Cosmology... Oversights

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

Cosmology... Oversights

Cosmology has set the world’s imagination on fire, not just throughout history, but yet again, recently. Not only scientists but religionists and people who normally care little for either of those approaches to God or Nature have become fascinated by the search for the origins and possible destinations for the cosmos. (We have gone beyond the term “universe”, once another name for our galaxy which was then all we knew of the cosmos.)

Names like Einstein (whose relativity seems to predict the existence of black holes, a great great granddaddy of which was the ostensible source of the Big Bang), and Hawking (whose Big Crunch is perennially the subject of intense speculation and debate) mesmerize the scientific community and the lay public alike. Both of these people have excited much of the world with the possibility that science and God are capable of sharing the same cosmos.

Topics like “dark matter” and the “reversal of time when the expansion of the cosmos stops and reverses” are common fare in popular and regular science journals and books.

But... cosmology has been created as a budding science by people who have not been the most imaginative. It is as if gedanken and computational conveniences take precedence over realistic models and factors thereof, as if Nature must accord with our lack of competence, or worse, with our ignorance and lack of imagination. Complexity reducing symmetries and other simplicities are set in concrete from the beginning. Many quite obvious possibilities have been stoutly overlooked, and remain so, or been effectively rejected before being given scientifically fair attention. They have been so completely overlooked that even though they may not pan out when studied sufficiently, cosmology can be convicted of... oversights in the almost total lack of serious consideration that has been given them. We intend to take a quick look at possibilities that have been overlooked, not because they are sure to be right, but because they may very well be contributing factors in a wiser, more evolved cosmology.

(Commentary:) We all, especially scientists, tend to forget that, besides in “space” or “time”, things can be very far away in “scale”, and perhaps more generally in... “difference”. Things that are far away usually tend to escape our notice. Like things that are different, they do not stimulate our usual pattern re-cognitions. The “classical” world we know best is almost always close to us, in space, in time, in scale, and in similarity. We finally noticed in physics that whenever anything gets much smaller than, say, 2 meters, we get non-classical effects, different from our previous usual, like those we attempt to model with quantum mechanics. But we have not yet come to terms with the idea that we will need to go non-classical yet again when we get much larger, e.g. to the cosmic scale of existence. We can object that we already have Einstein’s cosmological constant to the contrary, but even he eventually rejected that, although in recent years scientists have been dusting it off and are beginning to press it into service once more. We also have other non-classical visions of the cosmic scale beginning to form, but just beginning to. When will we learn that it is we that must conform to the complexity of reality, and not reality that must conform to our excessive simple-mindedness, our ab-use of Occam’s Razor to cut our own throats?

SECTIONS

Standard Concept of The Big Bang

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

Standard Concept of The Big Bang

The current standard model-concept of the Big Bang is very simple in its own way. Before the existence of time and space (and before the existence of matter- energy and its-their “conservation”; see The Conservation of Matter-Energy... Oversight), there existed a massive black hole-like substance, but no spacetime “quantinuum” for it to exist in.

If this doesn’t already have the basic feel of a creation myth to the reader, it is only because the reader has not bothered to study creation myths. You might be interested in looking at physicist Marcelo Gleiser’s The Dancing Universe: From Creation Myths to the Big Bang.
By the way, the original meaning of our word “myth” was “out of God”, which was construed by the wise of ancient times to mean primarily, but among many other possibilities, “teaching stories of divine origin”. (Our word “math” has the same origins and almost precisely the same original meanings. Our words “mouth” and “mother” are also related closely.) In this context, all the sacred scriptures, including the Bible, the Quran, the Mahabharata, etc, are all, by the grace of God, “myth”. And only the most careful scholars seem to be aware that Biblical (and thus also Quranic) “creation” never meant “creation from nothing”. Rather, the primitive roots, when studied carefully, meant something more like “(qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes)” (from the Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon), as if God was the prime mover agent of “evolution from pre-existing essence and form” rather than of “instantaneous, fully formed creation from nothing”.

