In the infinite starting was the vacuum vigor (a part state of vigor and matter, even if the matter is virtual). The vacuum vigor resided in space and time (or space-time, post relativity theory). Now why 'in the infinite beginning'? It eliminates the awkward, nagging and very annoying philosophical question of 'what came before that?' Its neigh near impossible to avoid request that because one just can't come to terms with a finite starting to everything. It's inevitable in a tasteless sense sort of way that no matter how far back you go, something came before that.
From the vacuum vigor (which again is a part phenomenon often termed vacuum or part fluctuations, the part jitters or part foam), at least one macro universe arose. This is theoretically possible (see references at the end) although I strongly fancy it has an awful lot to do with the part mantra that 'if it's not forbidden, it's compulsory' - at least if you're willing to wait long enough. Of procedure maybe more than one universe arose from the vacuum energy. The more the merrier!
Once formed, a macro universe is inherently unstable and will have to either improve (under at least the affect of 'dark energy') or contract (under the affect of gravity).
Roughly 13.7 billion years ago, one such macro universe experienced a runaway contraction, which concluded in a Big Crunch. All the matter and vigor of that universe converged and contracted into a smaller and smaller volume, at last forming the mum of all Black Holes via the merging of existing smaller Black Holes and other matter and vigor being sucked in to same - at last there would be no escape; a particular heavy Black Hole is the end product of a Big Crunch.
That also means that the mum of all Black Holes contained the mum of all Singularities - the heart and center of all Black Holes.
The mum of all Singularities was a macro object, contrary to favorite perception. As it's impossible to have any object with zero volume and infinite density, a Singularity must have finite volume and finite density. As more and more stuffs get added to the Black Hole, and thus to its Singularity, the density keeps rising. But, it at last hits its finite limit and as stuffs continue to be added, the density remains at its limit, and volume increases instead. at last that volume exceeds the size of the part realm. Because this Big Crunch mum of all Singularities contained the contents of, the sum total of, an whole universe, it was of necessity of monster size. I don't know how large, but I'll guesstimate somewhere in the range of a stellar to galactic sized object
Because matter/energy affect space-time, and vice versa (matter 'tells' space how to warp; space 'tells' matter how to move - i.e. General Relativity), such a heavy macro monster of a Singularity would warp space-time, and in such a brief time, to such an extent that all space-time in the region would be unstable, as would be the Singularity (think radioactive particle decay here as an analogy). The evaporative and unstable distortion of space, time, matter and vigor resulted in the dead guts of the old universe, contents residing in the mum of all Singularities, 'decaying' or 'exploding' or just plain spewing the article of its guts back out again, in a reverse of the Big Crunch. That event we of procedure now call the Big Bang; the 'object' doing the spewing we can call, for lack of a good phrase, a 'White Hole'. Thus we have the old universe's Big Crunch, which created the ultimate Black Hole, heavy distortion or warping of space-time, hence a spewing White Hole, and our Big Bang. General Relative allows for or permits such a scenario.
If anyone unfortunately finds itself on a one-way journey down a Black Hole, finally ending up as part of that Hole's Singularity, then apart from the property of mass, all other distinguishing features, color, texture, chemical composition, shape, hardness, bodily state (solid, liquid, gas or plasma), etc. Will be crushed out of it and lost forever. What remains wouldn't look anyone like what went in. What remains of a Tv set would look the same as the remains of a human being! A Singularity is the ultimate crusher!
Thus, a Singularity (not than anyone has ever seen one) would have to be nearly featureless, a uniform a blob of stuff as you can imagine. A Singularity truly has mass, volume, and would have a perfectly spherical shape, temperature, maybe galvanic charge, maybe rotation as well, but otherwise would just be a homogenous sameness through and through. In fact, there are those who propose that a Singularity represents a new state of matter - a phase transition from the states we know to something else entirely. For example, if you had a star made of matter, and someone else selfsame star in every way except it was composed of antimatter, and the two stars merged, you'd have one big Ka-Boom! You'd end up with the total annihilation of matter into pure energy. Now, say the matter star, once its fuel ran out, collapsed under gravity into a Black Hole. Now say the antimatter star, once its fuel ran out, collapsed under gravity into a Black Hole. Now merge the matter Black Hole with the antimatter Black Hole. What do you get? Not a Ka-Boom, but a much larger Black Hole with twice the mass! Be that as it may, I consideration that a homogenous Singularity mirrors our homogenous Universe.
