Astrophysics and Stuff like that.

[csintexas]

I have always found this to be an interesting subject. Here are some of my ideas on the matter:




Work in Progress:
On The Nature of the Universe
(a simple explanation)
A theory by: Chris Stewart

Preface:
This theory is based on the premise that the simplest explanation will be correct. It is a theory concerning the broad mechanics of the universe and not the detailed interaction of particles, although I do discuss the nature of matter some. I start with as few rules as possible. These rules can be directly observed -Gravity and Energy. We have a pretty good understanding of these two forces. Admittedly my understanding of Gravity and Energy are based on common knowledge and may not include all provable properties of these forces.I also use deductive reasoning. I hope this at least proves to be entertaining.


In the beginning there was energy.
We know this to be true because we are in motion and can therefor logically deduce that the universe has been and will be in motion for eternity.

The proof is that an object in motion stays in motion:
Consider a ball traveling through empty space. Once set in motion there is nothing to counteract that motion and so the ball will continue traveling at the exact same speed and direction for infinity. Now consider all the matter which makes the physical universe as that ball (our observable universe) suspended in empty space. We can directly observe that our universe is in motion. From this we can also logically conclude that at no time could that ball be still. Since conversely an object at rest tends to stay at rest.

Space is completely empty, it has no boundary, we call it the universe.
Space has no boundary because a boundary would require something on the other side of it. If that where the case than what we call space would only be a pocket within some larger space. Would that space also have a boundary? We can deduce from this reasoning that space is space and has no boundary. Space is infinite. We could define space to mean "does not exist"

Within space matter (energy) exists, we also call this the universe.
There can be only one type of matter. The proof is in another logic exercise. Imagine you have two types of matter. We'll call one red matter and one green matter. What causes the red matter to be red and the green matter to be green? If they where fundamentally different that would imply that what we are looking at is made up of even smaller particles. Imagine the simplest structure you can think of. I think of a ball made of one unit of matter. What are the possible characteristics of this ball? Look closely what is the ball actually doing? There are only a few things such a simple structure can do. A ball can spin and have a rate of spin, move in a direction and speed, it could have a magnetic poll, a size, etc.. All matter is most likely formed from one material (for lack of a better word). Since we can't see matter directly we have to look for it's interaction with other particles of matter. What we perceive as different particles is actually these balls doing different things and thus interacting with other different particles in different ways. Any experiment which is trying to isolate one type of matter is actually observing a uniform grouping of these balls of matter which are all (for example) spinning at the same rate.

I like the idea of the ball because we can observe that nature likes the circular form. Gravity in a vacuum seems to cause this. Essentially any object or group of objects wants to be in as close to the center of gravity as possible and only energy prevents it from doing so. As I continue to imagine this tiny ball I still have trouble imagining it as being either a solid or a shell both of these characteristics imply a dimension and the problem with dimensions is that they can always be smaller and never reach zero and they still imply being made of smaller particles. What would keep a ball from being smaller? Probably the actually size is determined by the local density. If this particle is in an energy well (black hole) it would be much smaller than it would be here on earth. So the size of this ball varies by the amount of available energy. It could be matter as we know it is simply gravity and energy working together. The ball has no real material it is simply a point in space defined by gravity and energy. If there was no energy in the universe matter would cease to exist. So matter is basically energy. Maybe my next paper will have to be on the nature of matter.

We are made of energy and everything we can sense is made of energy.

We don't know why this energy exists.

Matter has two basic properties:
1. gravity (attraction)
2. energy (energy has several properties including repulsion)

Energy and gravity are characteristics of matter and can not exist without it.

Matter = Energy + Gravity
Energy and gravity are the two basic forces of nature.

Space and matter(energy) coexist and together we also call them the universe.

The universe = emptiness + energy(matter)


While the universe appears to be roughly uniform in all direction there is considerable visual evidence of structure.

If we observe the universe we can see large structures on the scale of our solar system, our galaxy, small galactic clusters and other even larger but loser groupings.

Gravity creates order.

There appears to be matter which we can't account for which give us discrepancies in calculations on very large scales. (like the size of the universe)

Heat = Energy
If there was no energy in the universe the temperature would be absolute zero.

Energy = Movement
If the universe was not moving it would be absolute zero.

Conservation of Energy:
The total energy in a system never changes. Once created energy always transitions from usable to non-usable form unless acted on by another force. This is called usable energy and potential energy and the process of change is called entropy.

The universe is an isolated or closed system (meaning there is nothing outside the universe), and the earth is an open system.

Energy is an isolated system in itself.
Roughly speaking, the second law of thermodynamics says that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time, and consequently less concentrated energy is available to do useful work. This is called entropy.

Gravity is also an isolated system in itself.
The 1st law of gravity states that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an opposite force. If more than one object exists these multiple objects attract each other according to their mass and distance from one another. This attractive force never reaches zero so that no matter what distance separates two objects they always attract each other. Some point between these two objects is called the center of gravity.

Gravity and Energy coexist in the universe and are the basic forces of nature. Neither can break the others law.