This massive great-great-granddaddy of a black hole exploded, eventually giving rise to spacetime, energy, matter, etc, as we now know them. This first explosion is never described as other than instantaneous, a singularity in “time” as well as in “space”, neither of which then existed, of course. What it gave rise to was at first considered to be completely symmetrical in all “directions” (whatever they might have been), and only recently have cosmologists become concerned with how the non-symmetrical “clumping” that has recently and inescapably been observed came about.

Cosmologists have also had doubts about their estimate of the age of the cosmos because astronomers keep finding stars that seem to be quite a bit older than the age of the cosmos (estimates of which ages keep fluctuating, as well they might since they are based in important part on “time” which was coming into existence in ways not yet understood).

There is also the problem of “dark matter” where there seems to be much more gravity (10 to 100 times more) than can be explained by our sense of the existing amount of our usual bright matter (mostly hydrogen and helium, that are busy fusing to produce light), “dim matter”, which is mostly heavier elements that no longer produce light by fusion, or even all the neutron stars, pulsars and black holes that we have guessed at so far.

Recently it was announced that there are many more black holes than previously thought, perhaps 6 times as many. However, this wouldn’t be nearly enough to explain the extra gravity now attributed to “dark matter”. See Suddenly, universe awash in black holes by Richard Stenger, CNN, September 17, 2002 Posted: 3:13 PM EDT (1913 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/09/17/black.holes/index.html

We also have the same or a similar idea offered years earlier by Michael Hawkins, an astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh. In his Hunting Down the Universe: The Missing Mass, Primordial Black Holes, and Other Dark Matter, 1997, he describes the train of 20th-century astronomy and his own thought that led him to conclude in 1993 that the 99% of the universe's mass that seems to be missing is in fact contained in tiny primordial black holes.

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The Pre-existing Cosmos(es)... Oversight

The Pre-existing Cosmos(es)... Oversight

Our current standard model of the Big Bang totally ignores the possibility that the initial “singularity” and the explosion(s) that followed took place in a pre-existing cosmos, perhaps with much the same physics we find now, or perhaps not. This concept has never been expressed let alone studied by the scientific community. This is a mistake. We should never accept proof by ignorance and-or lack of imagination as scientific competence. A pre-existing cosmos would easily explain the stars that seem so much older than the age of our currently known cosmos. It also reminds us of the Biblical references to “the world that was”.

If the size of the Big Bang explosion were large compared to the size of the pre-existing cosmos, this could also explain why there are not many more such stars (and galaxies; both assuming that the physics of the previously existing cosmos or overlapping cosmoses was sufficiently similar to ours, today): they were caught up too greatly in the explosion and “recycled” to such an extent that their contribution has remained overlooked. These pre-existing stars, galaxies, and black holes could easily have survived the Big Bang and formed seed material that could have helped the formation of more black holes (and galaxies, stars, etc.) to occur much earlier than would otherwise be expected after the Big Bang.

DARK MATTER: a pre-existing cosmos, or more likely multiple overlapping cosmoses of varying ages, especially if they had their own gangs of older black holes (e.g. from pre-pre-existing cosmoses) and-or if they were so old that much of their matter-energy had made the transition from young light-emitting matter to dim matter and more newly born or evolved black holes, could explain much of the “dark matter” that currently seems to elude our understanding. Dark matter, ostensibly “neutral” so that it was not homogenized-dispersed homogenously by the early intense bath of radiation, supposedly explains why galaxies formed so much sooner than would otherwise be expected. But this can be very easily explained by pre-existing matter and pre-existing black holes from pre-existing cosmoses.

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

Our current standard model of the Big Bang totally ignores the possibility that the explosion took place other than “instantaneously”, and other than “uniformly” “spatially” (the quotes are to remind us that “space” is being created at roughly the same time as matter-energy, or at least their precursors). In our real world, even the quickest explosions never take place instantaneously, rather they have a very complex time structure. They also send the energy of the explosion more in some directions than others. We can take that further and think of a series of earthquakes and aftershocks, or the series of larger and smaller explosions that occur when ammunition dumps explode, in “all directions” perhaps, but not uniformly. (Perhaps modern supernovas should be considered as “aftershocks”, occurring on a cosmological time scale.)

