MarkE

Why are you ruling out Sternglass's hypothesis, then? He describes a possible mechanism immediately after the Big Bang, referring to the time before 10^-35s after the Big Bang, since you don't seem to have a more plausible alternative? I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning, which is why I'm asking. As you know, the universe began in a hot, dense state, with a low entropy. Well, one initial photon-like particle (without any space in between, only this particle, and nothing else), seems pretty low entropy to me. In fact, it doesn't go any lower than that. Why doesn't it sound plausible to you that, at some point, space began to expand, which is compatible with that photon-like particle starting to divide, over and over again, just like Sternglass argues. I'm not saying it has to be true because it makes sense, I'd like to know why it does not make sense to you. I don't see how this is inconsistent with our current models. You said: But Sternglass's hypothesis is not replacing any other theory or hypothesis. It's not an either-or case. His mechanism describes an event which occurred before the things we already know, even before the CMBR, the "echo" of the Big Bang, energy of microwaves by the red-shift effect of the expanding universe, at around the age of 370,000 years, no remnants of the Big Bang itself before 370,000 years ago. So, the way I see it, is that they're not mutually exclusive, it's a both-and case, and Sternglass's could be an addition to our current knowledge, as an explanation for the what happened immediately after the Big Bang. Or are they mutually exclusive? If they are, can you please explain to me why, because I don't understand it. I would really like to follow your line of reasoning.

@Markus Hanke If you’re acknowledging that... then what you’re saying is that this electron field was already present at the moment of the Big Bang, right? Well, right now, billions of years later, there are multiple, but different, fields (electromagnetic field, weak/strong gauge field, Higgs field etc). So at some point, something evidently changed to this initial field. So are you implying then that all fields came from one field, which they all once shared? If so, why then is it so far-fetched to suggest that this first field was like the nature of a photon, since it has no charge, and no mass, since you said yourself that: but then, at some point, this initial field differentiated, and gave rise to two opposite charged excitations, just like the nature of the electron and the positron? Sternglass simply continues from this newly acquired state of the universe, after pair production, by arguing that it occurred over and over again. Why can't that be right? What's a more plausible alternative?

I don't praise him, not yet at least. I just learned about this hypothesis, so I was wondering whether people on this forum might know about it already, and in that case, could tell me whether they are supporters of it, or not. I wasn't expecting that people here weren't acquainted with it already. I'm not sure what you mean, or what you're looking for. The author doesn't make the statement, he writes about a statement made by somebody else, by the physicist, who wrote an entire book about his theory. I didn't read that book, I only read the book about somebody else who wrote about it. I'm trying to find out whether I should read it or not. Would you? His theory is pretty old, so perhaps it has been debunked, already? That's why I came to this forum, to find out whether there's already support for it, or not. "The Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began". That's very close to my "were once confined into a very small place", don't you think? The interesting part about Sternglass's ideas is that his simple model for the origin of the universe is now supported by recent astronomical observations by other researchers. Sternglass' electron-pair model explains the repulsion as centrifugal force from the enormous rotational energy in the original electron-positron pair. In the new model, every system rotates and expands until it reaches an equilibrium between the centrifugal force and gravity, as in the case of the planets rotating about the Sun. According to this model, the universe will reach a maximum size 200 times its present radius and will neither fly apart into dead ashes, nor collapse into a fiery point, allowing life to continue forever. Another recent discovery that supports Sternglass's theory is the finding by the Hubble Space Telescope that the most distant galaxies are small, spherical and surprisingly well organized and not large and diffuse as would be expected in a slow process of random condensation from a uniform cloud of gas. Because the theory allows one to calculate the strength of the gravitational force from the electron's mass, charge, spin and maximum velocity with which it can move, it unifies the description of nature along the lines Einstein had encouraged Sternglass to pursue as a young man. (Source: University of Pittsburgh) All of this make it very tempting to actually go read the book, and dive into this theory. But first I'm wondering whether anybody here shares my interest in Sternglass's theory, or not.

Those are the author's words.

