Jay's Brain

Non-standard cosmology interests me immensely.   It interests me for many reasons, but the main reason is that no matter how hard I try to cram it in – the Big Bang just does not answer some of the really pressing questions for me and it fails to account, in my layman’s opinion, for some of the really interesting stuff coming out of quantum mechanics and theory these days.

While the Big Bang is considered standard cosmology and most of the observable results we have now, including the CMBR, support the model better than the Steady State theory did originally, the recently revised Quasi-Steady State theory attempts to fill many of those problems while maintaining the original premise.   Here is an idea I can wrap my head around but to do so we need to make some assertions:

1) Observable entropy moves in one direction – towards disorder

2) The amount of energy in the universe is finite, and can not be created or destroyed

3) CMBR shows the universe to be expanding and moving the further out you go from the universal center.

4) The universe does not necessarily take the shape of a radiating sphere

5) The act of observation helps influence events or at the very least set the state upon observation.

6) The big bang theory has no answer, yet, to how the singularity started the attosecond before the event.  Where did the inital matter come from?

On point number 6 for a second:  This is tenuous because it is also argued for the ID creation event.  In order to have the discussion between QSS and Big Bang we must overlook the first contradictory response between ID and Big Bang and talk only about the merit of how any amount of energy or matter appeared before the Bang.  This is of course not taking into account the theory of the compression/decompression line of thinking which says that what existed before the big bang was a severe compression of what had existed before.

Now, on to assertion 1:  Is it possible that entropy moves in reverse but that the effects can not be observed?   Since it can not be observed one could only argue that it may be possible if a measure of reverse entropy could be noted, a side effect if you will.   A possible effect of reverse entropy could be the spontaneous existence of non-observable mass or matter which influences other objects in the cosmos.   This feeds into assertion number two, swiped again from the laws of thermodynamics, that the total energy of the system is set.

Assertion number 3 proves to be interesting to non-standard cosmology because we know that the speed of light is fixed in a vacuum but we are not sure what happens at the edges of the universe.  If the universe is expanding at a set rate from the center, then the expanding universe will gain momentum the farther you go out.  At the edges of universe it stands to reason the acceleration of matter begins to pass the speed of light but matter must be converted to energy in order for that to happen.   If this is true and the universe is a radiating sphere then we do indeed go towards heat-death.  If the universe, however is -not- a radiating sphere but rather a torus… as the matter is converted to energy as the acceleration passes the speed of light then the energy can be returned to the cosmic center creating a power source for other bangs.

Could this be how the big bang happened?  A quadrillion years of expansion finally found all the energy collected back at the center for another explosion?   Or could we be experiencing mini-bangs within that torus depending on how energy is distrubuted?

Point 5 is almost a non-sequitur except for the fact that it makes sure that we include ourselves in the equation.  I still have a gut feeling that this is key in our perception of how the math finally ends up working out, but I am an average person and I can only comprehend so much before I must read more and attempt to resolve it within myself.

Now they say that while the universe is expanding, it is really the space between static objects that grows while the objects themselves stay relatively stationary.   I think that is another thing I need to wrap my head around because my understanding of that still says the object must move.   If there were two cars on a street and the street between them began expanding to increase the distance between the two cars, the cars themselves must move in relation to each other and to their starting point.  To say that the car moves at the rate of expansion would be wrong, indeed, in fact it should move at 1/2 the rate of expansion assuming both objects were equally separate from each other and the road expansion started exactly between both of them.   That still means, however, that the object possesses the potential to move at the speed of light or greater if the rate of expansion is multiplied by other such expansions further down the chain (multiple cars separated by multiple spaces growing at multiple times must create a multiplied effect).

I could have this all wrong, especially since I do not understand 1/2 of the equations they use for these things – but I can not trust an equation I do not fully understand, I must learn to understand it or have faith that someone perceives it correctly.  I choose the former.

~ by JayZee on January 7, 2010.

Posted in JaysIdeas, Tech/Science