of a nuclear blast). Let's call this the gamma photosphere. In theory it should now have a diameter of 27.4 Billion light years, and be around 380,000 light years thick. As massive as it is I doubt we would ever be able to see it.
If E=mc^2, then the gamma photons that constitute this photosphere, have a mass equivalent of m=E/mc^2=hv/mc^2. Could this be part of our "missing" mass. But photons are massless! Are they? It seems gravity affects them and black holes trap them.
If large masses affect photons, do photons affect large masses?
Next take this shell idea to its absurdity. Although we see the Big Bang as more of an expansion than explosion over about 380,000 years, I still feel it was a fairly tumultuous environment, matter antimatter energetics are fairly explosive. So I envisage the proto-universe as some sort of violent hot quark soup, where some areas are cooler, eg the outside, allowing sub-nuclear binding, eventually forming leptons and baryons etc and emitting lots of gamma hv. I believe these particles especially on the outer fringes are literally blasted into the void continuously during this period.
Lets assume that the particles all have the same force applied (Dangerous assumption on my part but I have to start somewhere), ie total impulse, since the particles have different masses the velocity these are expelled at, will be inversely proportional to their mass. The long and the short of this model, is that like the photo sphere mentioned earlier there may be successive shells like the rings of an onion, all with far smaller diameter spheres. May be the neutrino sphere is followed by the negatively charged leptons and much further in because of their far greater mass, baryons, a shell of positively charged protons, next neutrons, alpha particles (Doubly charged), then eventually atoms ions compounds and us.
Of course this could all be arrogant nonsense because I am missing some pertinent facts, but if my logic makes sense then the question arises. What is the effect of having charged shells surrounding the inner universe, could the induced electrostatic attraction be sufficient to account for the accelerating expansion that is currently being observed?
Some things to measure and ponder.
Cheers
Several studies are being undertaken currently to determine the rotational velocity of the universe. So far they have all indicated a positive velocity although the values determined are not all the same depending on the computational model used.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t42n638233258641/fulltext.pdf
Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. Now let's shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 billion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the "big bang" proto-universe was probably spinning, and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast, we have one very large amount of angular momentum.
Of course there are paradoxes, if the universe is spinning where is its axis? When we look at the universe it seems uniform all over with no indication of an actual physical center. That aside I continue.
My question is if the proto-universe has all this angular momentum, where did it come from? Could I hypothesis that it is possibly the legacy of some pre-existing massive spinning object obeying the conservation of angular momentum law? Could I further hypothesis that it is implied evidence of real physics prior to the "Big Bang" phenomena, such as a previous rotating universe's "Big Crunch".
I know this is a place where angels (and scientists) fear to tread, but it does work on the basis of normal natural physics. If the universes rotational velocity is measured, could this not be a priori evidence for a closed oscillating universe.
I am fully aware that current evidence indicates the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate. This would lead to the conclusion that, contrary to the above, the universe is open. Its fate the same as a flat universe, cold, dead, infinitely diluted, spread across a dark cryogenic void. This would indicate the big bang was a one off event and generates paradoxes such as how do you get such a massive amount of something like a universe, from a void of nothingness. The intellectually simpler answer is a closed universe eg oscillating universe, with no beginning or end thus removing the paradoxical question of how did it begin.
However, to be closed we need to account for the mass that appears to be missing, that would be required for the total gravity of the system to counter the expansion, slowing it, causing a reversal and eventual collapse into the next "Big Crunch".
This has prompted us to look for the "hidden" missing matter and has led to the discovery of dark matter/energy, although its exact nature is unknown it is apparently non-Baryonic.
It appears to me that a closed universe must take into account all energy/matter equivalence. During the "Big Bang" expansion phase, and matter antimatter annihilation stage, massively vast quantities of gamma radiation were emitted these would have radiated out at the speed of light in an expanding shell like process. (ever seen the old footage of a nuclear blast). Let's call this the gamma photosphere. In theory it should now have a diameter of 27.4 Billion light years, and be around 380,000 light years thick. As massive as it is I doubt we would ever be able to see it.
If E=mc^2, then the gamma photons that constitute this photosphere, have a mass equivalent of m=E/mc^2=hv/mc^2. Could this be part of our "missing" mass. But photons are massless! Are they? It seems gravity affects them and black holes trap them.
If large masses affect photons, do photons affect large masses?
Next take this shell idea to its absurdity. Although we see the Big Bang as more of an expansion than explosion over about 380,000 years, I still feel it was a fairly tumultuous environment, matter antimatter energetics are fairly explosive. So I envisage the proto-universe as some sort of violent hot quark soup, where some areas are cooler, eg the outside, allowing sub-nuclear binding, eventually forming leptons and baryons etc and emitting lots of gamma hv. I believe these particles especially on the outer fringes are literally blasted into the void continuously during this period.
Lets assume that the particles all have the same force applied (Dangerous assumption on my part but I have to start somewhere), ie total impulse, since the particles have different masses the velocity these are expelled at, will be inversely proportional to their mass. The long and the short of this model, is that like the photo sphere mentioned earlier there may be successive shells like the rings of an onion, all with far smaller diameter spheres. May be the neutrino sphere is followed by the negatively charged leptons and much further in because of their far greater mass, baryons, a shell of positively charged protons, next neutrons, alpha particles (Doubly charged), then eventually atoms ions compounds and us.
Of course this could all be arrogant nonsense because I am missing some pertinent facts, but if my logic makes sense then the question arises. What is the effect of having charged shells surrounding the inner universe, could the induced electrostatic attraction be sufficient to account for the accelerating expansion that is currently being observed?
Some things to measure and ponder.
Cheers