I’ve always been skeptical about the idea that all the particles in the universe were always present, but were once confined into a very small place, which then supposedly gave rise to the Big Bang. It’s as if supporters of this idea can’t seem to leave Fred Hoyle's ‘static universe’ hypothesis, by continuing to assume that there is this fixed, unchanging amount of particles in the universe. The opposite of this idea is of course that the universe went from 1 to 2 particles, and eventually lead to the vast amount of matter and energy we have today. The total number of particles in the visible universe is estimated to be 3,3 x 10^88. Well, living organisms evolve by stem cells that start dividing (asexually), so from the perspective, it might be possible that particles/fields “evolved” from 1 initial field as well, which they all shared. Not a LUCA: Last Universal Common Ancestor, but rather a LUCF: Last Universal Common Field), instead of that all the fields have always been in existence, from the beginning, and never developed, they just were there, always. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. For instance, it is known that electromagnetism, and weak force share, both share the elekctroweak. From the observed running of the coupling constants, it is believed they all converge to a single value at very high energies, and there are hints of a ‘grand unification’ with the strong force. (Source: book: 'Einstein's Monsters'). But I’m not making this thread to speculate about this hypothesis. It’s an interesting idea, but a philosophy, and nothing more than that. I’d like to ask a specific question to rule out a possible mechanism behind it. I’d like to ask a specific question regarding this hypothesis, in order to find out whether the hypothesis is credible or not. Due to high temperature photons had enough energy to create electron-positron pairs. Photons may have enough energy to create electron-positron pairs. At high energies, a photon, 1 particle, can make 2 particles. If exceeding the 1 MeV of energy and when inreracting with the nuclear strong electric field. Well, 1 photon has 0 charge, and an electron (e-) and a positron (e+) together make up 0 net charge as well. This made me think about the following: if this hypothesis is correct, how then did more particles arise after this primitive state, by e- or e+ splitting again into 2 more particles, giving a total of 4? How to go from 2 particles to billions of particles? For this, I’d like to share Ernest Sternglass’s ideas: Sternglass wrote the book Before the Big Bang: the Origins of the Universe, in which he offers an argument for the Lemaître theory of the primeval atom. He offers technical data showing the plausibility of an original super massive relativistic electron-positron pair. This particle contained the entire mass of the universe and through a series of 270 divisions created everything that now exists. If true, this would help ameliorate some of the problems with the current models, namely inflation and black hole singularities. Sternglass, it should be emphasized, was a serious physicist, not a crank, but his theory has never been adopted and has probably never been tested enough to be absolutely sure that it is incorrect. Like Lemaître, Sternglass imagined starting from a single "primeval atom,” but Sternglass was able to build on his more advanced knowledge of relativity and quantum theory to make this incredibly massive particle out of what would normally be two almost unnoticeable particles: an electron and its anti-matter equivalent, a positron. Sternglass imagined these two particles forming a sort of primitive atom, with the electron and the positron orbiting each other at very high relativistic velocities, producing a single particle with incredibly high mass. This particle would then split to produce two superparticles, still vastly massive; they would split again, and so on, rather as a single cell splits again and again to make a human fetus. Some of the early splits of the universal primal cell would be responsible for the galactic clusters and galaxies we see now; later ones would produce the apparently fundamental particles with which we are now familiar. Sternglass even imagined some delayed mini-Big Bangs resulting from the splits that would produce vast bursts of gamma rays, a phenomenon that has been observed in distant time and space. This theory has the benefit over many others of being intensely simple. It's back to having really basic building blocks from which everything else eventually evolves. It should be stressed, however, that although it was simple it was not simplistic. This was not like a nonscientist thinking, "Hey, everything must have come from a simple pair of particles at the start." Sternglass based his ideas on good physics, and up to the mid-1990s when he last worked on it, the theory was consistent with both physical theory and observed cosmological data. Sternglass' ideas have not been taken forward. They were probably a dead end. And he offered no explanation for where the high-energy electron/positron pair came from in the beginning. (Source: book: 'Before the Big Bang') Alan Guth then came along with his ‘inflation’ theory. But I’m not sure whether these two hypotheses are mutually exclusive or not. When inflation ends the temperature returns to the pre-inflationary temperature; this is called ‘reheating’ or thermalization because the large potential energy of the inflaton field decays into particles and fills the Universe with Standard Model particles. If you start by inflation, expand by a huge amount, finally reached this smoothed out early universe with lots of dark energy still in it, this dark energy needs to go away, so it converts into ordinary matter and radiation, a process called ‘reheating’. Scientists come up with ‘fields’ that would have given us this early dark energy, and the physics of these fields is like that of a particle that decays. So the quantum field that was responsible for inflation dacays into matter/energy, and then they decay and interact again, turning into a hot dense gas, rapidly expanding. That’s what you would get, with this theory. In other words: that process looks a lot like our Big Bang. The decay/conversion of dark energy into matter and radiation is ‘reheating’. So for instance 90% of that region reheats, those are probabilities. So that 10% keeps inflating, so even though the rest of the universe is still expanding, it’s decelerating it’s slowing down, now it’s matter and radiation and for that 10%, which did not turn into ordinary matter, inflation keeps going so the size of that universe expands much more quickly, and after a certain period of time, 90% of that region can reheat, and 10% keeps inflating and then again keeps growing. So you keep creating more and more regions of space where inflation is still going on. Inflation never ends. This is called ‘eternal inflation’. Which is the simplest way of getting a multiverse. Alan Guth called them ‘pocket universes’. (Source: TTC lectures series 'Mysteries of Modern Physics: Time', lecture 22) So my question is in regards to Sternglass’s ideas, the scientific part, which could support such an hypothesis: 1) Could it be possible that the universe started by simple + and - charges, from 2 matter and antimatter particles, which then split into more particles, which eventually lead to all the particles in the universe? 2) And if there is some credibility behind Sternglass's ideas, is this theory compatible with the inflation theory of Alan Guth, or are they mutually exclusive? 3) What would be the mechanism behind an electron or positron dividing, because, aren't they supposed to be elementary particles that cannot divide any further? I'm especially interested in Sternglass's logical reasoning behind this part, I wrote earlier: "This particle would then split to produce two superparticles, still vastly massive; they would split again, and so on, rather as a single cell splits again and again to make a human fetus. Some of the early splits of the universal primal cell would be responsible for the galactic clusters and galaxies we see now; later ones would produce the apparently fundamental particles with which we are now familiar". Interesting, but how? Can anybody explain to me how Sternglass actually scientifically explained this mechanism? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

