Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics & Consciousness Message Board › Singulosynthesis --- Please destroy this idea so I can sleep again...
Singulosynthesis: Is my framework for a theoretical process by which binary gravitational singularities progressively distort each other under tidal forces. Once sufficient symmetry loss is achieved (based on the mass), the singularity fails and the contents are ejected. While on the way out, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy of the event horizon. This process continues until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of stellar nucleosynthesis, it synthesizes the lighter elements of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe restores entropy to itself. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are only at home together with each other in a gravitational singularity.
What the hell would give a guy such an idea? Well... if everything you see or read leads to a damn contradiction or paradox... be original....
1. Too many things do not add up when you stand back and look at them.... The first amendment allows me to right to make theories about theoretical objects.... it is a win win for me... if I'm dead wrong I get sleep. If I am right... please don't do me like Hoyle, Gamov, or Hubble. I have no reputation to loose so what the hell... at worst I tried to think out of the box and might encourage someone else to....
2. What would cause a singularity with the mass of the universe to simply fail on its own and create what we see the way we see it? Whatever boat you choose everything gains its identity leaving an gravitational singularity and surrenders it upon return.
3. Why are there so many gravitational singularities in the universe? The only known object capable of producing "big bang" densities/temperatures and the potential to create "big bang" elements, yet they seem fairly stable with some exceptions....
3. How can the entropy in the event horizon of two gravitation singularities merge before the singularities themselves do, when they are at best in a state of quasi equilibrium but never identical? Information must be conserved. We "think" singularities must be able to merge at the final stage of a galaxy merger, but by their nature can they?
4. Space time is smooth but the cosmic microwave background radiation (as it is known today) and matter distributions are not homogeneous enough to explain a big bang scenario where what we see could have been created the way we see it.
5. Why do quasars, active galactic nuclei, or what I like to call active singulosynthesis events appear to be larger when the universe was younger? Why were the gravitational singularities so much larger in the young universe than they are now?
6. Could what we perceive as "big bang" radiation actually be the radiation of another process, see #5?
7. Why would the mechanism for creating lite elements or recycling entropy cease? Sorry Newton... it only looked that way...
8. What is the true nature of Super massive black hole and galaxy rotation sigma?
9. What could create Giant elliptical galaxies with low luminosity cores?
10. What could cause distinct but semi similar shapes of galaxies we observe?
11. How do you solve the super massive black hole giant galaxy co evolution problem?
I could go ON and ON but I am sure most of you are begging me to stop so I will. I got so much direct and indirect evidence it makes my head explode....
What I need now is help with a model... the quantum structure of the infinitely collapsing but not infinitely collapsed singularity with its corresponding entropy, the general relativity for a merging gravitational singularity scenario, and something with more kick than a commodore 64....
Input singularities of various mass and spins, run the simulation... and they just smush together really fast or....
Thanks for reading if you made it this far... no need for any lube with the inevitable criticism... for I also roll without the lube...
Your points addressed, inasmuch as I understand what you're getting at:
2) ... Your assumption that the cosmos is of finite spatial extent is unwarranted (irrespective of the fact that the cosmos IS EXPANDING; expansion alone does NOT preclude infinte extent!) on the grounds of the overwhelmingly probable truth of general relativity (GR), and therefore raises a "question" which need not otherwise arise.
3) ... One could with equal puzzlement (? WHY?) ask: "Why are there so may STARS in the universe?"
3ii) ... My (possibly inadequate) understanding of GR is that NO SINGULARITY YET EXISTS, but rather WILL BE DISCOVERED IN THE FUTURE by anyone unfortunate enough to fall through some Hole's Schwarzschild Radius. Her death and that of the Hole itself are all SIMULTANEOUS with the Hole's eventual quantum evaporation, after a mere 10^65 years or so!
4) ... Most currently-taken-seriously cosmological models PREDICT gravitational models, and there is an nth-order ripple-scaling function which examines the effect on different scales. Planck and COBE have long foreshadowed the recent news about "what happened very soon after the Big Bang".
5) ... Check out the Butcher-Oemler Effect.
6) ... Sorry I don't understand.
7) ... Nor this.
8) ... Nor this.
9) ... Observation indicates -- pace Butcher-Oemler -- that the further from us some cluster of galaxies is, the bluer the stars in general are within its component galaxies. Furthermore, the ratio of spirals to ellipticals also increases with distance from us. The reason is that spiral galaxies eventually collide on timescales of billions of years. (We are predicted to collide with our neighbouring Andromeda Galaxy, M31, in about 2 billion years.) Such collisions entail an intense but very brief period of starburst formation, since although the chance of any 2 STARS colliding is vanishingly remote due to their enormous mutual separations, it is clear that atoms, molecules and ions within GAS CLOUDS are similarly unprotected! The process quickly "uses up" almost all of the gas which has not ALREADY condensed into stars, so that the chance of our observing any elliptical galaxy -- which in any case takes, typically, around 400 million years to "dynamically relax" following the spiral merger -- in an "immediately post-collision state" in which such starbursts are still in progress is in effect vanishingly remote. In contrast, spirals such as our own and M31 are in a state of dynamical equilibrium with respect to the process of star formation. Gas heated by supernova explosions is continually convecting orthogonally to the disk-plane, cooling, descending again within the locally constant-g field, and then yet again being detonated and compressed by further supernova explosions, forming yet another generation of stars. The process is "eked out" and coterminous with the entire history of the galaxy in question UNTIL it collides with another galaxy! Starbursts of course generate a whole range of stellar population types -- from very short-lived (just a few million years) hot, bright, blue supergiants down to dim, orange-yellow (and, yes, flickering, or rather, "flaring") brown dwarfs and low-mass Main Sequence stars such as Proxima Centauri, which could remain on the Main Sequence for perhaps upwards of 100 billion years! Hence, whenever we observe SPIRAL galaxies, we observe a noticeable proportion of hot, blue, short-lived Population I stars, and whenever we observe any ELLIPTICALS we will see almost entirely dim, yellowish, old, Population II stars.
10) ... Why should the individually distinctive morphology of every observed galaxy -- they typically contain upwards of 10 million stars, don't forget! -- be any more nysteriousthan the distinctive morphology of the flow regime of every individual rock pool, stream and river on earth (and for exactly the same reasons)?
11) ... Sorry I don't understand this point.
Please keep such queries coming. This group has tended to founder on at least 2 occasions precisely because of the lack of academic interest!