The Thinking Man's Universe: Part 2 of 3, The Next Cosmology

[wuwindz]

Is this a theory? Or a common sense way to actualize future theories

[TheGodofReason]

@wuwindz It's definitely the latter. It's a philosophical approach to the most likely (most rational) disposition of what really lies in the region well beyond our current range of vision (both macro and micro). If all of what we can conclusively examine is hierarchical in structure, it is only rational to presume the hierarchy continues in some fashion, rather than always trying to end it, as does the Big Bang and all it's predecessors.

[wuwindz]

@TheGodofReason This seems only logical. Why do you suppose most theories (quantum and Astrophysics) do not take this hierarchical structure into account? Or are you aware of any that have?

[TheGodofReason]

@wuwindz I'm sure there are theories that presume an ongoing hierarchy, but they are universally dismissed out of a psychological need for science to be the final answer on everything. Much like religion, Science poses all unknown quantities in in terms of known quantities, rather than presuming an infinite range of diversity, as has always proven to be the case. Right now, they use the cosmological principal to homogenize the unknown. It is virtually certain to be wrong.

[TheGodofReason]

I would like to reiterate at this point that the above scenario is predominantly an example of how science needs to presume a lager, unbounded, hierarchical diversity in both the micro and macro directions in any attempted cosmology.

It is only secondarily presented as a viable candidate for what is really out there based far more on intuitive mechanisms than on math. While it is true that intuition always leads the math, without the math follow up, I got nothing.

[brian12934]

Pure genius. Someone that sees the whole picture!

[mgw347]

i'm not educated formally, nor am i experienced practically... i read something about black holes and information loss paradox... what might happen if you arrange black holes in a circle, each with the singularity of 1 matching the plane of the event horizon of the next... so you could somehow 'rediscover' information as you travel around the black hole circle... does that make sense? does that apply to theory properly? i like the sentiments you present, thanks

[TheGodofReason]

@mgw347 having black holes that close to each other would require the rosette of singularities to spin so rapidly around their mutual center that they would distort pretty severely in the plane of that rotation. As for the theory of information loss, some folks say all the info that enters the black hole is held static at the event horizon since time dilation approaches infinity as matter is accelerated to light speed (which ostensibly it does under the gravitational force at the horizon).

[mgw347]

is that to say that the black holes would not be able to sustain the circular formation? what if there were outside forces that somehow allowed this formation to exist, even if momentarily or in a partial form? i like to think about these things and then dream that they might explain deja vu or our concept of synchronicity... imagining that an apparently random collision actually formed from earlier activated data...

[TheGodofReason]

@mgw347 MG, such circumstance is beyond my ability to even speculate. There are models of two black holes converging, but they inevitably involved the two bodies orbiting each other at ferocious rates.

[mgw347]

i like that people think this guy is smart, it would give me hope that my crazy ideas could receive a reasonable audience... he seems more science-oriented than myself, though that is possibly untrue. i think any explanation you'd provide for the nature of existence/etc should describe the stock mocket as easily as love as easily as astronomical objects

[silverpizza100]

he is pretty smart., He understands the basic idea. I like his theory , Now how to test it.

[Pulsar205]

If the universe is expanding and collapsing-and we don't really know if this is true-we still haven't explained where the energy for this is all coming from.

There has to be a source for gravity energy.

[kenny8331]

yea this guy thinks hes smarter than he is

[Pulsar205]

All this stuff is fantasy. You can create another reason for the cause of the so-called 'Big Bang' but all you've done is transfer the problem to another area.

[TheGodofReason]

Sure it's fantasy. I say in the video that the scenarios are purely speculation. But I employ them as an example of how larger structures in a hierarchical context would be essential to theorizing solutions to problems like dark matter and dark energy. This is not a solution. It's a strategy. The problem of the unknown will always be there. I'm not transferring it anywhere.

[Pulsar205]

@TheGodofReason Speculation, yes I'm cool with that. We can create interesing models and see what happens when we run them. This is fine at this stage-it's only when it's put forward at truth as in the big bang being THE truth.

I apologise. Why I suspected problem transferrence was because cosmologists generally have to come up with ever increasing and inadequate complexities to explain origins.

