Universe Origin - New Theory!

[HarrySchneid]

NEW THEORY OF UNIVERSE CREATION

 

When I was a lad (aged about 8 or 9) I would look up into the night sky and wonder what the devil it all was about! What were all these stars doing there? Did they go on forever? What caused them to exist - would they exist forever? Adults couldn't answer any of these questions satisfactorily and I was to find out later on in life that formal science hadn't a clue either.

 

 

• Debunking and abandonment of most current theory.

• New Creation of the Universe theory.

• New Formation of the Planets theory.

• Where planetary/interplanetary water came from.

• Where the Earths deserts came from.

 

 

DEBUNKING AND ABANDONMENT OF MOST CURRENT THEORY

 

In fact it seemed that their theories produced some ghastly contradictions. The main nonsense being - if all the materials in the universe are flying apart because of the BIG-BANG explosion then how come they have coalesced into clumps forming planets, stars and galaxies? No - it just didn't wash!

This fact is the most singular embarrassment known to science!

In the meantime the BIG BANG theory seemed a reasonable proposition on the surface as it took current observations into consideration. But it proved wholly inadequate, as it could not explain the act of creation. (I leave religious explanations out of any consideration as they serve only matters of faith. I was only interested in matters of fact.)

 

Scientists generally have accepted the idea that the universe began about 15 billion years ago in a uniform energy broth that immediately began to fly apart: the so-called big bang. As the soup expanded, it cooled, allowing matter to precipitate out and clump up to form stars and galaxies. This simple idea successfully explains the astronomical evidence that the universe is expanding today. It also can explain the observation that the entire sky is filled with an even microwave glow the cosmic background radiation as fossil radiation left over from an early period when the universe was much hotter. Third, the big-bang theory accurately predicts the relative abundance of hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium, the lightest stable elements in nature.

Many scientists simply have assumed that the universe contains exactly the right amount of matter so that its gravitational attraction is great enough to slow and eventually halt the universe's expansion, resulting in a flat universe. This balances the universe precisely between two different kinds of fates. Slightly more matter and the universe is closed. An object travelling in a straight line ultimately returns to the point where it started. Such a universe expands to a point and then reverses course and begins to contract. Slightly less matter, on the other hand, and the universe is open: It is unbounded and continues to expand forever.

Taken from:-

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1998/april29/hawking.html

As to where everything came from, there is no conclusive opinion. One idea was that the Universe was created from vacuum. This is because according to quantum theory, the apparently quiescent vacuum is not really empty at all. For example, it is possible for an electron and a positron (a matter antimatter pair) to materialize from the vacuum, exist for a brief flash of time and then disappear into nothingness. Such vacuum fluctuations cannot be observed directly as they typically last for only about 10-21 seconds and the separation between the electron and positron is typically no longer than 10-10 cm. However, through indirect measurements, physicists are convinced that these fluctuations are real.

 

 

Hence, any object in principle might materialize briefly in the vacuum.

The probability for an object to materialize decreases dramatically with the mass and complexity of the object.

In 1973, Edward Tyron proposed that the Universe is a result of a vacuum fluctuation. The main difficulty of this proposal is that the probability that a 13.7 billion year old Universe could arise from this mechanism is extremely small. In addition, physicists would question Tyron's starting point: if the Universe was born from empty space, then where did the empty space come from? (Note that from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something, since space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist and flex.)

In 1982, Alexander Vilenkin proposed an extension of Tyron's idea and suggested that the Universe was created by quantum processes starting from "literally nothing", meaning not only the absence of matter, but the absence of space and time as well. Vilenkin took the idea of quantum tunnelling and proposed that the Universe started in the totally empty geometry and then made a quantum tunnelling transition to a non-empty state (subatomic in size), which through inflation (the Universe expands exponentially fast for a brief period of time which causes its size to increase dramatically) came to its current size.

Another idea is from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Hawking proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it. The description is timeless, in the sense that one set of equations delineates the Universe for all time. As one looks to earlier and earlier times, one finds that the model Universe is not eternal, but there is no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely, with the whole picture dissolving into quantum ambiguity. In Hawking's words, the Universe "would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." So, the origin of mass in the Universe and the Universe itself is quite speculative at this point. If you are interested, you can read Alan Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe", page 271-276. You can also read Hawking's "A brief history of time: From the Big Bang to black holes" page 136.

