Black Spring Theory

[Kaspar Orange]

Hey everybody,

as u probably gone notice, im not overly well educated in high science. Please excuse my sometimes lacky English as well.

Still, i had this idea, that just blew my mind be course it sounds so plausible to me…:

 

Dark Energy is just a made up name, for what ever makes the universe expand at an accelerating rate, so one conclusion is,

that it has to produce energy in some way (also to create the Higgs-field in the new expanded space). Here’s another way to look at this:

 

So, what if Dark Energy is in fact a phenomenon, that could also be described as an opposite Black Hole, a “Black Spring”. Black Holes are created by mashing stuff into each other until it gets so heavy that it basically punches a hole threw spacetime, or curves it to the point of infinite curvature. In my theory, a Black Spring is created by the Big Bang, one of the following expansions, or a similar event. Matter is somehow linked to spacetime, and when matter (and so the linked spacetime) gets pulled apart faster then the speed of light, spacetime gets ripped open, or infinite curved in the opposite geometry of a black hole. And this point of infinite curvature, which probably also has a event horizon in some form, instead of creating the illusion of suckage, like a Black Hole dose, seems to spit out spacetime + higgsyness.

 

A not directly coupled assumption, that could follow up the previous theory and tie things together, sounds like this: Infinite curved spacetime geometry, dose not just create the illusion of a hole, it is indeed a hole that either leads to another universe or back to our own. In both situations, the other side of this wormhole is a Black Spring. This wormhole/pipeline not just transports matter and energy, but in the process squashes everything together (like into a very tiny pipeline)/transforms it into the new created/expanded Higgs-field. Call this one “Universal Flow”.

 

Please visualize that it doesn't matter if the pipeline leads to our own universe or to another. When it leads to another point in the spacetime of our own universe, then we have to assume that the actual universe (not just the observable part) doesn't expand at all, but is a flat circle, or even a sphere and our observation of an expansion, dose indeed happen, but instead of being a universal effect, it’s actually just a very local motion of a 4 dimensional wave (4 in the spherical approach, 3 in the flat+circular; 2D/3D+Time). A wave that comes back around threw space and time, to push it self from behind.

 

In the multiversal situation we could make the circle complete, by just adding enough universes, until we have again a flat circle or a sphere. Here could the ever expanding singular universe still exist, be course it can drain energy from, and eventually give back, to other universes. The “Everwave” dose also work, if we just ad jet another dimension to the wave (pardon, 2 for the flat circle, 3 for the sphere of course. When u like spheres, we’r at 7D now).

 

Im just working this idea out, inside the principle that we cant actually loose or gain anything. Shit’s consistent .

 

Got a few questions for u guys:

 

What dose all this imply?

What doesn't ad up?

What dose ad up and to what existing theory?

And in what universe do i get a nobel price for this?^^

 

Im also open for questions.

 

Just worked about 3h to get this in form. Ty for reading .

 

Kaspar Orange

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

moved to Speculations

 

[ajb]

...that could also be described as an opposite Black Hole, a “Black Spring”.

You will need to describe a “Black Spring” properly. It should be a solution of the Einstein Field equations that can be written as XXXX in some convenient coordinates. Otherwise we have no idea what you are describing.

 

 

Black Holes are created by mashing stuff into each other until it gets so heavy that it basically punches a hole threw spacetime, or curves it to the point of infinite curvature.

This is quite a pop-sci description, but okay.

 

 

In my theory, a Black Spring is created by the Big Bang, one of the following expansions, or a similar event. Matter is somehow linked to spacetime, and when matter (and so the linked spacetime) gets pulled apart faster then the speed of light, spacetime gets ripped open, or curved in the geometry of a black hole.

Does the expansion of the Universe create black holes? I have not come across such a claim, you would have to argue this carefully (using mathematics).

 

 

And this point of infinite curvature, which probably also has a event horizon in some form, instead of creating the illusion of suckage, like a Black Hole dose, seems to spit out spacetime + higgsyness.

Yes, singularities seem to be covered by event horizons (this seems to be the case under reasonable physical assumptions). What is 'suckage' of a black hole? This sounds like you imagine black holes to be cosmic vacuum cleaners! This is not the way to think of them at all.

 

You also need to describe your other terms more carefully. It seems you are hinting at white holes, which are unstable and so not expected to be realised in our Universe.

 

 

A not directly coupled assumption, that could follow up the previous theory and tie things together, sounds like this: Infinite curved spacetime geometry, dose not just create the illusion of a hole, it is indeed a hole that either leads to another universe or back to our own. In both situations, the other side of this wormhole is a Black Spring. This wormhole/pipeline not just transports matter and energy, but in the process squashes everything together (like into a very tiny pipeline)/transforms it into the new created/expanded Higgs-field. Call this one “Universal Flow”.