So when it's said that fungi colonised the land before plants, it's meant that they were able to do this as symbionts of green algae?

From the same link in that description I've provided. So green algae were the first to colonise land, and fungi along with them as symbionts? I've always interpreted this development of algae colonising the land synonymous to evolving from algae first into moss (which is why lichens show morphological similarities with mosses), but I guess there was a period that green algae could survive on land without having to evolve into moss first?

First the non-vascular bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) during the Ordovician period (which started around 490 million years ago) that evolved from green algae. Mosses lack true leaves, true roots and vascular tissue. It therefore can’t conduct sugar or water through the plant, only diffusion and osmosis. Then came the vascular seedless plants (ferns, horsetails, clubmosses) during the Devonian period (which started around 420 million years ago). A fern is vascular, but still contains spores, just like moss, and thus a swimming flagellated sperm cells. The oldest-known vascular plants have been identified in deposits from the Devonian. One of the richest sources of information is the Rhynie chert, a sedimentary rock deposit found in Rhynie, Scotland. A rich diversity of fungi (that often live together with plants, or algae such as lichens) is also known from the Rhynie chert. (By the way, when the haploid spore germinates it generates a multicellular gametophyte by mitosis. Male gametophyte = anther (tip of stamen), female gametophyte = ovary. Both produces gametes. The sporophyte stage (growing phase, the non sexual part) is barely noticeable in these lower plants, or ‘spore plants’. In seedless vascular plants the diploid sporophyte became the dominant phase of the lifecycle.) Gymnosperms (from cycads to ginkgos to conifers), dominated the landscape in the early Triassic (about 250 million years ago) and middle Jurassic. Angiosperms (flowering plants) surpassed gymnosperms by the middle of the Cretaceous (about 100 million years ago. The same genes that are responsible for flower development in Amborella (ancient, basal angiosperm) are the same genes that are responsible for the male cones of the gymnosperms, so it seems that the flower developed from the male cone). - - - What I don't quite understand myself is how "Fungi probably colonized the land during the Cambrian, over 500 million years ago, (Taylor & Osborn, 1996". That would mean before the Ordovician period, and thus before plants came onto land. But how could they have survived without their counterpart symbiont to deliver them glucose? Maybe you (or somebody else) can help me with this question? Thanks.