It seems you are looking more at solutions within the current framework rather than cont...

[Pulsar205]

@Pulsar205 ...cont

finding a solution to its origin.

I don't think a black hole is capable of explosion, simply because it's being pushed together by a flow from the outside. Space is a flow in my view-one that carries a light beam and is felt by large bodies like the Earth. Increasing matter inside receives more compression for ever.

Multiple copies of the universe @ 7:40? And velocities of near light speed @ 8:25?Are you serious?

[TheGodofReason]

@Pulsar205 Yeah, there will appear to be multiple copies of the same universe due to light at slightly different angles orbiting the black hole multiple times. So you see one squished up layer of a view at the outer edge of the circular portal that is a direct view, with another squished layer just inside of the first one that is a once-orbited view, etc. etc. 

Remember, while it is easy to say that it is an optical illusion, Einstein would say that t was the actual curvature of space.

[Pulsar205]

@TheGodofReason Space has to be a 'something' if it's bent and even sucked in by extreme gravities. Everything including light just goes along with it. So we might think we see multiple universes from these interesting conditions but it would only be like multiple images through a crystal.

Space is curved around all massive bodies-even particles as they have mass, but the whole universe isn't necessarily so. It's only a local phenomenon IMO.

[TheGodofReason]

@Pulsar205 As for the entire vis U being traveling at near light speed from it's origins, if we formed from being freed up by a passing gravity wave, then we would be traveling with the wave front at near light speed.

Which could even explain the acceleration of the of the expansion of the U due to the velocity of the matter being slightly slower than the wave front causing us to be in different gravitational intensities over time, (like the differing pressures along a sound wave.)

[Pulsar205]

@TheGodofReason I think space is expanding with matter hanging back; much like twigs in a flowing river. The speed of this universal gravity wave is enormous but we must not forget gravity operates omni-directionally. This limits matter movement to sub-light speeds.

[SourcesAreEverything]

It is not true that given an infinite amount of time a black hole will devour all matter. There are many forms of black holes and given an infinite amount of time inflating all matter will have sufficient escape velocity to manage not to be sucked in, though the atom may become unstable in such conditions.

[TheGodofReason]

I believe you are addressing dark energy when you refer to "inflating all matter." We don't yet know the full extent, the exact source or mechanism of dark energy and thus, cannot extrapolate it's eventual effect nearly as well as, say, black holes.

That said, even if every last bit of matter didn't fall into a black hole, there could still be a black hole out there somewhere big enough to contain a BB's worth of matter. It is very unlikely that the Big Bang constitutes the whole Universe.

[rickubdrs]

Mike - enjoyed your discussions on our universe and our inherent difficulty in separating observations in reference to "knowns" (often more like assumptions in truth) from the reality that we will always have more to know. You given us a very healthy intellectual approach to try to view our universe (and any other mystery of science) with fresh eyes that avoid connecting "dots" that aren't there... Daniel Boorstin would wholeheartedly agree with your attitude.

[TheGodofReason]

Thanks Rick. Glad you liked it.

[EvolBob1]

At least you've had the guts to put your views out there. As for me well... I've been thinking on this subject since I was 5! Anyway you are the first that comes close to an explanation using science that makes any sense!

I want to make it clear, any theory of this nature should be as scientifically accurate as possible. So that being the case, the one point I'd mention is the BH centre is without time and has to collapse to a point. Resistance... is futile, because its value is infinite.

[TheGodofReason]

While laughably presumptuous, what if there are Plank-sized particles with (virtually) infinite exclusion principals? Our BH models certainly converge to singularity, but based on what exactly?

Just like Newton's Laws were special case models based on inadvertently idealized presumptions, maybe our BH models are idealized as well.

I'm just saying that we should presume there is much more to the unknown than we think and try to formalize the quality our current naivete by superimposition.

[YogiToad]

If you get back with me Mike we can talk about "Bulk Space", if you have not already heard of it. You will find it very interesting.

[MrCropper]

I've always maintained that SOMETHING came before the Big Bang, whatever it was. The idea that all of time and existence came from a single event is simply mystical.

[TheGodofReason]

The idea that men can determine the scope of the universe is ludicrous at the outset. By now we should be happy with being able to examine it to the extent that we can. Humbleness is in very short supply among both scientists and clergy when it comes to thinking they know the face of Creation. Mystics indeed.

