A plasma universe vs Big Bang theory.

[ibjamming]

i can't get myself up for videos, so went looking for a quicker summary
the wiki on the plasma universe is pretty good, quick read
the thrust of the argument was equal amounts of matter/antimatter are present in the universe(which has always existed by the theory)
there are pockets of matter and of anti matter, so if you traveled far enough you'd eventually run into a antimatter pocket
this was the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

So you think there is TRUE VACUUM separating them? Not ONE atom. Otherwise we'd see the edge as a huge continuous explosion surrounding it...because each atom of anti-matter would destroy every atom of matter it encountered. The only thing that would prevent that would be a perfect vacuum. Space isn't a perfect vacuum...not be a long shot. I don't buy it.

Just my thought...

 

[sac beh]

http://www.physorg.com/news204957530.html

Since December, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been smashing particles together at record-setting energy levels. Physicists hope that those high-energy collisions could replicate the conditions seen immediately after the Big Bang, shedding light on how our universe came to be. Now, data from collisions that took place in July suggests that the LHC may have have taken a step toward that goal.

The finding, which has been submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics, comes from proton-proton collisions that occurred in the LHC in July, each of which produced 100 or more charged particles. One of the two large, general-purpose detectors at LHC, the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment, measured the path that each of these particles took after the collision.

The CMS physicists observed a surprising new phenomenon in some pairs of those particles: They appeared to be associated together at the point of collision. That is, when some pairs of particles fly away from each other after the collision, their respective directions appear to be correlated. Such correlations between particles that move away from each other at near the speed of light had not been seen before in collisions of protons.

“As soon as the measurement came out — first within the experiment and then presented publicly — there was a lot of debate about the possible explanation,” says Gunther Roland, a physicist in the MIT heavy-ion group who was one of the leaders of the analysis of the data along with MIT postdoctoral associate Wei Li.
Some of the proposed explanations are based on subtle effects in the scattering of the quarks that make up the colliding protons, which may not be described by current models of these interactions. Others assume that the effect is the result of the high density of particles in the early stages of the collision, says Roland, an associate professor of physics at MIT.

At the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory, physicists have observed similar phenomena following collisions of heavier particles such as copper and gold ions. One explanation for the observation at Brookhaven is that the quarks and gluons were forced together at such high densities that they were freed, becoming quark-gluon plasma — the hot soup of elementary particles that existed for a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang and that subsequently cooled and formed protons and neutrons, the building blocks of matter.

In the upcoming months, physicists plan to increase the intensity of LHC proton beams, providing at least 100 times more data that can be used to further study this phenomenon. They also plan to run beams of heavier ions, such as lead. Based on these studies, it will be possible to eliminate many of the proposed explanations and to study if the effects in proton-proton and heavy ion collisions are related.

This reminded me of m-theory's explanation of the distribution of matter after the big bang in the manner of membrane collisions.

 

[igrowone]

So you think there is TRUE VACUUM separating them? Not ONE atom. Otherwise we'd see the edge as a huge continuous explosion surrounding it...because each atom of anti-matter would destroy every atom of matter it encountered. The only thing that would prevent that would be a perfect vacuum. Space isn't a perfect vacuum...not be a long shot. I don't buy it.

Just my thought...

wasn't really being a proponent for the plasma universe, just kind of giving a quick view of what i read
the plasma idea is the universe is infinite, there was a mix of matter/antimatter, but it wasn't homogeneous
so pockets had more matter than antimatter, and other pockets had more antimatter than matter
by this theory, the universe we see is a small pocket of the larger universe
the reason is there is little antimatter in our universe is that it was consumed by collisions with matter
this was the way the theory explains the background microwave radiation, it was formed from the matter/antimatter explosions long ago
now this seems to be a discredited theory, there was a bit of an anomaly in the microwave background, but it has been accounted for with a better microwave map of the universe we see

 

[ibjamming]

wasn't really being a proponent for the plasma universe, just kind of giving a quick view of what i read
the plasma idea is the universe is infinite, there was a mix of matter/antimatter, but it wasn't homogeneous
so pockets had more matter than antimatter, and other pockets had more antimatter than matter
by this theory, the universe we see is a small pocket of the larger universe
the reason is there is little antimatter in our universe is that it was consumed by collisions with matter
this was the way the theory explains the background microwave radiation, it was formed from the matter/antimatter explosions long ago
now this seems to be a discredited theory, there was a bit of an anomaly in the microwave background, but it has been accounted for with a better microwave map of the universe we see