I've found an old topic on this forum regarding this subject, maybe you'd like to read that discussion? I'm a fan of this hypothesis by the way, how about you?

I'm interested in who supports this idea, and who doesn't, and why. Do we have more arguments in favour of this hypothesis than arguments against it?

Thanks! These papers are too mathematical for me, but I appreciate your references to them anyway. So even though it can be modeled this way, it doesn't necessarily have to tell us anything about reality?

Who supports the idea that a positron is simply an electron going the other direction in time? According to this PBS Space Time video (at 5:50 minutes), “antimatter is time reversed matter”. Does everybody here unanimously agree with that? Why (not)?

Thanks! Interesting thoughts. If answer A is indeed more plausible than answer B, I think I'll have to rearrange my brain a little bit. That's going to be a tough job, but I'll try.

I’d like to visualise what I’m talking about. First there's the observable Universe, which is where we are. Next, it's possible that even more galaxies lie beyond the observable Universe (and perhaps even more Universes in one giant multiverse). Note that this belt is obviously not to scale, because we don’t know how far this region stretches. My question is: what do we find at the region of the question mark (meaning beyond the boundary of (all) Universe(s))? A) If your answer is “On the question mark we'll find even more galaxies” then my question is "What lies beyond them?". There has to be a last galaxy, or at least a last particle, because the Universe contains an amount of particles, instead of an infinite uncountable quantity, because that doesn’t make any real sense (only in mathematics). B) If your answer is “On the question mark we'll find nothing at all”, then what can you tell me about these last galaxies/particles at the far end of the belt with more galaxies (the boundary before the question mark)? How do these particles inwards/outwards behave? C) If your answer is neither A or B, then what could be an alternative explanation? If all of this has nothing at all to do with dark energy whatsoever (which is why this topic was started in the first place), my question is: What do you think is the most plausible explanation for dark energy? Bonus points to anyone who attempts to visualise his explanation as well .

You’re saying that this hypothetical boundary/edge would be behind an event horizon (just like a BH). The process of anything falling through such a horizon is not a reversible process, and that it should radiate heat (just like Hawking radiation). Therefore “the universe would have to be really, really hot, and continuously heating up further”. Is that the right conclusion to make? If I understand you correctly, what you’re concluding is that this lost energy has to be accounted for. Well, why do cosmologists never take living organisms in account? We’re definitely adding something to the Universe, since we are changing our composition (evolving) and thus become more organised, and apply more order (reverse entropy), and according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics it's nonlocal, meaning the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. A quantum state must be described for the system as a whole. In the case of consciousness, David Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localised (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms). So how do we, living organisms, fit in? Why would you conclude "this is not what we observe", and thereby ignore yourself when describing the workings of the Universe? Could you explain a bit further please why this would be the case? That's not my quote, this was my quote: What we do observe is that galaxies that at twice as far away from us have redshifts that are also twice as large. Does this mean that the Hubble distance will increase forever, without any limit? Do we really have to use maths to describe how strongly something is attracted by something else? Also on Earth? You can't explain observations of movements of particles just by maths alone. Where is the force that lifts your finger to type the words on your keyboard coming from? That's also an attractive force, isn't it? We're not objects following simple rules of attraction set by the laws of nature that we've discovered. Not that those laws are wrong, but being human is very different from inorganic matter. So if you were referring only to inorganic matter, than you're absolutely right, but I really think you're thinking too mechanical and scientifically about humans. It depends on what your definition of "infinite" means. What does an infinite Universe mean in the first place? How is it infinite? Were you referring to the mathematical definition of "infinite"? Because I'm a supporter of the notion that the Universe came from nothing, since I don't believe in free energy, which has always existed, and without any input was already present. And because of that, you'd expect to find that initial state at the far end of the Universe (meaning the beginning of the Universe). Why do living organisms die? Because no matter how you handle or conserve the energy that you possess, you will eventually return to that initial state. On another level, that same rule applies in a physical sense, because all energy will also, quite literally, return to where it came from, if no force is acted upon it (by living organisms). A static Universe therefore can’t be right (and has been ruled out) because that would mean free energy. But a Universe with energy not being attracted back, to disappear into mass, would also mean a Universe with free energy, and if there’s one thing I don’t believe, it’s free energy. So in some way, all living things are kind of “virtual” (referring to how virtual particles behave) since we exist for a small period of time, and then die, but before that, we’re able to reproduce ourselves to postpone our fate. The event horizon is a stronger gravitational part of a black hole, so gravity could be much stronger on short distances (not 4πr2 (3 dimensions), like the inverse square law of light, but 2πr (2 dimensions). Compared to the other three forces, the force of gravity gets much stronger at smaller distance scales and higher energies. I'm not sure if that pattern continues all the way down (since quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet), but the force of gravity should overwhelm the other forces at that scale.