Light can only have a speed limit for one or two reasons:
1. light is traveling through a medium which restricts it's speed
2. there is not enough energy available to accelerate it to a greater velocity

This seems to suggest dark matter (matter we can not see) does exist and that the available energy is directly related to the total energy contained within the universe. That total energy was released during the initial formation of the universe.

Since then the universe has been expending that energy.

Energy can counter act gravity.
(This is what keeps satellites in orbit.)

At some point objects which dissipate energy can no longer counter act gravity.
(this is what makes satellites fall)


The total energy of the universe never changes.

Temperature = Available Energy.

As the physical universe expands it cools.
Energy becomes trapped in localized massive energy sinks also called black holes. They are black because no visible energy escapes them. Multiple energy sinks can not achieve infinite density because this puts the center of gravity outside of any black hole. Some energy may also become evenly distributed throughout the physical universe.

Gravity and energy are opposing forces and can also be considered to be in harmony.

Once the expanding universe expends enough energy, energy is equal to gravity but gravity has to win.

We observe that the universe is expanding.



So the universe expands and contracts:
At some point in time the universe is very dense and hot. Matter is collapsing in on itself and becoming more and more chaotic and building up more and more usable energy. The universe reaches a state of minimum equilibrium. When enough energy is created to over come gravity the universe begins an expansion phase.

At first everything is still very hot and chaotic but gradually gravity cools it down and creates order. Because the universe never shrinks to a uniform consistency before beginning the expansion phase the resulting consistency of the expanding universe is not uniform. This causes small variations in density in which stars, solar systems, galaxies and other structures begin to form. While observable order continues to build throughout the entire expansion phase, entropy causes the total available usable energy to be converted to potential energy. The cores of galaxies begin to form massive energy sinks.

Eventually the universe reaches a state of greatest equilibrium. There is a high amount of observable order. Matter attracts matter and is frozen in massive gravity wells each made from many galaxies. The universe can no longer expand because there is not enough available energy and so it begins to contract. These massive black holes begin to speed up and interact with each other as they fall towards the center of the universe. Total observable chaos increases and potential energy is converted back into usable energy.

At some point enough energy is converted back to usable energy to overcome gravity and the cycle is repeated.




Musings on related ideas:

On Life:
Although God has not been proven, there is also nothing here that proves God does not exist. God could be a natural consequence of the universe. It is amazing that life exists. Since we know we exist we can assume life is a consequence of the physical universe in at least some portion of cycles. I think it would be fair to assume every cycle.

It could be that God forms first and in turn creates us or that God is energy.

We all have our own speculations about the nature of God. And yet hear we are all traveling through space on this little blue green ball.

We don't know much really. This is all speculation but it makes since to me and believe I have used sound logic.
We don't know at the moment how long these cycles take. We estimate billions upon billions of years. If we can accurately determine the mass of the universe we should be able to determine the length of the cycle since time = motion + mass.

It could be said this theory still does not account for the initial creation of existence. In other words, why does anything exist at all? Wouldn't it be much simpler if nothing ever existed? I have thought about it and still can not account for that initial miracle. I have to assume that matter and energy are the most basic properties of the universe.





Could the universe have erupted from a point in space or time?
Energy can never be created or destroyed. Anything which could originate the universe would have to have that energy contained within some form and also be in motion. Therefor any form of pre-universe contained the energy that we currently observe. Energy requires movement, movement requires space so it does not seem likely that all the energy in the universe could have ever been contained within one point.


What about the missing matter problem?
I have heard that some portion of the energy of the universe is not accounted for. This is because this matter is needed to account for the observed motion of the universe versus observed amount of matter. According to some estimates there seems to be as much as 400% more matter than we can detect. This is known as dark matter or dark energy. We have not made any observation of this energy therefore we have to assume it is near zero degrees. This is because we can only detect particles through their energy signature. Most likely our instruments are not sensitive enough to detect it. We need to study this problem more and come to a consensus on it's nature and accuracy before this can be resolved.


Could there be more than one universe?
Space is endless. We can imagine that there could be another conglomeration of existence at a distance so far away that we can not visually observe it. If we had sensitive enough measuring devices we would be able to detect the the universal center of gravity. If this point falls outside of our known universe than we would know that more than one exists. I have to conclude that this is a possibility unless it has already been proven false.


The Big Bang
Usually this theory begins with all matter being contained in a ball of variable size. This is a problem for me because I find it hard to believe a group of matter can be stable for eternity and then at the next moment explode.


What about the universe expanding faster now than in the past?
We have no proof that this is true. When we look at distant objects which are further in time we observe them to be moving slower than closer objects which are likewise closer in time. There are so many unknowns as to how light behaves over great distances that we don't know exactly if what we see now is an accurate picture of what actually happened. Think of it something like the original mirror on the Hubble telescope. It had to be corrected before we got a clear view.