We get a fuzzy set of possibilities as the time between explosion-like substances gets larger; i.e. they start to seem like separate incidents. In the “Big Bang” case, the longer that time between explosions, or “irregular waves of sub-explosions”, the more we would seem to have one or more “pre-existing” cosmoses. Matter-energy would be more evolved in the earlier bangs, as would “space-time” that would not at all necessarily be “uniform”, and would form “seeds” or “matrices” for the clumping of matter-energy that formed later. (It might also have helped tilt the cosmos toward matter versus antimatter. See The Antimatter Stars and Galaxies... Oversight, below.) This scenario leads to predictions of earlier formation of e.g. galaxies since the bangs that occurred later would tend to make the cosmos seem younger to us, but the earlier bangs would have accelerated the overall evolution of older seeming entities like galaxies making the cosmos seem older.

Our current standard model of the Big Bang also totally ignores the possibility that the explosion took place other than “uniformly” (there is some question as to what that would actually mean) in “space-time”, which itself was being created, probably non-“uniformly”, as the Big Bang evolved (and still continues to evolve). In our real world, even the most symmetrical of explosions never take place uniformly in either space or time. (Again, the earthquake simile and ammunition dump explosion(s) simile are suggestive.) The evolution of the cosmos would depend greatly on how non-instantaneous and how non-uniform in “space-time” the Big Bang actually was. In particular, early explosions of the Big Bang could have given rise to an immature or intermediately mature cosmos that then formed seeds or matrices that allowed galaxies to form much sooner after the later bangs of the Big Bang(s).

In particular, cosmologists are currently very concerned with the “clumping” that has been observed that is not explained by the current standard model of the Big Bang. Spatial and temporal non-uniformity would go a long way to explaining this. The radiation bath of the early cosmos was certainly not as homogeneous as scientists have heretofore suspected, or perhaps it was inadequate to overcome the non-uniformity, yielding (along with pre-existing black holes and other already formed clumps of denser matter) earlier than expected star and galaxy formation, and the “clumping” of such. So we get here the combined idea of space-time evolving non-uniformly, and with that non-uniform space-time there are matter-energy distributions that are evolving non-uniformly right from the “first instant”.

It is easy to combine this idea with all the other... oversights suggested here. E.g. there is no particular reason for any homogeneous or uniform spatial distribution of black holes from pre-existing cosmoses and-or from an incompletely exploded primordial “gigantic singularity-black hole”. Conceptually combining immature or intermediately mature cosmoses — especially incompletely exploded ones with many still unexploded or “unvaporized” black holes of varying “sizes”-masses — with one or more fully mature or even senile pre-existing cosmoses — especially with many pre-evolved black holes of varying sizes-masses — provides an simple alternative to dark matter and MOND.

Further, we can imagine the pre-existing cosmos to have had many grown-extra-large black holes that were “Big Crunching”, but in such a way as to leave the pre-existing spacetime quantinuum partly intact. As they collided there would be an erratic series of smaller and larger Big Bang explosion components, not at all instantaneous, and with a non-uniform spatial distribution that would depend on how they collided, how they were “spinning”, etc.

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The Incomplete Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The Incomplete Big Bang(s)... Oversight

Our current standard model of the Big Bang totally ignores the possibility that the explosion took place incompletely. There could e.g. have been many fragments that remained black holes with a distribution of “sizes” (“matter” and “mass” technically didn’t exist at that “time”). Not nearly all need have been “vaporized” by the explosion into the proto-matter-energy that we currently envision. Rather, they would have evolved, consuming the newly forming matter, tunneling to help create more new matter-energy, perhaps super-nova-ing to “vaporize” much or all of the mass of the black hole, etc. Perhaps pre-existing black holes would have some as yet un-conceived internal structure or state in much the same way that scientists are just beginning to figure out that atoms and molecules have previously un-conceived activation states.

These black holes would have been relatively immune to the intense radiation bath of current theory in the same way that “dark matter” would have been. There is also no particular reason for any homogeneous or uniform distribution of these. These black holes would have greatly accelerated galaxy and star formation in much the same way that dark matter is now thought to have done. It is now held that black holes are at the centers of all or almost all galaxies, but it is still overlooked that these black holes are in large part fragments from the Big Bang that remained black holes rather than evolved from matter after it formed and clumped into masses large enough to generate a new black hole.

