Max70 Posted May 11 Posted May 11 (edited) Hello! I'm new to this forum. I have an idea that could be the simplest explanation of the accelerating expansion of the universe. I've described my idea in my blog and I report it here below. I would like to know your opinions on this idea. The simplest cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe I have an idea that could be the simplest explanation of the accelerating expansion of the universe. I'm surprised that I've never found such a simple explanation anywhere on the Internet. My idea is born from the fact that in the center of almost all the galaxies there is a super massive black hole. The objects near the black hole have a spiral motion towards the center of the black hole. This may be seen for example in the video in the Wikipedia page of the galaxy rotation curve. Then in the universe we have: satellites that rotate around a planet planets that rotate around a star stars that rotate around a super massive black hole in the center of a galaxy Therefore in the universe we have a scheme: masses that rotate around larger masses. My idea is to generalize this scheme and to apply this scheme on a larger scale, and then on a even larger scale and so on. The first step of my idea is that the Milky Way and all the astronomical objects that we have observed until now are part of a Colossal Galaxy Cluster around a Colossal Black Hole. The following Figure 1 shows the first step of my idea: Figure 1 MW, that is the yellow dot, is the Milky Way. CBH, that is the black circle in the center of the figure, is a Colossal Black Hole. CGC, that is the circle filled with orange dots, is a Colossal Galaxy Cluster. The galaxies and the other objects in the CGC have a spiral motion towards the CBH. Until now, we have observed only a little part of the CGC, because the range of all the telescopes is limited. This is shown in the following Figure 2: Figure 2 CBH, that is the black circle in the center of the figure, is a Colossal Black Hole. CGC, that is the circle filled with orange dots, is a Colossal Galaxy Cluster. E, that is the cyan dot, is the Earth. OP, that is the area filled with yellow dots around the Earth, is the Observed Part of the universe, that is the part of the universe that we have observed until now. OP is only a little part of the CGC and of the observable universe. Note that the CBH has a mass that is many billion times the mass of the OP. Someone could say that it's absurd to think to a black hole having such a large mass. Actually, the black hole cosmology, that argues that all the observable universe is inside a black hole, has been studied for many years. My idea is simpler: the portion of the universe that we have observed until now (OP) is part of a colossal galaxy cluster (CGC) that rotate outside of a colossal black hole (CBH). This idea could explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, that was discovered calculating, from the redshift, the acceleration of some supernovae. This has been then confirmed by the baryon acoustic oscillations. All the objects in the CGC, and therefore in the OP, have a spiral motion towards the CBH. The objects closest to the CBH have accelerations greater than the more distant objects. This is shown in the following Figure 3: Figure 3 E is the Earth, while S1 and S2 are two supernovae. aE, a1 and a2 are their respective accelerations. Now consider the following Figure 4, that shows the accelerations relative to the Earth, that are obtained subtracting aE from the absolute accelerations: Figure 4 ra1 and ra2 are the accelerations relative to the Earth. Therefore we see the supernovae accelerating away from the Earth. Actually, we haven't seen with the telescopes the accelerating expansion of the universe, but rather the accelerating expansion of the OP, that is the part of the universe that we have observed until now. In effect, all the evidences of the accelerating expansion proof only the accelerating expansion of the OP and not of the entire universe. Usually, the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe is considered the dark energy, that is related to a posive cosmological constant and to the vacuum energy. However, the cosmological constant problem is still unresolved: the observed value of the vacuum energy is many orders of magnitude lower than the theoretical value of zero-point energy. Other alternative causes of the accelerating expansion of the universe have been proposed, such as the quintessence, the massive gravity and the multiverse. In my theory, the accelerating expansion of the OP is simply caused by the gravity of the CBH. My theory is simpler than other theories and therefore, for the Occam's razor, preferable. Note also that some observations that are currently considered to be caused by the dark matter could be explained by the gravity of the CBH. A less known theory that tries to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe is the VACIS, that argues that the universe is contracting in a spiral. My idea is simpler: the objects in the CGC and in the OP have a spiral motion towards the CBH. In addition, how I will explain later, the CGC is probably only a little part of the universe. However, the considerations of the VACIS on the motion of the galaxies could help to confirm my theory. I remark that until now I've exposed only the first step of my idea. Now we could apply the same scheme on a larger scale. We could think that there are billions of Colossal Galaxy Clusters, that form a Super Colossal Galaxy Cluster around a Super Colossal Black Hole. The objects in the Super Colossal Galaxy Cluster have a spiral motion towards the Super Colossal Black Hole. This is shown in the following Figure 5: Figure 5 SCGC, that is the circle filled with orange dots, is the Super Colossal Galaxy Cluster. SCBH, that is the black circle in the center of the