Again, this 'smells' like a white hole, but with no mathematical theory here it is hard to say.

 

 

Anyway, a general comment is that you will need to formulate and analyse all this within the framework of general relativity. At this point we have no idea what a 'black spring' is nor do we know any of its properties.

[Mordred]

As Ajb mentioned it's extremely tricky to decipher your model.

 

I see one major flaw that he didn't mention.

 

The way I read your model you have a home from some multiverse supplying (whatever) to our universe. Via possibly a white hole.

 

Now here is the problem. Your model implies a point of origin. Then radiating outward as the Universe expands.

 

Unfortunately there is no center of the universe, nor is there a flow from center outward.

 

Expansion is homogeneous and isotropic.

 

To understand what this means I suggest reading the "Cosmological Principle".

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89385-cosmological-principle/page-1

 

Secondly if your continously adding energy/particles to our universe and this results in expansion. The universe would not cool down. By the ideal gas laws our universe has roughly [latex]10^{90}[/latex] particles. As the Universe expands the average density drops. This results in a temperature drops.

 

Google Ideal gas laws (Cosmology) or see some details on another post here

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92918-universe-expansion/page-2

Edited February 7, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

Your model implies a point of origin. Then radiating outward as the Universe expands.

 

Unfortunately there is no center of the universe, nor is there a flow from center outward.

My interpretation was that we have many 'black springs' distributed throughout the Universe, but the OP does say "a black spring'.

 

 

 

 

Secondly if your continously adding energy/particles to our universe and this results in expansion. The universe would not cool down. By the ideal gas laws our universe has roughly [latex]10^{90}[/latex] particles. As the Universe expands the average density drops. This results in a temperature drops.

This is a good point. I imagine that it could be possible to still balance the temperature by having the right amount of expansion. Still, this all needs calculating and seeing if some range of parameters fit. The biggest problem is that we do not really know what a 'black spring' is and how they could form in the first place..

[Kaspar Orange]

For clarification: I do not imply a center of the universe, the sphere/flat circle im talking about, dose not have a defined center, be course u cant see it as a a whole object. try to observe the whole existence im describing and u have to add more the picture to even put it in perspective. A circle without a middle? what? the center dose exist, but is not the center of the universe, nor is it existing in my model. u only c it if u try to observe even more, and when u try to observe even more, im pretty sure that thare would be again something bigger, to make a sphere out of it. a real center of everything is not implyed.

 

Imagine: Try to build a round object with squares, u either get a less detailed Aprox-Roundness(like with square lego) or u use a trick. depending of the perspective, a square can have a smaller rectangle on the bottom(the side that presumably points toward inwards the center) then on the topside and is still indistinguishable from an actual square. now u can build a sphere or any round object from them, als long as the object is big enough and as long the edge of your object has a continued line. pls remember the way we took to get to this point of specualtion; when u wanna c our universe and the multiverse im describing as spheres, then the environment u have to imagine, has 7 dimensions.

 

Quote

Yes, singularities seem to be covered by event horizons (this seems to be the case under reasonable physical assumptions). What is 'suckage' of a black hole? This sounds like you imagine black holes to be cosmic vacuum cleaners! This is not the way to think of them at all.

 

U'v also seen Gabe from spacetime . i actually called the effect "suckage" just be course gabe uses it as well. and your right, the point of the vacuum cleaner joke, is to not imagine it as one. but here is the thing: im not predicting how stuff behaves, im predicting how it might look from our perspective. and so its totaly valid to call the observed effect "suckage" instead of gravity and the opposite a "spring" instead of gravity again.

 

Let's stay in spacetime reference: the ant that cant c geodesics but still walks on one. im saying we are the ant and we make stuff up, that makes us belive that a sphere has to have a center. what im saying is, that the 3d we imagine, is in the same way unreal/simplified, that the ant is thinking of it's 2d world. even if the most accurate instruments u could build, still call the brick a square, all im saying is, that u can still walk an infinite amount of time straight on this sphere, come back to where u started and not notice any curvature. infact becouse thare was no curvatur. Btw im just notecing that u can allso walk on the inside of a sphere and it still dosnt make a difference.

 

I dont know if this was understandable from the beginning, i probably should explain this sooner, but im woking of the assumtion that what we observe is kinda real untill u zoom out. it might be a bit to philosophic here, bare with me, im calling it sience . nothing is ultimately right. newtons gravety works fine on earth so here it’s kinda reality, but when u zoom out u notice that it cant work like this. we use general relativity and say that it predicts stuff acturately on bigger scales, but still gives us an explanation for what we c with out own eyes.