It is easy to combine this idea with all the other... oversights suggested here.

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The Antimatter Stars and Galaxies... Oversight

The Antimatter Stars, Galaxies, Clusters... Oversight

At our current stage of scientific evolution, we really have no idea whether the next galaxy over, Andromeda, or any other galaxy or galactic cluster, is made primarily of matter or... antimatter. Or even if the next star over is antimatter.

Theories about the Big Bang tell us that the balance tipped toward matter rather than antimatter, but we have overlooked that the balance could have tipped differently in different places, in various systematic and/or asystematic-chaotic ways. It seems likely that a whole galaxy could easily have gone one way or the other, but with the vast quasi-vacuous distances between galaxies, we would not quickly notice the matter-antimatter co-annihilations that would take place there and the photons these release.

It is also quite possible that individual stars within a galaxy, or floating out in the inter-galactic regions, could have tilted toward antimatter rather than matter. We always assume that nebulae are stimulated to emit light by radiation from nearby stars. Perhaps they are also stimulated by radiation from matter-antimatter co-annihilation, for example, because there is a large cloud of matter hydrogen drifting in toward the solar wind of an antimatter star; a star’s atmosphere would be significant even out past the heliopause for this kind of ongoing event. We can certainly look for the question of what kinds of quantitative distributions there exist spatially for “large” anti-matter-matter bodies. Perhaps only a few percent, never more, of stars in a galaxy will be the opposite-matter of all the rest. The actual percentage limits or lack thereof would be fascinating information.

We would have to look for telltale radiation in between neighboring galaxies and clusters. The models that astronomers have produced of the 3-dimensional spider web structures formed at the highest levels of structure yet found in the cosmos should be examined for this phenomenon, and any others that would help us detect vast regions of antimatter prevalence.

The (hypothesized) almost complete tilt toward matter vs. anti-matter on a cosmological scale as the cosmos cools is somewhat like the almost complete tilt of the magnetic fields of iron atoms toward a particular magnetic orientation as a piece of iron cools, IF there happens to be an extremely powerful externally applied magnetic field that lines them up en masse. In the un-magnetized iron there are local micro-regions where the atoms all seem to orient together, but from the scale at which we normally look at a piece of un-magnetized iron, those regions are very very small, and we mostly see chaotic distributions of the magnetic orientation of these micro-regions. To assume that something similar to a large piece of iron cooling in the absence of a powerful magnetic field cannot possibly have happened for anti-matter-matter on the scale of the cosmos is an... oversight. We can also look for an “externally applied anti-matter-matter field”.

A minor digression question: this author has never noticed anyone publicly discussing the role of matter-anti-matter interactions in stellar metabolism. Photons are known to sometimes interact to yield electron-positron pairs, which are also know to co-annihilate yielding photons. And there are rumored to be lots of photons running around in stars. What is the role of matter-anti-matter interactions in stellar metabolism?

A greater digression question: as stars form, before thermonuclear ignition, the gravitationally induced pressure builds up and up until ignition takes place and the proto-star becomes a star. It is held that shock waves can increase pressures to the ignition point. Let’s allow, for the sake of argument, that this is what happens, at least some of the time. It is also held that it takes vast amounts of time for photons generated at the center of a star to get to the surface and exit the star. The pressure buildup in a proto-star is not likely to be uniform, so ignition is likely to be relatively localized within the proto-star, probably somewhere between the center, with its local maximum of pressure, and the direction of the shock wave, which is generating a local and increasing pressure maximum moving toward the center. The question then becomes: what is the dynamic of the propagation of this ignition throughout the igniting proto-star? E.g. how rapidly does this ignition propagate? What limits might there be to its propagation? Does the static (gravity induced) pressure decline so much away from the center that not even the combination of the static pressure plus the shock wave pressure plus the ignition induced pressure exceeds the threshold for continued ignition? Does this give the new star an initially dense atmosphere that the ignited center slowly causes to boil away? Over what time frame? What correspondents are there to the “flashover” found in fires in human structures such as houses and subway stations?