No I’m saying the exact opposite, if you’re closer to it, you’ll be attracted more strongly, which could explain dark energy (just like a gravitational field of a BH is much stronger when you’re closer to it). Numbers aren’t real, I’ve said that already in another topic. Numbers are invented by humans. Proportions are real (like the Fibonacci sequence), not numbers. You can’t describe reality using only maths. Maths isn’t science, it’s a tool for science. Again, it’s the exact opposite. I don’t think there’s “something” beyond the Universe (because when I’m talking about this term “something” I’m referring to matter or energy, Standard Model stuff), but even the absence of both matter or energy, “nothing” may still exert a gravitational force instead of being inert. We’ve also had this discussion (why a black hole’s gravity can’t be caused by mass of Standard Model matter), so let’s not discuss that again. My point is that, what resides inside a black hole might be of the same nature as this black edge. Does it make mathematical sense that there is something rather then nothing? Zero should remain zero (and no mathematical equation will ever change a 0 into a 1), so scientifically speaking, we can’t have a Universe filled with energy in the first place (since you always need a source of energy to create anything). Therefore we’re forced to think beyond mainstream physics, and therefore, even though you’re absolutely right by making that statement, I’m not limiting myself by the notion that it doesn't make physical or mathematical sense. You’re referring to the Einstein equations, but quantum physics is true only for the quantum world, Newtonian physics is true only for our everyday lives on Earth, and Einsteins GR is true on even larger scales. But all three have their limitations, so it’s quite possible that Einstein’s GR has it’s limitations as well on even larger scales, for instance when describing the behaviour of dark energy. So to refer to Einstein equations on one scale/level, in order to rule out my statement about another level, is like referring Newtonian physics when trying to explain something like the strong force. Again, you’re absolutely right, the law is correct, but on different levels there seem to be different laws, and dark energy might be part of such a different level. This boundary/edge is not a thing, not made of stuff, but it’s a region that might be described with the same behaviour as a black hole. So indeed, there’s nothing (not "something", meaning no matter/energy) beyond the Universe, but that doesn’t mean it’s inert towards matter/energy. In fact, it might be the most attractive force of all. Perhaps it could even describe dark energy without the need of anything new/exotic. To explain dark energy without adding a new form of energy. And to explain how a Universe could have come from nothing. I really think we’re not talking about the same thing here. You have way more expertise, so I wouldn’t dare to question these kinds of insights of yours. I just think we’re not talking about the same thing here (probably because I’m not explaining it at your level of understanding). Sorry, I'm trying my best!

We already know that the first statement is true, the Universe started about 14 billion years ago. Therefore the second statement can't be true. Do you agree?