Our observable universe appears to be both isotropic (it pretty much looks the same from any given point) and homogeneous (the universe is uniform no matter where you go). Collectively, these facets are known as the Cosmological Principle. In actual fact however, the observable universe isn't truly ultra homogeneous - it's truly sort of lumpy, what with all those planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. However, the lumpiness is on a pretty small scale relative to the size of the observable universe. It's akin to a plane beach of sand. Only on close examination, on the micro scale is the beach lumpy, in that you're likely to find shells and pebbles that also include the beach and which are lumpy.
Currently, the understanding of 'inflation' is used to clarify why the Universe is so plane and uniform, akin to blowing up a balloon smoothes out its wrinkles. part fluctuations at the time of inflation, which would have occurred with micro-seconds of the Big Bang, accounts for the tiny variations in the Universe's properties - a microscopic lumpiness in the distribution of matter, microscopic (and I do mean slight) differences in background climatic characteristic (the cosmic microwave background radiation), and so on.
But, if our broad bland, homogenous, isotropic Universe arose from an broad bland, homogenous, isotropic, one-kind-of-stuff parent Singularity, then who needs inflation to catalogue for the broad plane appearance of our Universe? Of course, again, it's not 100% plane because random part fluctuations operated even back then (13.7 billion years ago) and in those first few micro-seconds of the Big Bang event. So the Universe is truly a microscopic bit variable and a microscopic bit lumpy, which is just as well, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
One final bit, probably only part of our parent Singularity accounts for our observable universe. The rest of said Singularity accounts for that part of our whole Universe that we can't observe. What the ratio between observable and total is, I know not, but why do I have this feeling that what we examine is only a tiny fraction of all that's out there!
The question arises that if our Universe originated from someone else universe's singularity, and that in our Universe singularities form the centre of Black Holes (of all sizes), then could these singularities, if they became large sufficient and unstable sufficient (via the ultimate warping of space-time), finally form new baby universes in their own right?
Where all this differs from the standard cosmological (Big Bang) model is: 1) The Big Bang wasn't a micro (quantum realm) event; 2) the Big Bang event occurred in existing space and time instead of creating space and time; and 3) there was therefore a 'before the Big Bang', but alas, a 'before' probably forever beyond our capabilities of directly knowing the fine print. With respect to 2) immediately above, is there any consideration that has been, or can be made, that can distinguish between space increasing (as a result of the Big Bang having created space in the first instance) and increasing space carrying matter/energy along for the ride (the standard spiel), vis-à-vis matter/energy exciting through space as the result of a Big Bang explosion (or spewing event) in preexisting space? The respond is "no".
How is this process maintained indefinitely, such that there not only was no beginning, but no end either? I mean if all universes improve forever, things finally come to an apparent sticky end. Well, assuming a universe doesn't have a sufficient mass/energy density to cause the expansion to slow down, stop, reverse, and collapse back to a Big Crunch (like ours), then sooner or later, part of an ever increasing universe will intersect with part of someone else ever increasing universe (if mum Nature can produce one universe, she can produce more than one universe). The resulting local growth in mass/energy density due to that intersection could be sufficient to trigger that area to undergo a gravitational collapse with a local Big Crunch the ultimate result, resulting in the production of a new universe - which may, or may itself improve indefinitely or may collapse into someone else Big Crunch scenario.
An Analogy: All analogies are a bit suspect, but this one I hope will clarify my General idea immediately above. I'm going to substitute a supernova for the Big Bang.
Interstellar gas and dust slowly come together, contracting under their mutual gravitational attraction, finally forming a heavy star which ignites (via thermonuclear fusion). One could think of the process as a mini Big Crunch.
The star, being massive, rapidly exhausts its fuel supply, and the resulting imbalance between gravity (inward pressure) and radiation pressure (outward pressure), a balance of pressures that regularly keeps a star's size constant, results in a heavy implosion hence explosion - a supernova. The supernova spews its stuff, most of it anyway, back into interstellar space. That's a mini Big Bang.
Now supernovae occur in existing space-time; they don't originate space-time. They don't originate matter/energy; rather recycle it - from interstellar gas and dust, back to interstellar gas and dust. However, the intense energies and pressures can originate new forms of matter (heavier elements) from their provide of lighter elements. This is finally primary for the origin and improvement of carbon-based life.
So we have a micro system of mini Big Crunches (stellar formation) leading to mini Big Bangs (supernovae - stellar death) - a sort of cyclic universe in miniature.