figure, is the Super Colossal Black Hole. SCGC is a cluster of CGCs (Colossal Galaxy Clusters) that have a spiral motion towards the SCBH. The yellow dot in the figure is the CGC that contains the Milky Way and the Earth. Then we could apply the same scheme on a even larger scale and so on. We could define by induction: Super0 Colossal = Colossal Super1 Colossal = Super Colossal Super2 Colossal = Super Super Colossal ... SuperN Colossal = Super SuperN-1 Colossal SuperN+1 Colossal = Super SuperN Colossal The following Figure 6 shows the generic case for N positive integer (greater than 0): Figure 6 SNCGC, that is the circle filled with orange dots, is the SuperN Colossal Galaxy Cluster. SNCBH, that is the black circle in the center of the figure, is the SuperN Colossal Black Hole. SNCGC is a cluster of SN-1CGCs (SuperN-1 Colossal Galaxy Clusters) that have a spiral motion towards the SNCBH. The yellow dot in the figure is the SN-1CGC that contains the Milky Way and the Earth. Note that the case N = 0 is shown in the previous Figure 1 while the case N = 1 is shown in the previous Figure 5. An open problem is whether N is illimited or limited and which is the superior limit of N. Maybe N is illimited and the universe is infinite and in the universe there are black holes as big as we want. Edited May 12 by Phi for All Don't advertise your blog here, please!
Ghideon Posted May 11 Posted May 11 37 minutes ago, Max70 said: In my theory, the accelerating expansion of the OP is simply caused by the gravity of the CBH. My theory is simpler than other theories and therefore, for the Occam's razor, preferable. Hello. How does your idea take into account that observations show the CMB is remarkably uniform across the sky? The observations shows that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. How is this uniformity consistent with your description of the universe? 1
Max70 Posted May 11 Author Posted May 11 I quote the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background: "With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions."
Mordred Posted May 11 Posted May 11 Rotation driven by a supermassive BH would lead to Kepler curve which does not match the galaxy curves. Secondly due to the 1/r2 relation of reducing gravitational strength per mass term the strength of gravity would fall off to effectively zero influence Long before reaching the outer galaxy region.
Max70 Posted May 11 Author Posted May 11 My idea is that there is a colossal black hole that is very far (out of the range of all the most powerful telescopes) but has a huge mass that is billion times the sum of the masses of all the astronomical objects that we have seen until now, including all the galaxies, supermassive black holes and supernovae. It is so massive that also dividing its mass by r2 (where r is the distance) its gravity influences all the astronomical objects that we have seen until now. All these astronomical objects are punctiform with respect to the colossal black hole and they have a spiral motion towards the colossal black hole.
joigus Posted May 11 Posted May 11 3 minutes ago, Max70 said: My idea is that there is a colossal black hole that is very far Very far from what? There are galaxies in every direction. It cannot be very far from everything. However far is "very far". 4 minutes ago, Max70 said: also dividing its mass by r2 (where r is the distance) Yeah. r is the distance, and m is the mass, and q is the charge, and I is yours truly. Distance between what and what? Again, there are galaxies in every direction. And galactic halos in every direction. 6 minutes ago, Max70 said: they have a spiral motion towards the colossal black hole. How does that reproduce the velocity curves? You are mixing and mis-matching the expansion of the universe with the v(r) law for galaxies from the centre outwards. Very different things. One goes by the name of dark energy. The other, dark matter. Different names for very good reasons. The galaxy rotation curves are rotations of stars around the respective galactic centres. Expansion of the universe is about galaxies getting away from each other. You're not making any sense. At least about the universe we observe.
Max70 Posted May 12 Author Posted May 12 This situation is shown in in my Figure 2. CBH, that is the black circle in the center of the figure, is a Colossal Black Hole. CGC, that is the circle filled with orange dots, is a Colossal Galaxy Cluster. E, that is the cyan dot, is the Earth. OP, that is the area filled with yellow dots around the Earth, is the Observed Part of the universe, that is the part of the universe that we have observed until now. OP is only a little part of the CGC and of the observable universe. I mean "very far" from the Earth and from OP, that contains all the galaxies and other astronomical objects that we have seen until now. As you can see in the video in the Wikipedia page of the galaxy rotation curve, the objects near a black hole have a spiral motion towards the black hole. In a similar way, the galaxies in the Colossal Galaxy Cluster in Figure 2 have a spiral motion towards the Colossal Black Hole. We see the galaxies getting away from each other because, as you can see in my Figure 3, the galaxies closest to the CBH have accelerations greater than the more distant objects. My Figure 4 shows the accelerations relative to the Earth, that are obtained subtracting the Earth acceleration from the absolute accelerations of the galaxies. Therefore we see the galaxies accelerating away from the Earth. Actually, we don't seen with the telescopes the accelerating expansion of the universe, but rather the accelerating expansion of the OP, that is the part of the universe that we have observed until now. In effect, all the evidences of the accelerating expansion proof only the accelerating expansion of the OP and not of the entire universe.