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The Big Crunch... Oversight

The Big Crunch... Oversight

Currently astronomers portray the end of a galaxy and the black hole(s) at its center that drive(s) its evolution as happening when (almost?) all the matter of the galaxy (or group of colliding-collided galaxies) has fallen into the black hole (or merged black holes) and the whole thing explodes. At least this is one picture of such events that they offer.

The oversight is not in this picture per se, but in its relation to the standard concept of the Big Bang, i.e. of one, instantaneous Big Bang. If one or only a few galaxies explode when they crunch into a black hole, how could enough matter-energy for hundreds of billions of galaxies have crunched into precisely 1 enormous black hole simultaneously before it exploded?! (This all argues for the various alternate scenarios offered above, of pre-existing cosmoses, etc.)

Even if all the galaxies of the cosmos start falling toward a single point in spacetime, it is unlikely that their aim, timing, and interactions or lack thereof will be so perfect as to create a single uniform “Big Crunch”. By the reasoning above, many will “Micro Bang”, “Mini Bang” and-or “Regular-Size Bang” before the single “Big Crunch (with New-Big-Bang?!)” can occur. If this happens, then the outward micro/mini-expansions that those occurrences produce could easily disallow any single “Big Crunch”. These outward expansions would have to be completely overwhelmed by the other galaxies falling toward their “appointment in Big Crunch Samara” if we were to have a single Big Crunch as opposed to a quantinuous fireworks display of much smaller Micro-Mini-Regular-Size Crunches and accompanying Micro-Mini-Regular-Size Bangs.

One starts to see how all these... oversights synergize to keep us thinking along night-of-the-living-un-dead-end modeling efforts.

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The “Where Does Gravity Start?”... Oversight

The “Where Does Gravity Start?”... Oversight

Gravity has come to be considered visible and obvious since Newton. But that is gravity at the classical levels of physics and astronomy. Physicists have failed to question the oversimplified assumptions we make about gravity. If we start from the most fundamental particles we know of:

Where does gravity start to be gravity?
Do quarks experience gravity (as gravity: inverse square law, mass, and all that)?
Essentially and importantly distinct question: do quarks generate gravity?
Do electrons experience gravity (and generate it)? or is it only protons and neutrons that experience it (and generate it)? Although we have measured the inertial mass of electrons, we have only assumed that this inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass. No one has come close to being able to measure the gravitational weight/mass of an electron.
Is gravity (or its “gravitons”) somehow made up of “(more) fundamental forces”, just as atoms are made up of (more) fundamental particles? I.e. these “fundamental forces” would combine to form gravity as/when the fundamental particles combine to form atoms and their mass.
Do neutron stars or black holes crush some particles into (more) fundamental sub-particles that are then so fundamental that they no longer experience and/or generate gravity? Are particles crushed into new particles (types) that do still experience and/or generate gravity?

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight

The Multi-Dimensional Time... Oversight

The Multi-Dimensional Time... Oversight

One the... oversights in relativity that is of interest here concerns the dimensionality of time. Relativity tells us that a spaceship with a clock can travel away from the Earth, then travel back, and because it was accelerating in a different way than the Earth (there are still... oversights with regard to this scenario), it will show a different time than a clock that remained on Earth. It doesn’t matter here that the space traveling clock is usually described as going slower than the Earth clock, just that they have different times, and most importantly, that BOTH THE CLOCKS ARE ACCURATELY REPRESENTING TIME AS THEY EXPERIENCE IT!

Two accurate clocks sitting next to each other on Earth show two different times, and can be made to show arbitrary differences in their times using spaceships (at least gedanken differences and gedanken spaceships).

This cannot happen if time is one dimensional, even if that one dimension of time is in a “space-time” marriage with three dimensions of space.

There must exist multi-dimensional time embedded in space-time, and the effect we see is like the line integrals from calculus we all know and love. A two dimensional curve has a length that can be calculated using calculus. Two distinct curves could start at the same point and stop at the same other point, and have completely different integrals that measured the distance traveled, the length of the curved line.

Each clock is measuring the space-time equivalent of the distance the clock travels through multi-dimensional time, a line integral that loses the information of how far it actually traveled in “time’s x-direction” and “time’s y-direction” (etc).

SECTIONS

The Non-Instantaneous, Non-Uniform Big Bang(s)... Oversight