Now we note that supernovae happen at definite coordinates. They happen at a point in space and time, like I fancy the real Big Bang did. A supernova is also not a part event, much like I fancy the actual Big Bang wasn't.
It is claimed that our Big Bang had no point of origin, no definite coordinates in space-time. The Big Bang happened everywhere, since it created space-time in the first place. Thus, our telescopes can't find or pinpoint where it happened. In our supernova explosion, all the bits and pieces will, over the eons, come to be so spread out, and/or incorporated into other stellar/planetary bodies, as to be no longer detectable or related with the supernova event. The core of the supernova might remain for a while as a neutron star or Black Hole, but they too will at last radiate away - in the latter case via Hawking radiation. Thus, exactly where the supernova event happened, ultimately, over the eons, will no longer be identifiable on the cosmic map. I fancy the same for the real Big Bang.
Using someone else analogy, imaging a concluded room with a fireplace and light the fireplace for, say an hour. Then put out the fire, and leave the room for a half hour. When reentering the room, it should be obvious, especially using an infrared detector, the exact point of origin for the heat - the fireplace. Now instead of reentering the room after a half an hour, delay reentry for a half year. By that time the fireplace will be equal in climatic characteristic to the rest of the room, and thus won't stand out, infrared detector or no. Substitute the Big Bang for the fireplace; the Universe for the room. Too much time has elapsed for the Big Bang's coordinates to be located.
We note that the bits and pieces that are explosively emitted by supernovae are increasing throughout existing space, just like a mini Big Bang event and mirroring the real Big Bang event. Further, every bit 'sees' every other bit exciting away from it at a velocity proportional to its distance away. The additional away, the faster it's going, just like a real Big Bang.
We note that a supernova has a cause. Supernovae don't happen for no fancy at all. That also mirrors what I feel must be the case for our own actual Big Bang.
One other word to make the analogy more perfect - our Universe may have originated in a Big Bang, but it's unlikely to end in a Big Crunch. Well, that's okay in our supernova analogy. A star doesn't go supernova, spew out gas and dust, which then contracts in total to reform the star when then at last explodes as a supernova, etc. Its explosive oomph is greater than the gravity needed to acquire the gas and dust back together again.
So in our Universe we have local areas of gas and dust contraction - mini Big Crunches - stellar formation; local areas of expansion - mini Big Bangs - supernovae. Now improve the picture to the level of real large scale Big Crunches and real large scale Big Bangs, all inside a super-sized universe. This super-sized universe truly is super-sized. It's infinite in time and in space. It's not a concluded system in that there's nothing face of it. You can't get any bigger than infinite volume.
This infinite cosmos contains lots of embedded universes, maybe even an infinite estimate of them. Some universes are increasing then contracting; some universes (like ours) are expanding, forever and ever expanding; some areas of ever increasing expansion can intersect with other universe's ever increasing expansions, as in the case of two or more supernovae, causing local pockets of contraction, or Big Crunches.
As I said, analogies are not the actual same as what they are meant to represent, but, I think the supernova substitute for the Big Bang more exactly illustrates reality than some of the claptrap offered up by the professionals.
Postscript: Can one any way now logically ask either or not our Universe arose directly from the vacuum vigor 13.7 billion years ago and bypass all this Big Crunch, Singularity, space warping nonsense? While that's of procedure a possibility - see references below - that definite scenario, as opposed to universes in General being so formed, hasn't been carefully as serious an choice vis-à-vis the death of one universe giving rise, Phoenix-like, to the birth of another, as in ours. My gut feeling says that you wouldn't have the same sort of observational evidence that we have to currently catalogue for (i.e. - cosmic microwave background radiation, etc.) in an origin via the vacuum energy. Regardless, a vacuum vigor origin still differs from the standard Big Bang model in that the vacuum energy, (time and space, matter and energy), preexisted the Big Bang - and that's not on according to traditionalists.
References
Cole, K.C.; 'The ultimate free lunch' (in) The Hole in the Universe; Harcourt, San Diego; 2001; p.168-171:
Tryon, E.P.; 'Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?' (in) Nature, Vol.246, 1973; p.396-397:
Vilenkin, A.; 'The universe as a part fluctuation' (in) Many Worlds in One: The crusade for other Universes; Hill and Wang, New York; 2006; p.183-186:
Related : Buy new mall Best And Sell Game 69 valentine party games
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น