June 2003, Jagadheep D. Pandian

 

NEW CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE THEORY

 

Initially there was nothing! No universe, no time, no space, absolutely nothing. I mean really nothing. To have an idea of what 'really nothing' means let me take you through a little scenario.

Imagine a sentence on a sheet of paper. Rub it out. That's one view of 'nothing'. Now crumple up the paper and burn it. Destroy the ashes; the space they occupied and the space around that space. Now destroy every particle in the universe in a similar fashion. Now we are getting closer to understanding 'nothing'.

Now try to destroy even the concept of nothing. This may give you a glimpse of the nothingness of nothing. Remember - there being nothing in this scenario there was not even a God to "start things off".

Science has for a long time now accepted the fact that particles can spontaneously 'Popp' into existence. They do this from the energies in what they call the 'ZERO POINT FIELD' (Don't ask what this is because it really doesn't matter at all.) Once created these 'bits' of positive matter are immediately annihilated by a cloud of smaller negative particles coming in from every direction being in total equal to the volume to the particle that 'popped' into existence originally.

So it appears that nothing can be created and sustained in the form of the universe that we know of today! We exist and so does the universe, that's a fact! - So what really happened?

At this point I would like to take you to the core of the whole idea behind the logic of the new theory.

Dear reader - the core of NEW THEORY is critical and it should evoke an AH...HA moment for you. It should not be 'scan-read' as you could miss the point completely!!

THE VERY FIRST PARTICLE THAT SPONTANEOUSLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE WAS INFINITELY SMALL. Remember, if a particle sprang into existence that was larger than infinitely small then it would have been immediately annihilated by a cloud of smaller particles. BUT being infinitely small - the cloud of particles that came to annihilate the original particle had to be all the same size as the original particle. i.e. infinitely small. Remember being infinitely small the 12 particles could not be any smaller

 

That was ah - ha point that I mentioned before. Please feel free to go over it again in case I have not put the point over clearly or emphatically enough! You should realize that this is the creative process and is making surplus material of one kind or other at each stage. Immediately after that point a further cloud of about 28 positive particles came into existence to try to annihilate them. At each stage of the action and reaction a surplus of particles is created.

After a while the whole universe became filled by this event until it became infinitely large and could not expand any further. That's when the whole edifice collapsed with positive and negative particles cancelling each other out.

But, as you will remember, there was always a surplus of positive particles at each stage as the 'cloud' formed. When the final collapse took place there remained, of course, a balance of positive particles left. No further annihilation reaction took place to these particles as they were changed slightly in the collapse.

The quantity of particles left is calculable and MATCHES EXACTLY THE NUMBER OF PARTICLES FOUND IN THE UNIVERSE TODAY! - i.e. 10^80

After the annihilation was over the remnant forces which remained were the strong and weak atomic forces, electromagnetic forces and, of course, gravity. So all these forces are simply the weaker cousins of the original primordial annihilation force. This is where all the observable forces remaining originated. They are all unified there. But the original annihilation force being spent in the initial collapse is no longer is observable.

As they are all related to the original annihilation force grouping the strong and weak atomic; electromagnetic and gravitational forces together makes for a unifying theory dead easy.

This initial collapse probably totaled in diameter at least a billion light years across. There then occurred a massive 'bounce-back' which became known as the 'BIG-BANG'. The compression in the collapse and subsequent ''Bounce-Back' allowed material to coalesce and form the galaxies.

 

The embarrassing aspect of the current 'Big-Bang' theory is that every particle in the universe is flying away from every other particle in the 'big-bang' explosion. SO THEN - DOES THIS NOT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GALAXIES TO FORM! You must ask yourself - if there was a big bang where the force was that of the most powerful cataclysmic explosion how on earth can any particle be attracted to any other particle by the relatively week force of gravity at all?

Current theory is that the big-bang occurred when all the material in the universe was compacted into a volume the size of a pea! This now appears not to stand close scrutiny any more.

 

NEW FORMATION OF THE PLANETS THEORY

 

The most tragic travesty in scientific logic that currently abounds today is the theory on how the planets formed round the sun.

The theory goes like this:-

Our sun passed through a gas and particle cloud some 4 billion years ago. The sun's gravity attracted this 'stuff' which coalesced into the planets moons and asteroids. As stated in the previous Chapter it seems impossible for any materials to coalesce to by the forces of gravity when they are supposed to be hurling away from each other by the force of a cataclysmic Big-Bang explosion or a Supernova!.