Ghideon Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 9 hours ago, Max70 said: I quote the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background: "With the increasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB exhibits anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, and non-Gaussian distributions." If you read the whole section it states: A number of groups have suggested that this could be the signature of new physics at the greatest observable scales; other groups suspect systematic errors in the data.* How do that support your idea? *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background Edited May 12 by Ghideon sentence
Ghideon Posted May 12 Posted May 12 6 minutes ago, Max70 said: Anyway CMB can't be used to disprove my hypothesis. Why?
MigL Posted May 12 Posted May 12 You seem to have put a lot of effort into this idea. Let's forget all objections to it, and see if we can 'add' to it with some quantitative analysis. The closest thing we have to a universal frame of reference is the CMB, which is very smooth, to 1 part in 1 million level, although colorizing the temperatures makes it appear to be coarse. There are however, two areas one 'bluer' and the other 'redder', which indicate our galaxy group's motion through the CMB; we are moving towards the 'blue' and away from the 'red' at a speed of about 627+/- 22 km/sec in the direction of galactic longitude l=276o+/-3o, b=30o+/-3o, from Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia . If we were to consider this speed of our galactic local group as the orbital speed around the super-massive Black Hole central to your idea, it is simple enough to make some 'rough' predictions about the size and distance of this super-massive BH. Now I don't particularly care for the idea, so I'm not going to make those estimates, but, as you seem to have a lot invested in this idea, perhaps you should, and see if they fit with current astronomical observations. if they should, perhaps the idea might be taken a little more seriously, as, so far, you've done a bit of hand waving, and called on Occam's Razor to justify your ideas. 4 hours ago, Max70 said: Anyway CMB can't be used to disprove my hypothesis. I would say your idea depends heavily on it. 1
Mordred Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) A couple other details. How would the universe expand before blackholes could form ? Why would they cause expansion when their gravity sucks all nearby material into the BH ? Edited May 12 by Mordred
Max70 Posted May 12 Author Posted May 12 (edited) 4 hours ago, MigL said: I'm not going to make those estimates, but, as you seem to have a lot invested in this idea, perhaps you should, and see if they fit with current astronomical observations. I'm not an astrophysicist, physicist, mathematician or scientist. I've invested in this idea only a part of my free time. Someone else could make these estimates but, if he wants to publish the results, he must refer me (and my blog) as the original author of the idea. 4 hours ago, Mordred said: How would the universe expand before blackholes could form ? I don't deal with the expansion of the whole universe but only with the accelerating expansion of the part of the universe that we have observed until now. 4 hours ago, Mordred said: Why would they cause expansion when their gravity sucks all nearby material into the BH ? Maybe billions of years from now, the part of the universe that we have observed will be sucked into the colossal black hole. Now the part of the universe that we observe is expanding because the astronomical objects closest to the colossal black hole have accelerations greater than the more distant objects. Edited May 12 by Phi for All Please stop advertising your blog! -2
Ghideon Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Max70 said: I don't deal with the expansion of the whole universe but only with the accelerating expansion of the part of the universe that we have observed until now. Lets try another approach the you may find helpful. Look at the following picture you provided: 20 hours ago, Max70 said: This is shown in the following Figure 3: Figure 3 1: What happens if you use two dimensions, as in a galaxy disk? In a galaxy there are other objects around CBH, at the same distance from CBH as S1, E and S2. If everything is accelerating towards CBH then objects must get closer and closer as the radial distance decreases? Edited May 12 by Ghideon grammar
Max70 Posted May 12 Author Posted May 12 The accelerating expansion has been discovered observing the Type Ia supernovae. I think that is unlikely to have these supernovae at the same distance from the CBH. I don't exclude the existence of the dark energy, but also this idea has problems, in particular the cosmological constant problem.
Ghideon Posted May 12 Posted May 12 5 minutes ago, Max70 said: The accelerating expansion has been discovered observing the Type Ia supernovae. That is not the only evidence. Did you try drawing a picture? I can provide one if needed
swansont Posted May 12 Posted May 12 23 hours ago, Max70 said: The first step of my idea is that the Milky Way and all the astronomical objects that we have observed until now are part of a Colossal Galaxy Cluster around a Colossal Black Hole. What’s the evidence that galaxies are orbiting the CBH? What are the value of the accelerations in your scenario, and can you show how much mass the CBH must have? The distances involved?