In this theory energy becomes evenly distributed and so is no longer available to work. If this is true is there anything which could stop the matter in the universe from expanding at an ever increasing rate? In this model matter would continue to fly apart for eternity eventually reaching or exceeding the speed of light. In order for this to happen some force would need to be in opposition and superior to our local gravity. If space was in fact not empty but composed of evenly distributed energy at close to zero degrees existence would then be like a wave traveling endlessly through time and space. If this is so what broke the plane of space to cause that ripple? I have trouble with this because it depends on a random event happening in an otherwise uniform universe. Another possibility is if other universes exist they could counteract local gravity. Again we need to solve the gravity problem.


Can space be made of the Ether?
This theory basically says that space is made of a uniform matrix of matter. This could account for a speed limit of light if light is just a wave. If this ether caused friction it would slow the expansion of our observable universe. I can't see any obvious reason to discount this possibility.


Is it possible for the universe to end in a big chill?
Energy can never be lost therefor I have to conclude that this is not a possibility.

[djswan]

I'll check this out with you, time allowing.

Gravity is not the end all. There are three other forces at work too, that need to be put into the math. Strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic.

Little bits at a time.

[csintexas]

Yes after you mentioned that I started to consider that at some point we need to account for why the little bits of energy don't form into one energetic ball.

I can't see any need to use these forces to explain astrophysics though. Is there a major gap in my accounting?

I guess we need to write a paper on particle physics also.

[csintexas]

One of my main premises is my ideas on motion.
Here are three paragraphs that deal with this concept:

[djswan]

Make a 2d universe. It will help so will this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

[djswan]

Define your forces that will work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_forces

[csintexas]

You first link lead me to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

which is actually a better description of my theory

I'm still having trouble pinning down the flatness problem and critical density

[djswan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xJzAYYrX8

This link will take you to the answers.

[csintexas]

Yes indeed, that did it for me.

[csintexas]

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/ChristinaCheng.shtml

How old is the universe? What is its future? Much of the work in physics and astrophysics today focuses on these two fundamental questions. However, to answer them, it is necessary to know the density of the universe, also known as "omega" (Ω). The density of the universe means the amount of matter there is per unit volume, averaged for the entire universe. One way to find the average density would be to add up all the matter in the universe and then divide by the number of cubic meters in the universe. However, this process is difficult to accomplish.

Another way to try to find the density would be to study the way the universe is working. Such as, how fast its expanding, whether the expansion is speeding up or slowing down, what forces are involved, and how the contents of the universe have evolved over time. Although this sounds complicated, theorists have formulated an equation for omega. This equation is …

Ω = 2q0 = (2/3Λ)(c2/H2)

where …

Ω = density
q0 = Deceleration Parameter
Λ = Cosmological Constant
c = speed of light
H = Hubble Constant

Although we know the formula for omega, we are unable to determine the density of the universe. Solving the equation for omega requires knowing four numbers, three of which are currently not known with certainty. The only number that is known is the velocity of light. No one yet knows the value for the deceleration parameter or the cosmological constant and there are still disagreements over the Hubble constant. The deceleration parameter measures the rate at which the expansion is slowing down due to the gravitational attraction among all the clusters of galaxies. The Hubble constant denotes the rate at which the universe is expanding.

The density of the universe affects the future of the universe. If omega turns out to be more than one (meaning that there is more than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter) the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract forming a "closed"universe; that is, a universe with finite volume and mass. If omega is less than one (meaning that there is less than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter) the universe will expand forever and will eventually thin out forming an "open"universe. According to Einstein's theory, an "open" universe has a infinite volume and an infinite number of hydrogen atoms. However, if omega equals one, the universe is at the "critical density."The critical density is found to be

3H2/8πG = 5 × 10-30 grams cm-3 (3 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter)

where G is the universal gravitational constant. When the universe is at the critical density, it means that the universe will expand at precisely the right rate to avoid recollapse thus forming a "flat universe."Since the exact density of the universe is not known yet, different sources gave different results. An approximate density of the universe would be about equal to the critical density 5 × 10-30 g/cm3.

Christina Cheng -- 2000

[csintexas]

I have to conclude that there is no agreement as to the density of the observable universe.

Although there seems to be general agreement that it is very low. Less than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter just sounds incredible to me.

[csintexas]

I have to conclude that there is no agreement as to the density of the observable universe.

Although there seems to be general agreement that it is very low. Less than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter just sounds incredible to me.

Since this value can not be resolved at this time we need to use other means for determining whether or not the observable universe is open, closed or flat.

[csintexas]

The more I think about this, low density does not seem possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Light is most generally considered to be a wave and a wave requires a medium to travel through. This means that the entire physical universe would need to have some sort of particle structure.

If it where possible to travel further out than the light created in the original moment of expansion you would not be able to see anything because the physical universe would not have expanded to that point yet.

This means space would need to have a much greater density of particles (although not of mass I suppose)

I find it interesting how advanced other cultures theories about light where BC.

[csintexas]

What else can we say about density?

Since no energy has been created since the start, as the universe expands density decreases.

At some point it will be 1 and then less that 1 unless some mechanism prohibits that.

Energy flows from hot to cold

But the universe can never reach absolute zero

[csintexas]

Here is one of the better explanations of modern cosmology I have read (although it is out of date)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010097317_2001158627.pdf