The 'Asteroid Belt' is also meant to be proof of planetary formation as it represents part of the planetary forming process. It is supposed to contain materials 'that have failed to form a planet’.

In fact it is the very existence of the Asteroid Belt that provides proof that planetary formation does not occur in that fashion.

Television images in various documentaries contain contrived animation depicting materials coming together, striking each other, melting and then blending to form asteroids etc. Well - it is cold - very cold in outer space.

It 's as close to absolute zero as you can get and any small material particals coming together would simply strike then bounce away.

The Asteroid Belt is simply relict remain of an exploding sun that the Sun happened to capture as it flew past.

 

The NEW THEORY states that our sun was once part of a trio of stars. There may have been more but the theory states that there must have been at least three suns. It is a well known fact that most star systems that one observes this very day are at least double star systems. At some point in the past each of these systems may have had more stars in them but they have matured and blown up long ago.

Suns/stars are merely massive accumulations of hydrogen that are so massive that the gravity within has forced the atoms to ignite as an atomic furnace. In this furnace elements are being produced. Our own sun is about 1/4 way through this process. So there is about 3/4 of it yet remaining of hydrogen with 1/4 being helium.

The suns/stars were of different sizes and the largest ones quickly matured first as the gravitational forces were much stronger. This set off the atomic fusion processes more rapidly than the smaller stars. Once a certain 'critical mass' had occurred whilst at a stage where an element was being created it would then explode scattering all the elements created in the star.

Our largest star next to our sun went through the element creation process until the last element of the 100 or so that was created. It then exploded and some of the material was 'captured' by the remaining two stars.

The capture came about by the 'gravitational traps' that occur round every body in the universe. These 'traps' obey the INVERSE SQUARE LAW as described by Newton.

 

WHERE PLANETARY/INTERPLANETARY WATER CAME FROM

 

There are several theories about the origin of planetary water, but no single theory explains all aspects of this puzzle. Loads of earth scientists agree with the hypothesis that both the atmosphere and the oceans have accumulated gradually through geologic time from some process of "degassing" of the Earth's interior. According to this theory, the ocean had its origin from the prolonged escape of water vapour and other gases from the molten igneous rocks of the Earth to the clouds surrounding the cooling Earth. After the Earth's surface had cooled to a temperature below the boiling point of water, rain began to fall and continued to fall for centuries. As the water drained into the great hollows in the Earth's surface, the primeval ocean came into existence. The forces of gravity prevented the water from leaving the planet.

 

The above text was taken from: http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm

It seems we are to take a lot 'on trust' that the 'degassing' process is an acceptable way in which the oceans formed. In reality the process is one which is actually impossible!

Why is it impossible? - Because of the way elements are formed in stars. You may recall stars are simply atomic furnaces changing elements into other elements by a fusion process. The process is NOT a one of making compounds. Water is a compound and cannot be made directly in a star through the fusion process.

So that poses the question - how was water in the Universe/solar system formed?

You may recall that a star is converting Hydrogen to all the other elements in turn by the fusion process. At any stage of the process, depending on the amount of material in the star, a 'critical-mass' might be achieved which would cause the whole system to explode in a Supernova. The elements would then be scattered in clumps throughout the universe.

 

One of the Suns in our system exploded at the point when most of the material had been converted to oxygen.

You may recall that a star is converting Hydrogen to all the other elements in turn by the fusion process. At any stage of the process, depending on the amount of material in the star, a 'critical-mass' would be achieved which would cause the whole system to explode into a Supernova. The elements would then be scattered in clumps throughout the universe.

One of the Suns in our system exploded at the point when most of the material had been converted to oxygen. This sun had reached its 'critical-mass' stage at the close of the Oxygen forming point because of the amount of material present. The more the material - the greater the pressure and temperature - and faster the fusion reaction.

As this mass of white hot oxygen exploded some it passed though the present Sun - combined with some hydrogen and emerged out the other side as gaseous and solid water. This material then 'splattered' planet Earth, the Moon and many other planetary bodies in the Solar System. Have a close look at the Martian surface and you will clearly see evidence of water channels. These channels ran abundantly with water till it was soaked up into the surface. The water on Mars, the Moon, and other planetary bodies now lies frozen beneath their surfaces. Other planetary surfaces show evidence of water flows but being too hot the water has evaporated.