[debowli]

youre right about the short supply of humbleness . chaos theory highlights this with its verry name, matter on the quantum and sub-quantum plain has structure, but we dont have a sollid grasp on what the hell is going on! but you'll never hear it called "the unknown structure" theory.

then there is dark matter ,the stuff seems to be percieved within the scientific family as the wierd uncle no one wants to talk about... but of course i could be wrong :)

[debowli]

thankyou ,mike, that was a very interesting article. got me to thinking that the percieved acceleration of the universe may in fact be a result of the differing properties of time in relation to the corresponding density of the univurse .i also find the idea of looking in from outside our univurse will have to happen eventualy.

[TheGodofReason]

You're welcome, D. And yeah, the thrust of the TMU series is to consider our view of the universe at any time to be a small cross section of a hierarchy and not a complete view. As such everything we know is a special case of a much more generalized universe. Under this perspective your notion of the density of time as a function of large scale gradations in the regional density of matter is exactly the type of thinking I'm hoping to encourage. -Later.

[Krackonis]

The next Paradigm - Plasma Cosmology. understand the remainder of the forces alive in the universe, not just Gravity.

[TheGodofReason]

Indeed, the electro-magnetic force is no doubt in play at extremely large scales, but more importantly still, we should presume that there exists many more forces than the four we have discovered. A Bayesian perspective strongly suggests that if the material hierarchy persists at a scale beyond the galaxy clusters and beneath the quark, then so too must a force hierarchy persist to organize such structures, both "above" the scale of gravity and "below" the scale of the weak nuclear force.

[majorvoltage]

Interesting stuff. The problem is how would one test this?

[TheGodofReason]

The ideas presented are, of course, so hypothetical that testing for them specifically would not be as appropriate as testing for the hierarchy in general. That is, the only truly valid hypothesis presented is that the universe is hierarchical, and that the big bang is ultimately finite. 

The best evidence for this prospect would show up as a very faint hemispherical asymmetry (often called a "dipole") in the cosmic background radiation profile from the WMAP satellite data. (Google WMAP)

[FreiheitKampfer]

hopefully that made sense, because it is difficult to iterate so many things that i have never heard nor said. they are, i think implied results of what i have seen however. i believe it is closest tied to the "anthropic principle"

[TheGodofReason]

Yeah, I kind of like the anthropic principle. It seems to me to me that to try and ponder the odds against our being here is not nearly as philosophically valuable as starting with the fact that we are here as a baseline indicator, which is what the A.P. is all about.

I would only caution that while my musings are presented in the videos as highly probable, I would nonetheless suggest that you and I both would do well not to take too many liberties with the current state of physics.

[FreiheitKampfer]

The universe has to have all the variations of all the laws and has the shape that would coexist with a zero-net energy. time and space in this regard is nothing more than part of our address of all possible states of the universe that must exist (if there are more than just the amount of ).

[FreiheitKampfer]

Harmon,

sorry for double posting again

another great thing that happens we think about the universe as zero-net-energy(as i previously called "Nothing") source is that it doesn't logically have to be causal. when the universe is thought of this way, then when the Big Crunch happens, there can be total destructive resonance and no singularity..

when you think: singularities there's that possibility that the universe could be periodic expansion-compression, requiring a casual source for time.

[FreiheitKampfer]

Mr.Harmon, i will start by commenting on your video, but then i would like to see how you see the ideas that i have, as of yet, been to lazy to post as a video

smaller & smaller & more & more "compression resistant particles"

how about we make it just a lil bit simpler and just go with different forms(as in the spatial sense: 3d shapes) of energy.

the reason why i enjoy this picture is because it can show, with our simple laws, how the universe can come from Nothing, rather than singularity..

[TheGodofReason]

I would go so far as to say "smaller and smaller constituents" and leave it unspecified beyond that in that everything seems to get less and less relevant to our human scale terminology as we examine ever more distant scales.

Indeed there are many physicists and mathematicians who are characterizing such infinitesimal corpuscles as "standing wave" phenomenon. The photon is considered masses and entirely energetic, so yeah, your terminology is as good as any.