Maybe THAT is what a quasar is? They're supposedly the brightest, most massive glowing objects we know of...is my memory correct? Quasars are still realy far away and really bright? Like millions of galaxies bright? Why couldn't that be the boundary between anti and regular matter...obliterating each other at a tremendous rate. Remember, the efficiency is 100% not the shabby single digits in a star.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[igrowone]

i don't know if the plasma universe has been used to try describe a quasar
pretty wild stuff, what a crazy place we live in
from what i read, a quasar is currently thought to be a massive black hole(REALLY massive) at the center of certain galaxies
the massive energy may come from material(the surrounding galaxy i guess) being sucked down the black hole

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

A quasi-stellar radio source ("quasar") is a very energetic and distant galaxy with an active galactic nucleus. They are the most luminous objects in the universe. Quasars were first identified as being high redshift sources of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light, that were point-like, similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies.

While there was initially some controversy over the nature of these objects—as recently as the early 1980s, there was no clear consensus as to their nature—there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding its central super massive black hole. Its size is 10–10,000 times the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole. The quasar is powered by an accretion disc around the black hole.

Also of interest:

A desktop black hole created in a lab in Italy has been shown to emit light, a discovery that could seal one of the biggest holes in theoretical physics and pave the way for physicist Stephen Hawking to win a Nobel Prize.

The eerie glow is called Hawking radiation, and physicists have been hunting it for decades. Hawking calculated in 1974 that, rather than gobbling up everything in their path and giving nothing back, black holes can radiate like the heating element in a toaster.

But astrophysical black holes, the ultradense gobs of mass that lurk at the centers of galaxies and are left behind when stars collapse, radiate too dimly to be seen. So instead of looking at real black holes, a group of physicists led by laser physicist Daniele Faccio of Heriot-Watt University in Scotland, created a miniature analog by shooting short pulses of intense laser light into a chip of glass. The results will appear in Physical Review Letters.

“This is an extremely important paper,” said physicist Ulf Leonhardt of the University of St Andrews in Scotland, who built an artificial black hole in a phone line in 2008. “The experiment confirms that Hawking radiation can exist in principle.”


The basic idea behind Hawking radiation is that the quantum vacuum is not actually empty. Instead, it is a roiling mess of virtual particles and anti-particles that constantly pop into existence and eliminate each other when they meet. If one member of the particle–anti-particle pair is created on the wrong side of an event horizon — the edge of a black hole beyond which not even light can escape — the particles can never meet to destroy each other. An observer outside the black hole would see a perpetual stream of real particles.

But until now, no one had seen any evidence of these particles. Radiation from a black hole the mass of our sun would be 10 million times colder than the cosmic microwave background radiation, the ambient temperature of the universe left over from the Big Bang, which itself is only a few degrees warmer than absolute zero. Larger black holes would be colder still.

Luckily, conceptual counterparts to black holes and their event horizons are not hard to come by. Two physicists in the 1980s independently suggested this thought experiment: Picture a black hole as a river that flows faster and faster as it approaches a waterfall. Fleet-finned fish headed upstream can escape the falls, but at a certain point the water flows faster than the fish can swim. Any hapless fish caught behind that point are doomed to flop backwards over the falls. Replacing fish with light and the river with gravity yields a good simulation of a black hole.

Replace the fish with any other wave and the river with any fluid moving faster than that wave, and the likeness goes deeper. Physicists have found that the math describing light moving in the warped space-time geometry around a black hole is exactly the same as the math describing waves flowing through moving fluids. The analogy works for white holes, theoretical objects where nothing can get in rather than out, as well. And mathematically, Hawking radiation doesn’t need gravity or curved space-time at all. It just needs an event horizon.

In the new study, Faccio and colleagues created an event horizon with two quick pulses of laser light inside a piece of glass.

“Your piece of glass, which is equivalent to the river, you can’t think of making this travel at velocities that are faster than the speed of light,” Faccio said. “But you can create a perturbation inside it.”

