A Little Tiny Point - Stephen Hawking's Universe

[Profpat]

Not just a single tao but 3 pairs of opposite tao-tao: left-right, top-down, forward-backward. Taken 3-tao at a time give 8 directional invariance properties: 1. left-top-forward, 2. left-top-backward, 3. left-down-forward, 4. left-down-backward, 5. right-top-forward, 6. right-top-backward, 7. right-down-forward, 8. right-down-backward.

It seems like you are describing my proton/neutron model in my An Idea. Could it be that the beginning point was the proton?

Best,

pat

[cosvis]

Hi Neutralino and all,

If the Big Bang singularity model of the universe breaks down on the quantum level, would that not be an indication that rather the model is wrong and not the laws that govern the universe. I think scientists have to reexamine the theory that the universe is expanding or contracting.

Scientists say that the universal background radiation of the universe (UBR) is a remnant proof that the universe exploded in the past. If the universe is expanding than this UBR should be decreasing; and if the universe is contracting than this UBR should be increasing. If the UBR is neither increasing or decreasing than it is stable or static what Einstein had first believed. If the Universe is stable than the explanation of the UBR could possibly have a different significance.

For instance, if the universe is a huge Black Hole than the UBR is just the temperature or the universal potential gravitational force of the universe. If then, light traveling through this universal gravitational force, its red shift would be affected since according to Einstein, light traveling through a gravitational force is red shifted. This could explain the increasing red shift of light traveling through space, depending on the length of time it travels.

This than would be an alternate reason of the increasing red shift of light coming from galaxies that are further away. The red shift of light coming from distant galaxies would not be an indication that the galaxies are speeding away from us, or a proof that the universe is expanding, it would just indicate the length of time the light has traveled through the universe to reach us.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi Pat and all,

If all the energy of the universe is one Proton, it would be a huge big atom which would certainly not be a proton because scientists can measure the energy of the proton and it is very small compared with the total energy of the universe. I still believe the smallest particle of energy of the universe is a quantum particle and all other particles and forces in the universe are composed of quanta. This would confirm Einstein theory: E = m c^2.

Yours Cosvis.

[neutralino]

Hi Neutralino and all,

If the Big Bang singularity model of the universe breaks down on the quantum level, would that not be an indication that rather the model is wrong and not the laws that govern the universe. I think scientists have to reexamine the theory that the universe is expanding or contracting.

The theory fits well with observation on large scales, it is just as one extrapolates backwards that the model breaks down. This is what I said before: I didn't say anything about the laws that govern the universe break down.

Scientists say that the universal background radiation of the universe (UBR) is a remnant proof that the universe exploded in the past. If the universe is expanding than this UBR should be decreasing; and if the universe is contracting than this UBR should be increasing. If the UBR is neither increasing or decreasing than it is stable or static what Einstein had first believed. If the Universe is stable than the explanation of the UBR could possibly have a different significance.

The temperature of the CMB has decreased from the time that it was given off...

[Profpat]

Hi Pat and all,

If all the energy of the universe is one Proton, it would be a huge big atom which would certainly not be a proton because scientists can measure the energy of the proton and it is very small compared with the total energy of the universe. I still believe the smallest particle of energy of the universe is a quantum particle and all other particles and forces in the universe are composed of quanta. This would confirm Einstein theory: E = m c^2.

Yours Cosvis.

Hi Cosvis;

I didn't mean one proton, but protons/neutrons/electrons, ( which according to my An Idea is all the same particle ), were all created within that first fraction of a second, before visible light. It also appears there is no halflife for the proton and therefore may be eternal. Maybe the proton is the original substance which was compacted. While the proton is a composite particle, you don't see free quarks, only bound quarks.

Best,

Pat

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

As I see it, Neutralino, if the model of the universe breaks down on the quantum level and if the laws that govern the universe are correct, as we know them, then the model would have to be adjusted to account for the breakdown. I think that it is still a problem scientists have not yet fully clarified, the unification of the quantum and relativity theories.

At the beginning of the universe, Pat, I think there existed the finite quantity of energy from which evolved the universe as we have inherited. This finite quantity of energy was govern by the universal laws according to which the evolutionary process is operating even now. The basic forces at the beginning of the universe were the kinematical and gravitational forces. I also tend to believe that all the energy of universe at the beginning, was in the form of a black hole because according to Newton, all part of the universe are connected by gravity; no energy can escape a true black hole.

Yours Cosvis.

[Profpat]

Hi Cosvis;

" I also tend to believe that all the energy of universe at the beginning, was in the form of a black hole because according to Newton, all part of the universe are connected by gravity; no energy can escape a true black hole. "

So do you think we are still living in a black hole?

Best,

Pat

[AntonioLao]

Empirically, the detection of quantum vacuum fluctuations should indicate that we live in an electromagnetic Klein-
Möbius bottle.

[cosvis]

Hi Pat, AntonioLao and all,

Yes Pat, I do believe that the universe as a whole, is still a black hole and always will be because no energy can escape it and all energy are related by gravity. From this presumption, I also believe that the universe will exist for ever more. The evolutionary process that is universally operating in the universe will never end. Old worlds and galaxies will disappear but new ones are continually being formed.

AntonioLao, I believe that Hawking's idea of quantum fluctuation, or Hawking's radiation could be the answer for the process that energy is continually turned into possitive and negative matter, matter and anti-matter. The most likely place would be at the event horizon of a black hole where the temperature is the hottest. If the universe is a black-hole than most of matter and anti-matter would be formed at the outer edges of the universe. The fact that we can mainly observe matter in the universe, could mean that the outer layer of the universe is mainly anti-matter.

Yours Cosvis.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I wonder if Hawking radiation really causes the evaporation of a black hole. It seems that black holes within a galaxy actually spawned the galaxy in which they reside(latest Scientific American), the egg coming before the chicken.

Furthermore (from jackaxama's book— see 'Dymanic Matter' thread), it could be that the energy for the production of the virtual pairs comes from the space just outside of the black hole; plus, it could very well be that what happens in a black hole stays in there, like the Las Vegas saying, so energy within the black hole couldn't be producing the virtual pairs.