 

What im saying is, that u can play the game with the expented theory for ever. thare is allways gone be a model that shows it more acurately. the same problem u have with a computersimulation of big physic models, like our solarsystem. we cant calculate how the solarssystem gone evolve acurately enugh, that the next generation of chips (32bit - 64 - 128...) can not make a model of which chip sais, that it’s more acurate the one befor. and more acurate in this case means completly different.

 

After reading all this again, i come to the conclusion, that one of my basic points just sais: everything is relative(to the observers point of view). which should be a familiar concept.

 

Even though i didnt cover all the very good point’s u both made, im exhausted from thinking around my own corner. it’s so much harder to describe stuff then to think of it. i rly have to take care not to spam stuff like(7D bois! IT’S 7D! OMG). no rly, part of all this can only make sense when u accept that u cant imagine all this graficly, your brain has never seen a 6. dimension or is used to make 6d move the c 7d. i cant do it as well, im just spliting the dimentions to make it somehow explainable. srsly the sphere of universes that dosnt has a middle… it has 6 dimensions. a sphere like we imagening it has only 3. so obviously im walking into some self layed out traps while talking about it in 3d.

 

Also; kinda to exuse my self once more: I’v never finished any kinda school. tharefor im also not able to study at a university. and english is not my native language. i litaraly came out of the 10. class and knew how to say “hello”. also im not even 25. pls be nice about my lack of algebra, math, and english. i know algebra is important when u wanna talk about all this, but it’s not easy to find someone who can and is willing to explain stuff to me. and dont say i can read it my self. i didnt finish school for a reason.

 

Ty

Kaspar

 

This is a good point. I imagine that it could be possible to still balance the temperature by having the right amount of expansion. Still, this all needs calculating and seeing if some range of parameters fit. The biggest problem is that we do not really know what a 'black spring' is and how they could form in the first place..

Secondly if your continously adding energy/particles to our universe and this results in expansion. The universe would not cool down. By the ideal gas laws our universe has roughly particles. As the Universe expands the average density drops. This results in a temperature drops.

 

 

 

Bois: no expension, at least not infinite. what we notice as expension could be localy expanding space, but i say it works more like a wave that eventually comes back around, then actual global expansion. it looks like something gets bigger be course thare is stuff flowing from multible "springs" radiate outward stuff goes threw one whole into the other. and comes out again of a hole to get into another. think of what i just said, not as a hole but as a line that goes through that hole into another hole to come eventually back around. and that line is the line on a doughnut that goes on the donuts surface from the hole in the middle to the outside of the ring, and back inside again. what u get are 2 2d circles(the line u just drew and the doughnut together make 3d). so we can draw an infinite amount of lines on that doughnut, they go in from the top and come out at he bottom to go back inside the top side of the "hole". they go circles and they go all the way around the universe, but the middle of each individual circle is never the middle of the universe/doughnut, u have to observe the hole doughnut to c that, and even then u are not able to c the middle of the doughnut, u have to add another doughnut in jet another dimension to get again 2 circles cross-ward inside of each other.

 

Btw i'v never heard the term "white hole" before, but it seems that it could be similar to my black spring. gone research that. ty for noticing the similarity's. its such a pain in the arse to decipher, what idea's of mine are already out there, just calling it self different.

 

 

I was allready done and then this.....

[Mordred]

Unfortunately much of what your describing doesn't agree with measurements. In particular expansion. From your description on the last few paragraphs your describing flows into then out of our universe.

 

The problem is if you take any number of objects measure the direction of expansion you won't find any direction. Other than further apart.

 

Say you have three points in a triangle. The distance change between those three points will be identical with no change in angle involved.

 

A flow will result in angle change.

 

Take a balloon place dots on the balloon measure the distance and angles between dots now inflate it further. Measure the distance change and angles.

 

You can find good coverage of the balloon analogy here

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

They are both low level math

[Kaspar Orange]

 

A flow will result in angle change.