Max70 Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 11 hours ago, swansont said: What’s the evidence that galaxies are orbiting the CBH? What are the value of the accelerations in your scenario, and can you show how much mass the CBH must have? The distances involved? As I've written in my blog and in my posts, I don't think that galaxies and other astronomical objects are orbiting the CBH, but rather that they have a spiral motion towards the CBH. As I've written in one of my posts, I'm not an astrophysicist, physicist, mathematician or scientist. Someone else could estimate the mass of the CBH, its distance from the Earth and other data but, if he wants to publish the results, he must refer me (and my blog) as the original author of the idea. I've added two other ideas at the end of my blog (https://max70blog.blogspot.com/) that I report here below: Note also that, if in the universe there is more than one CBH, the motion and the acceleration of the astronomical objects that we observe, including galaxies and supernovae, may be influenced by the gravity of the other CBHs. Another idea, that could solve the cosmological constant problem, is that the discrepancy between the observed value of the vacuum energy and the much larger theoretical value of zero-point energy may be due to the gravity of the CBHs: part of the acceleration caused by zero-point energy could be deleted by the acceleration caused the gravity of the CBHs. -3
Ghideon Posted May 13 Posted May 13 14 hours ago, Ghideon said: I can provide one if needed Here is your picture with an object added, visualising the challenge. Our observations of the expanding universe shows that the distance (d, the purple arrow) between objects S1 and S2b is increasing. Your model seems to claim the opposite, a decreasing distance d:
Max70 Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 The objects near the black hole have a spiral motion. I think that the accelerations are more or less like the ones shown in the following figure: Therefore S1 is accelerating away from S2. Another hypothesis is that, as I've written in my previous post and in my blog, the acceleration of the objects is influenced by the presence of other CBHs, as shown in the following figure:
joigus Posted May 13 Posted May 13 20 minutes ago, Max70 said: The objects near the black hole have a spiral motion. I think that the accelerations are more or less like the ones shown in the following figure: The acceleration of a rotating body is towards the centre of attraction. It's called centripetal acceleration. Tangential acceleration would require a completely different force field. Have you seen @Ghideon's picture? Do you know why he drew the acceleration the way he did?
Max70 Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 I'm very sorry for my stupid mistake. In a uniform circular motion the acceleration is directed to the center of rotation. But this is a spiral motion, therefore the calculation of the acceleration is more complicated.
exchemist Posted May 13 Posted May 13 27 minutes ago, Max70 said: I'm very sorry for my stupid mistake. In a uniform circular motion the acceleration is directed to the center of rotation. But this is a spiral motion, therefore the calculation of the acceleration is more complicated. Doesn’t spiral motion require a progressive loss of kinetic energy? What causes this loss and where does the energy go?
swansont Posted May 13 Posted May 13 3 hours ago, Max70 said: As I've written in my blog and in my posts, I don't think that galaxies and other astronomical objects are orbiting the CBH, but rather that they have a spiral motion towards the CBH. Why would they spiral if not from gravity? At galactic scales you have nothing else to explain accelerated motion. Quote I've added two other ideas at the end of my blog ! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your blog is against the rules, and the rules require that material for discussion be posted here. So none of this "counts" - don't expect that anyone has read it. 3 hours ago, Max70 said: As I've written in one of my posts, I'm not an astrophysicist, physicist, mathematician or scientist. ! Moderator Note So this is just guesswork. We're not the guesswork forums, we're scienceforums(.net) If you want to speculate, it must be backed by something that's considered science. You need a model and be able to make predictions or compare with existing experiments 3 hours ago, Max70 said: Someone else could estimate the mass of the CBH, its distance from the Earth and other data but, if he wants to publish the results, he must refer me (and my blog) as the original author of the idea. If you have no math, there's nothing to reference. An idea is just a small part of making a theory. The hard part is making the model (i.e. the math). Credit goes there, not to someone who had a vague notion, and hasn't even checked to see if someone else had (and published) a similar notion in the past hundred years or so. But probably not published, if they had done the math and seen that this doesn't work. 56 minutes ago, Max70 said: this is a spiral motion, therefore the calculation of the acceleration is more complicated. And needs a force to explain/account for it.
Max70 Posted May 13 Author Posted May 13 Do you think it's right that someone could publish a model without ever admitting that it is based on my ideas ? I've found an explanation as to why the objects have a spiral motions towards a black hole instead of orbiting around it at this address: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/32753/why-does-matter-spiral-into-blackholes -1
Recommended Posts