@Mordred You're mentioning the CMBR, but this a smal anisotropy, suggesting that galaxies are indeed attracted to the edge of the Universe equally in all directions, exactly what you would expect if the gravitational attraction of an edge behaves like a black hole. Why do you think that, to make statements about what's beyond the Universe, we need to only look at our observable Universe? The Universe wouldn't be able to keep on expanding if it's already infinite. Take something like expanding metal, like a cube of aluminium. It has a surface area which forms a border for the matter contained inside. So the Universe must have, far far away from where we are, a border for all the matter and energy it contains. Why? Simply because if the Universe has no border, then what lies beyond all the matter in the Universe? Nothing? Well, than that’s the border I’m talking about. That's deductive reasoning, rather than reasoning only by means of empirical observations. How could there be no border/edge? The question is how matter and energy behaves close to that border, and how it is attracted or repulsed by it. So why would anyone introduce a new kind of energy, instead of assuming that it behaves like all other large-scale cosmic attractive forces: SMBHs? Since gravity is the smallest force in the small quantum microcosm, but the largest force in the macrocosm, it seems plausible that in even larger scales gravity should be an even more and more attractive force, that's why I'm considering a black edge (meaning a border/edge that has an attractive force just like a BH), explaining why we're being ripped a part more strongly every day, because all galaxies are moving towards it (we call dark "energy"). Is this answering your questioning about the interaction of the radiation from within the Universe with the edge, @studiot? Astronomers have observed about 1,000 galaxies with redshifts larger than 1.5. That is, they have observed about 1,000 objects receding from us faster than the speed of light, because the Hubble distance is not a constant, it's in fact increasing (infinitely?). The radiation of the cosmic microwave background has traveled even farther and has a redshift of about 1,000. When the hot plasma of the early universe emitted the radiation we now see, it was receding from our location at about 50 times the speed of light. Do I understand this? No I don't. Do you? My main point remains that the Universe has to have a border or edge somehow. Because if not, then what lies beyond the matter and energy of our Universe?

Could you explain your question a bit further please? Why should this be the case? A black hole doesn't seem to have a preferred direction of attraction towards celestial bodies, so why would a black edge have a stronger gravitationally attraction in one particular direction of the Universe (causing this anisotropy)?

1) Just like the black hole information paradox, radiation becomes mass, "information" gets lost. 2) It will become more massive, not unlike the increasing Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. But if something like Hawking radiation would also occur is of course beyond my scope, but I assume that mass can be conversed into radiation to balance this natural process out. The famous "inflating balloon" analogy would be inside out by the way (instead of all galaxies in the Universe being located on an actual surface). I guess you don't support any modified gravity theories?

There is no natural candidate for what might cause what has been called dark energy but the current best guess is: the zero-point energy of the vacuum. One difficulty with this assumption is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is extremely large compared to the observed cosmological constant. In GR, mass and energy are equivalent, because both produce a gravitational field, and therefore the hypothesised vacuum energy of quantum field theory should have led the Universe ripping itself to pieces. This obviously hasn't happened and this issue (the cosmological constant problem) is still a mystery in physics. Could dark energy therefore not be energy at all, but merely an attraction of massive bodies towards the edge of the Universe, which acts like a huge SMBH, but inside out? I've always had a problem with the idea of an '"infinite"' Universe, with matter and energy everywhere, forever, how far you might go into the distance/past (because that would imply that the Universe has never started).

@geordief didn't join that discussion. But you're right, let's not speculate about that here.

What about an edge surrounding the Universe, acting as a black hole edge? This would explain the accelerated expansion, because the closer a galaxy approaches this massive edge, the faster it will be attracted to it.

In addition to your psychological (thinking) effect, here's the physical (doing) effect: Displacement (psychology) is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind substitutes either a new aim or a new object for goals felt in their original form to be dangerous or unacceptable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(psychology). And here's some more information (for those who are interested): - Displaced behaviour can occur when someone cannot aggress towards the source of incitement or provocation, so instead takes it out on something else and behaves aggressively towards another individual that had nothing to do with the initial conflict. - Displacement of aggression Is 'Associated with Reduced Stress Levels among Men but Not Women'. We found no evidence that displacement behaviour alleviates (verlicht) stress in women; by marked contrast, displacement behaviour was associated with reduced stress in men. Men engage more often in displacement behaviour, and subsequently reported lower levels of stress (paper).

I'm only aware of one celestial body that protects the Earth, namely Jupiter. It acts like a bouncer. Without Jupiter's gravity, comets (such as Shoemaker-Levy 9) would collide with our planet much more frequently.