Light always moves through a vacuum at the same speed, but it gets slowed down by a factor called the refractive index in a medium like water or glass. A pulse of laser light traveling through the glass can change the refractive index, slowing light down even further.

The physicists sent two pulses of infrared laser light into a small rod of silica glass. The first pulse warped the glass, and the second pulse bumped up against this warp, eventually slowing to a standstill. This is exactly what happens to light trying to enter a white hole, Leonhardt says.

A light detector perpendicular to the laser beam picked up one extra photon for every 100 laser pulses on average, Faccio said. The light was extremely dim, invisible to human eyes, but it was there.

“It was pretty amazing,” Faccio said. “My first reaction was, it has to be something else, it can’t be so easy.”

To make sure the photons weren’t coming from somewhere else — particularly the fluorescent glow of the glass itself — Faccio and colleagues changed the velocity at which the warp moved through the glass. Theory predicted that changing the warp velocity should alter the wavelength, and therefore the color, of the extra photons.

“We changed the velocity and saw that the color was changing, and then we changed it again and saw it was still changing, and the original colors disappeared and it had shifted to this new wavelength,” Faccio said. “There’s no other physical mechanism out there that can give the same effect. Hawking radiation is the only physical model known which can give rise to something like this.”

Understanding Hawking radiation could help physicists toward a unified theory of physics that works on the scales of stars and galaxies, which are described by Einstein’s general relativity, and on the scales of electrons and quarks, described by quantum mechanics.

“These laboratory analogs are important, because they literally shed light on a mysterious phenomenon that seems to connect three areas of physics: gravity, quantum physics and thermodynamics,” Leonhardt said. “They show first of all that Hawking radiation is not a mere theoretical dream, but something real.”

“While this measurement can’t actually tell you anything about quantum gravity,” Faccio said, “it does tell you that some of the simple approaches in this direction do work, and they do give you correct predictions. This means that if you develop a quantum theory of gravity, you have something to test this theory on.”

There are a few problems with this particular model black hole, Faccio points out. The biggest is that physicists can see only one photon of the pair supposedly created at the event horizon. That means there’s no way to tell whether the two photons are quantum-entangled, a key feature of Hawking radiation. Leonhardt and his colleagues are working on making a radiating black hole in an optical fiber that would show whether or not the photons are entangled.

Physicist Dentcho Genov of Louisiana Tech University, who also makes lab-bench–scale black holes using a class of materials called metamaterials, points out that this is only an indirect proof of Hawking radiation. A direct proof would have to come from observing a tiny black hole radiating away in space.

“To have a direct proof is very difficult. I don’t know if in my lifetime or in my kids’ or grandkids’ lifetime that’s going to happen,” Genov said. “The actual full-scale experimental validation of Hawking radiation is still far away in the future. But this one I think is sufficient.”



Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/hawking-radiation-in-the-lab/#ixzz10xO6WnGi

 

[ibjamming]

Also of interest:

Thank you...I had forgotten the "point source" part...

I didn't know about a "desktop black hole"...interesting.

I did know about Hawking radiation though. And all that "strange" shit that goes on...that's what makes me SURE in my own mind...that it all goes farther...to incredibly small...like quarks being made of smaller things to the possibility that there is a "structure" to the universe. Like atoms arrange to form a structure.

It's the VASTNESS as you move from one to the other that leads me to link them. An atom is 99.999% empty...the solar system is 99.999% empty...the galaxy is 99.999% empty...yet they EACH "make something" Atoms make "objects", solar systems makes a galaxy, maybe galaxies form some vastly large "object" if you could zoom away far enough. You've seen the "map of the universe"...it's a bunch of lines and globe, all strung together...it actually reminded me of brain cells connected together. Neurons connected by axioms (sp?)...

Just stoned thinking...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

that's what makes me SURE in my own mind...that it all goes farther...to incredibly small...like quarks being made of smaller things to the possibility that there is a "structure" to the universe. Like atoms arrange to form a structure.

sounds awfully a lot like m-theory.