 

So - many planetary bodies will have copious amounts of water present (either solid or liquid) and the rest will have virtually none. It all depended on its solar orbital position when the 'splatter' took place. If water did not cover the surface then oxygen would. Most of this gas however, would float away from the surface of any body eventually.

At this point our theory has taken us to the conclusion that there must have been at least three suns in our solar system.

a) The large 'mother-of our-planets' sun

b) The 'oxygen' sun

c) Our present hydrogen/helium Sun.

 

Was there a fourth?

 

There is one way to find out! Our current sun being present when the fourth sun exploded would be a receptacle for some of its debris. This would show up in the Sun's spectrum. But so would sun's ‘A’ and ‘B’s materials show up also. All that one needs to do then is extract the spectrum of suns ‘A’ and ‘B’ from the current observed spectrum and you would be left with the composition of the fourth sun. A preponderance of a particular element would show you at what stage that sun exploded

Taking the argument a little further if there were more than one prominent 'peak' of one element in the spectrum not belonging to suns 'A' or 'B' then this might indicate that there had been more than four suns in the system.

 

Solar Elemental Abundances

________________________________________

Element --------- Mass %

________________________________________

Hydrogen -------- 73.40

Helium ----------- 25.00

Carbon ---------- 00.20

Nitrogen --------- 00.09

Oxygen ---------- 00.80

Neon ------------ 00.16

Magnesium ------- 00.06

Silicon ----------- 00.09

Sulphur ---------- 00.05

Iron ------------- 00.14

 

The above data was taken from: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/composition.html

It can be seen clearly that Oxygen, at 0.8% of the Sun's mass, is by far the most abundant of the minor elements. This proves that there was a third Sun in our Solar System at one time but that Sun exploded when it reached the 'critical-mass' point when oxygen had been created. Our main argument goes like this: As the present Sun is only part-way through the atomic fusion process of converting Hydrogen to Helium then all the other elements observed must have arrived from without.

 

 

WHERE THE EARTH'S DESERTS CAME FROM

 

It has long been a great mystery of the origin of the Earth’s deserts.

There simply hasn’t been enough time for wave and wind action to create all the cubic miles of sand in existence. The answer is quite simple. Millions of years before the oceans appeared there came a lot of meteors crashing into planet Earth from the same source of the exploding sun that gave rise to the Planets.

These meteors created a lot of dust which when eventually washed by rain turned into the sand as we know it today. Look on any planetary body in our Solar System and you will see evidence of craters everywhere.

_________________

Harry Schneider

[YT2095]

sorry to upset you but the "NEW CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE THEORY" as you put it is NOT "new".

 

it`s actually very similar to what I (and some others) think happened also.

[ydoaPs]

First post and you're attempting to revolutionize science? Don't you kids say hello anymore?

[Klaynos]

Please read:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30755

 

This is not a theory...

 

So this vacuum in which the fluctuations happened, where does this come from?

What evidence would this cause now?

Does it still exists?

The BB theory implies that the spacial and time dimensions where all created at the same time as all the energy. Vacuum fluctuations come from the energy-time uncertainty, with no time how can this be?

[Edtharan]

The main nonsense being - if all the materials in the universe are flying apart because of the BIG-BANG explosion then how come they have coalesced into clumps forming planets, stars and galaxies? No - it just didn't wash!

The answer is Gravity. Gravity attracts nearby matter into clumps. well it attracts all matter, but with the expansion vs Gravity gravity will only overcome the expansion on the nearby/galaxy cluster scale. Gravity and Turbulance will do the rest (individual galaxies, stars, planets, etc).

 

This fact is the most singular embarrassment known to science!

Nope, not really. It has been explained for some time. If such a big mistake existed, then the theory would not have been accepted as it would not have been able to explain known observed phenomina (galaxies and planets).

 

Scientists generally have accepted the idea that the universe began about 15 billion years ago in a uniform energy broth that immediately began to fly apart: the so-called big bang.

Nope. It wasn't a "Broth" it was a singularity. A "Broth" will have a spatial extent at the very least. One way that the energy could have come to create the Universe is from a breakage of symetry. Namly that a 0 Dimensional point (and therefore a perfect symetry) broke down and an asymetry formed (dimensions). Symetry breaking is a known mathematical effect.

