My Universal Theory

sfraise

I wanted to lay out a theory of mine that I believe may play a role in not only the creation and expansion of the universe, but may also be the catalyst driving the acceleration, to see what your thoughts were on it. I don’t buy the whole “parallel universe” theory at all, I think that this is the result of a generation of chemically induced theorists. I also have issues with quantum string theory, or as I like to call it “the brutal chaotic nonsensical wacko theory”. There must be a universal order, otherwise we just simply could not exist, if particles can exist in two places at once totally at random than the universe would be nothing more than an image of a tv channel with no feed, just a bunch of little dots bouncing around and colliding with one another. Can you really imagine living in a universe like this? Why is it that the human race insists on overcomplicating things to the point of madness? And even more curious is why other people buy into these outlandish ideas!

I mentioned a theory that I had to Ron Koczor, an astrophysicist at NASA that worked heavily in the field of gravity and the possibility of “anti-gravity”, about empty space it’s self either emitting or conducting kinetic energy enabling it to actually push matter around through out the universe and perhaps even pushing in against it’s self which could possibly result in a black hole type situation with the right circumstances. This was the reply he gave:

“You are correct to suggest that space itself plays an important role in defining the state and condition of matter in the Universe. We are just beginning to understand the ramifications of the belief that even "empty" space has energy and that this energy can cause measureable effects.

The only questions are what all those effects are and how do they all manifest themselves. Also what isn't clear is whether it is the space that makes the matter move or is it the matter that warps space. And maybe that's a silly question if we consider space-time as one thing!

There are many PhDs to be awarded in answering these questions!

Ron”

The theory I have I feel fills in some of the gaps that are left in current astrophysics theories and in my opinion is a very simple explanation. I know it is believed that matter has only been created once in the history of the universe but I don’t think this is true, I know that if you take Einstein’s theory stating that matter can be turned into energy than it must also be true that at some point energy can in turn be formed back into matter. Imagine for a moment that new matter can be created out of empty space, this newly created matter would then push it’s surrounding space outward around it much like if you were to drop an ice cube into a glass of water (the glass being the universe, the water being space, and the ice cube being the new matter). This space being pushed outward would then push other matter and eventually result in the expansion of the universe it’s self. A question I have asked myself on this however is if matter is being created ever-expanding the universe then why isn’t matter also being destroyed therefore collapsing the universe? Obviously it is, energy is extracted from matter all of the time, it’s how we obtain nuclear energy, it’s just not being destroyed as often as it is being created.

The really big question in this however, is of course where and how is this new matter being created? I maybe completely off-base with this but I believe that perhaps the answer is right under our noses in the form of light. If you consider that light is the transformation of energy into particles than couldn’t you say that these particles are in a sense matter? If a black-hole’s gravity is so intense that light can’t escape it than you have to believe that light particles are a tangible physical mass, not like a chunk of rock, but perhaps the very building blocks of what make up the building blocks of what make up a chunk of rock. Of course for these light particles to form into what we would consider actual matter than it’s energy would have to be spent, leaving a “dead” remnant of the particle, which would than need to collect together with other spent particles. Given enough particles and pressure (or gravity) theoretically this would give you some form of matter. If you think back to the supposed “big bang” and consider this theory than couldn’t it possibly be that the universe started with nothing but pure, intense energy which emitted an extremely intense light which would have then collected into matter? If this is so then we must then explain where this energy stemmed from, something had to generate this energy, or maybe the answer actually lies in the opposite. In this theory I lay out the very basics of the universe as “space (or space/time)”, “energy”, and matter, we seem to have a good handle on the energy and matter, but what about the properties of space? If space can bend or warp than obviously it is dynamic, not static, it’s fluidic like water or air, yet space is timeless if thought of as space/time as one in the same. It only makes sense to use space as the beginning point for creation. Now given this idea of a fluidic dynamic space makes me wonder if there is a possibility that perhaps at some point space it’s self can collapse in on it’s self, and if this is possible than what would the ramifications be? Could collapsing space generate energy? If the collapse was violent enough could it create the enormous burst of energy needed to generate the big bang?

So to sum it up we could say that at some point space collapsed in on it’s self resulting in an enormous burst of pure energy giving off an intense light. As the light particles depleted the “dead” particles gathered, as the gathering particles grew in mass the pressure of the surrounding space or gravity grew transforming them into actual matter. This newly created matter merged with other clumps of matter giving us the building blocks of the known universe.

Doesn’t this make more sense than supposed “parallel universes” and wacky quantum string theory? Not to say that quantum theory is completely wrong, just flawed.

Now to take this one step further in theory, imagine new matter being created in two opposing points resulting in space ultimately pushing in on it’s self. Given enough force theoretically this could result in a type of black hole situation or possibly even bending space. An example of this would be like if you held a piece of paper with the top in one hand and the bottom in the other, begin pushing the two ends inward until point A (your left hand) and point B (your right hand) meet theoretically making it possible to move from point A to point B with out having to go through the middle, that is of course assuming that you wouldn’t be ripped apart down to your very atom. You couldn’t stop with just two opposing points however, you could have a triangle effect with 3 points pushing in towards a single point, an x configuration, or a three dimensional position all pushing in towards a single point. As I mentioned before this could result in a black hole type of situation at the point that it is all pushing inwards, creating a massive force of gravity. But if this could be true than perhaps you could say that gravity doesn’t pull at all, in fact it is possibly the force of space pushing. With this revelation you could then assume that when space is pushing in around a mass, the pressure (or gravity) would be more intense around a more dense object than with a more porous object that would allow the space to pass through, imagine space like water, water flows through a lava rock more easily than through a piece of granite. (Maybe not the best analogy, but the best I could think of.) Of course it is common belief that space warps around large objects such as a planet which would obviously be a by-product of this theory.

Please let me know what you think of this theory and any reasons you can give me why this could not be so.

Thanks!

Spencer

starhunter

This is a great topic! I'm glad I found this forum.

You've raised some interesting points and questions. You're theory that matter can be created as spacetime expands is part of the old Solid State Theory (though this model predated the Inflationary theory by 20 years).
I suspect the same thing, that matter and energy can emerge from the vacuum - but I can't imagine a set of rules to govern this.

I also agree that the vacuum has momentum of its own, that the anti-gravity "quintessence" factor is a function of the void itself. General Relativity states that a tensor-energy is behind the curvature of spacetime. I suspect the Higgs Field - which may be behind the property of mass exhibited by matter - is very real. I accept the Gen Relativistic view that gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and not a quantum force. And that mass warps spacetime.

Empty space is itself a source of energy - but how to describe and detect it? The vacuum must have its own tensor-inertia.

Getting back to matter being created from energy; most of the particles we detect are exotic and short-lived, not the kind that builds our atoms and molecules. Although muon jet are made of quarks and anti-quarks, which make up protons and neutrons.

What kept matter (mostly hydrogen and helium) together in the early universe were the forces (weak and electromagnetic, and of course gravity)

I do subscribe to the inflationary big bang model, and I expect string theory (even though it's bizarre) is going to help build future theories.

I'd love to read your responses....

sgtheory

Hello,
I read your theory and like my own it is hard to prove right or go against. Mine differs greatly from yours but looks in the same way to a more simple way of bringing about the big bang.
Feel free to take a look. Pass on looking at my philosophy for the meaning of life it is a bit way out, but I like it!
My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.
http://www.artbydecart.co.uk

My Universal Theory

Forum Options

Register