 

[igrowone]

yeah, m-theory is the big boy in the new physic's theories, been reading about for a little while
string theory is part of m-theory, i guess there is a certain simplicity with that

 

[grapeman]

there are some weaknesses in the standard model, no doubt.

m-theory still seems to me to have the best shot at explaining all the whys.

We'll know more if that darn higgs boson ever shows up at cern... at least evidence of it anyhow.

 

[Throwgar]

...some galaxies were getting closer together was evidence against the expanding universe and against the big bang...

Actually, all galaxies are moving AWAY from each other, which is the main supporting piece of evidence for the big bang.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Actually, all galaxies are moving AWAY from each other, which is the main supporting piece of evidence for the big bang.

actually, bullshit. galaxies collide. That could not happen if they were all moving apart.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/colliding-galaxies/


These two spiral galaxies have been colliding for over 100 million years. The intergalactic battle has spurred the creation of millions of new stars, the most massive of which have already exploded into supernovae.

 

[ibjamming]

actually, bullshit. galaxies collide. That could not happen if they were all moving apart.


These two spiral galaxies have been colliding for over 100 million years. The intergalactic battle has spurred the creation of millions of new stars, the most massive of which have already exploded into supernovae.

You beat me to it...but I wouldn't have added the nice pictures...

I wonder...what would cause that...turbulence? IF it was a big bang, you'd expect it to fly away pretty much evenly...unless there is turbulence, causing "eddies" where locally galaxies ARE moving together, swirling about, colliding... Just a thought.

And maybe there WAS already an "empty" space already there before the big bang. Otherwise I wouldn't expect turbulence. How could there be? A singularity, a point expending into "nothing" would be a perfect sphere...correct? Don't you need a medium already in place for any kind of a turbulence to occur?

 

[grapeman]

A singularity, a point expending into "nothing" would be a perfect sphere...correct? Don't you need a medium already in place for any kind of a turbulence to occur?

Higgs fields, anti matter vs. matter and time differences in matter cooling slightly before or after (billionths of billionths of a second) created" wrinkles in expanding space causing a slight clumping of matter. Space is likely flat.

Read " The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. A well written book on the subject that a layman can almost understand.

 

[igrowone]

^^^ like mentioned, there seems to have been small amount of asymmetry in the big 'pop'
from what i recall, there has been some recent experimental evidence that may explain why there was more matter than antimatter formed in the beginning
if the bang had been perfect symmetrical, probably the resulting universe would have been a sterile place, or at least very different

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

^^^ like mentioned, there seems to have been small amount of asymmetry in the big 'pop'
from what i recall, there has been some recent experimental evidence that may explain why there was more matter than antimatter formed in the beginning
if the bang had been perfect symmetrical, probably the resulting universe would have been a sterile place, or at least very different

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=muons-mesons

 

[ibjamming]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=muons-mesons

I especially liked the first comment...

jtdwyer 11:56 AM 5/20/10

Or, could it be that the only known distinguishing characteristic of matter and antimatter, electrical charge, is determined by the orientation of the property of spin in relation to a particle's emission?

Could it be that the initiating universal energy was spinning in one direction rather than another?

Nah, if it were that simple the expert particle physicists would have figured it out long ago...

Which means there must have been something there for the "point" to be spinning in. "Space" was already there? A point doesn't spin on it's own. Something started it spinning.

Of course...that's IF that's what happened.

I try to keep an open mind...

 

[igrowone]

I especially liked the first comment...



Which means there must have been something there for the "point" to be spinning in. "Space" was already there? A point doesn't spin on it's own. Something started it spinning.

Of course...that's IF that's what happened.

I try to keep an open mind...

this is where we enter mind warp mode
you're chaining down to the singularity conditions that preceded the big bang, if there was a before because time didn't exist(yet)
this is where current physics breaks down, which gives me a bit of a headache

 

[sac beh]

Did you guys check out this series from the BBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yEu-b_YD0

It focuses on this exact issue of the singularity and how we can imagine the pre-big bang situation, which m-theory tries to solve. I find it a great introduction to the concepts.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

To me it is incomprehensible that the universe exploded into existence from nothing and that this happened so recently. If the Earth is 3.5 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old (or 80 billion or whatever they are saying now) then we would seem to be in quite a young universe. I think of planets as being kind of a flash in the pan in the universal scheme of things. What do I know though?