 

nope. ty for explaining that very good with the triangle and the balloon, but i can sit here not even do any math and tell u that u wrong with the upper assumption. i only need to make our universe bigger (not the observed but the actual universe) and say that the waves are that big. i c absolutely no reason why a spherical expanding wave, should not produce the exact same measurement like global expansion, inside the part of the sphere that's very close to the center. u are u are right, in your expectation that the lines which come out of the the spring, will eventually go separate ways, like a sphere gets pulled apart by multible gravity sources. but not at the inner region. when there are enough sources of gravity that pull the sphere apart, but also there's a force that's pushing from the inside, remember im stating that basically the universe flows out of these springs, then the expansion near the center could look very well like a perfect expanding sphere(or triangle ). that it's a bit like with the flat universe. we cant measure any curvature, be course either our instruments are not sensitive enough or we just haven't seen enough of the universe. our measurement of the universe being flat, is no indication for it actually being flat. just be course we haven't seen so little of it jet. and we our self's can assume that, when we do the kind of very optimistic extrapolation, that produces assumptions like "the universe expands everywhere at the same rate", then we also have to be prepared to throw it away when something just sounds a little bit more convincing.

 

 

In my opinion it's actually very ant-like thinking that ANYTHING EVER is infinite. it's not. we are just to small. srsly ppl who actually state infinite amounts of anything real, like distance, space, mass, energy are thinking very ant-like i would say. better believe in Santa Claus than in infinite anything... that's the only rule that has never been proven wrong: The only constant is change. and this rule say's infinity is nothing really existing...it's more a placeholder until we have learned to open our eyes, aka think in regions that make our brain's hurt. like heaven or god. simple explanations for complicated, and very hart to grasp topics.

[Strange]

nope. ty for explaining that very good with the triangle and the balloon, but i can sit here not even do any math and tell u that u wrong with the upper assumption. .

 

If you don't show the maths there is no reason for anyone to believe you.

 

 

In my opinion it's actually very ant-like thinking that ANYTHING EVER is infinite. it's not.

 

You have no evidence for that.

 

 

and this rule say's infinity is nothing really existing...

 

What "rule"? And what evidence is there to support that rule?

[Mordred]

Sorry but your description from earlier posts entails flows. This is where your going to need the math to show otherwise.

 

You have energy entering and exitting a system. That's a flow. A flow has direction. It is not isotropic.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Mordred

[Kaspar Orange]

jep, and here we are at the point where i can't make the implications of everything is change more convincing when u don't believe in everything is change. i have seen and felt time foult and distance shrink, but i have never seen something twice the same. all the since is product of our observation. what is all that worth, when i cant even include my most fundamental observation in this since just be course i can't write it down in the 10 digets number-scale that i actually find extreme inefficient. it's no secret that we are calculating in that system not be course it's good or natural but be course we are lazy and the pro's of a new system are not that obvious to most ppl. that nothing can stay the same for ever, is a rule that i cant write down in 2 pages jet, like einstein did with "everything is relative". but even without GR i would know, and include in assumptions i make that: "everything is relative" be course like "everything is change" it's a something that is way harder to explain than it is to except. i use more lvl of since then just the part i can write down.

Still it's not just the "im saying it, so it is" statement. i just don't know jet how to make 2 pages theory paper out of it. but i will. and it wont make it anymore viable then it already is.

 

Dont get salty mate, im thankful for u taking some time to think about and discuss stuff. and i totaly respect your opinion. i have to draw back be course u expect me to give a technical answer to something that i almost cant grasp my self. Stuff like "everything is change" is a infinity in it self, how dose it work that something sais: "This, what i am, dose not exist." it's crazy. and im doing a lot of circuit rounds bevor i get this curvature right.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Kaspar Orange

Time for you to provide detail and maths as per the guidelines.

[Kaspar Orange]

You have energy entering and exiting a system. That's a flow. A flow has direction. It is not isotropic.

 

valid point. then don't call it flow. either call it isotropic-flow or just say linear expansion to a point where it leaves linear(isotropic) path's and starts to curve. the model of a isotropic sphere allows lines to come from the center of the sphere, start expanding isotropic and then reach a point of expansion where there is empty space between the lines, so the expansion is gets non-isotropic be course the lines are not forced out that strong anymore. so outside of the observed universe there is the expansion not linear isotropic anymore. an explosion of a perfect bomb within a perfect sphere of perfect powder would create a perfect isotropic expanding sphere of powder when exploding. no matter the external g force, that is applied on the exploding sphere, the force of the explosion will determine how long the expansion ignores any forces from the outside and just expands isotropic. it cant do anything else be course of quantum mechanic. one cant occupy the same space as one else. this also counts momentum in. what im saying is: a PERFECT isotropic expansion is not bound to stay isotropic. that we are still measuring it to be isotropic, is just a indication on the minimal extents this model has to have.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Kaspar Orange

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Closed for lack of reaching the minimum requirements required in speculations.

Do not reintroduce this topic. You may petition to have this thread reopened by reporting this post and providing suitable evidence of rigor (preferably the maths requested above).