 

Many scientists simply have assumed that the universe contains exactly the right amount of matter so that its gravitational attraction is great enough to slow and eventually halt the universe's expansion, resulting in a flat universe. This balances the universe precisely between two different kinds of fates. Slightly more matter and the universe is closed. An object travelling in a straight line ultimately returns to the point where it started. Such a universe expands to a point and then reverses course and begins to contract. Slightly less matter, on the other hand, and the universe is open: It is unbounded and continues to expand forever.

No, it is not just "assumed". Observation of how light is bent over large distances and the rate of expansion give a ratio of matter to expansion that result in a flat Universe to the accuracy of our observations. However, there is enough innaccuracy in the observations that it could be a closed, expanding or flat universe.

 

The observation of luminous matter (that is the stuff we can see in telescopes or radio telescopes) is far less than what is needed to have the expansion rate we have today. This is why astronomers have proposed Dark Matter (get it: it's Dark because we can not see it, not because it is some strange exotic thing).

 

As to where everything came from, there is no conclusive opinion. One idea was that the Universe was created from vacuum. This is because according to quantum theory, the apparently quiescent vacuum is not really empty at all. For example, it is possible for an electron and a positron (a matter antimatter pair) to materialize from the vacuum, exist for a brief flash of time and then disappear into nothingness. Such vacuum fluctuations cannot be observed directly as they typically last for only about 10-21 seconds and the separation between the electron and positron is typically no longer than 10-10 cm. However, through indirect measurements, physicists are convinced that these fluctuations are real.

However, at the Big Bang there was no vacuum. There was only a singularity. For there to be a vacuum there has to be space and at the Big Bang there was no space.

 

How ever, the uncertanty principle can produce some interesting results when you get down to the Plank Length (1.6 × 10^−35 metres) and the Plank Time (the time it takes light to travel 1 plank length). At these scales cause and effect can swap around. That is something can occure before the event that causes it.

 

Let's just think about this a bit. If a effect can occure before the event that causes it, then the Universe could appear before the quantum event that cuases it. In effect the Universe can cause its self to come into existance.

 

This fits with what we know of physics.

 

But...

 

It might not have been the way it really occurred. However, the important thing is that it might have occurred this way. That there is a feasable (as far as we know) method of creating the Universe. In fact there are several possibilities and it is this that is what is ment by "We don't know how the Universe formed".

 

Science has for a long time now accepted the fact that particles can spontaneously 'Popp' into existence. They do this from the energies in what they call the 'ZERO POINT FIELD' (Don't ask what this is because it really doesn't matter at all.) Once created these 'bits' of positive matter are immediately annihilated by a cloud of smaller negative particles coming in from every direction being in total equal to the volume to the particle that 'popped' into existence originally.

Actually, "immediately annihilated by a cloud of smaller negative particles coming in from every direction" is not true. When you create a particle, either through smahing other particles (eg: gamma ray photons) or through vacuum fluctuations, they are always created as a pair, one Matter particle and the other its Antimatter equivelent.

 

As one has a Positive electrical charge and the other has a Negative electrical charge, they will then attract each other.

 

There is no "cloud" of negative particles, the single "Negative" particle is created along with the single "Positive" particle.

 

THE VERY FIRST PARTICLE THAT SPONTANEOUSLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE WAS INFINITELY SMALL.

Ok, so other than being infinitly small, what other properties did this particle have? Was it electrically charged? Did it have mass? Did it have Spin?

 

You can't just make up a particle out of the blue like that. Although it might seem that scientists seem to make up particles to fit their latests theory, they actually don't just crteate them out of the blue. There is a whole set of theories that govern what particles can actually exist and what their properties are.

 

So, if you are preposing an infinitely small particle, then you have to show how that fits into the current particle models, either that it exists within them, or show how they are wrong and that your new particle theory give you the properties of all known particles and allows for your new particle to exist too. That is a tall order, but one that has to be fullfilled if your Universe creation theory is to even be considdered.

 

BUT being infinitely small - the cloud of particles that came to annihilate the original particle had to be all the same size as the original particle.

As I have said, there doesn't exist a "Cloud" of partices that will annihilate the original. There will be a single antiparticle for each particle created.

 

Allright, I'm going to stop here. You have already demonstrated a lack of understanding of Particle production, and since your entire theory is based on this, it really means that you need to go back and have a look at your theory with the correct understanding.