• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Einstein’s lost theory uncovered

Free episodes:

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
From: Nature Magazine:
By Davide Castelvecchi

Full Article HERE:

A manuscript that lay unnoticed by scientists for decades has revealed that Albert Einstein once dabbled with an alternative to what we now know as the Big Bang theory, proposing instead that the Universe expanded steadily and eternally. The recently uncovered work, written in 1931, is reminiscent of a theory championed by British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle nearly 20 years later. Einstein soon abandoned the idea, but the manuscript reveals his continued hesitance to accept that the Universe was created during a single explosive event.

Evidence for the Big Bang first emerged in the 1920s, when US astronomer Edwin Hubble and others discovered that distant galaxies are moving away and that space itself is expanding. This seemed to imply that, in the past, the contents of the observable Universe had been a very dense and hot ‘primordial broth’.

But, from the late 1940s, Hoyle argued that space could be expanding eternally and keeping a roughly constant density. It could do this by continually adding new matter, with elementary particles spontaneously popping up from space, Hoyle said. Particles would then coalesce to form galaxies and stars, and these would appear at just the right rate to take up the extra room created by the expansion of space. Hoyle’s Universe was always infinite, so its size did not change as it expanded. It was in a ‘steady state’.

The newly uncovered document shows that Einstein had described essentially the same idea much earlier. “For the density to remain constant new particles of matter must be continually formed,” he writes. The manuscript is thought to have been produced during a trip to California in 1931 — in part because it was written on American note paper.

It had been stored in plain sight at the Albert Einstein Archives in Jerusalem — and is freely available to view on its website — but had been mistakenly classified as a first draft of another Einstein paper. Cormac O’Raifeartaigh, a physicist at the Waterford Institute of Technology in Ireland, says that he “almost fell out of his chair” when he realized what the manuscript was about. He and his collaborators have posted their findings, together with an English translation of Einstein’s original German manuscript, on the arXiv preprint server and have submitted their paper to the European Physical Journal.

“This finding confirms that Hoyle was not a crank,” says study co-author Simon Mitton, a science historian at the University of Cambridge, UK, who wrote the 2005 biography Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science. The mere fact that Einstein had toyed with a steady-state model could have lent Hoyle more credibility as he engaged the physics community in a debate on the subject. “If only Hoyle had known, he would certainly have used it to punch his opponents,” O’Raifeartaigh says.
REST OF ARTICLE HERE:

Einstein%20ms%20page%20crop2%20%202-112_3.jpg

Einstein's correction to his original calculation
 
I personally favour a big bang / gnab gib (big crunch) theory

After the bang, matter starts to clump together, they eventually form black holes that hoover up all the loose matter, then they in turn clump together, which goes critical and bang it starts all over again
 
mike do you mean boom, expansion, cooling, sun's plantets galaxie's, then eventually its all eaten by the biggest black-hole, leaving just a void.

then when theres nothing left to consume, it falls in on itself and boom, expansion, cooling, sun's plantets galaxie's, then eventually its all eaten by the biggest black-hole, leaving just a void.

then when theres nothing left to consume, it falls in on itself and boom, expansion, cooling, sun's plantets galaxie's, then eventually its all eaten by the biggest black-hole, leaving just a void.

etc etc to infinity.
 
So the "big bang" is when the momma black hole sucks everything else up in the Universe and this creates an overload so the momma 'hoe goes super anti-critical and explodes in a cosmic orgasmic bang? That's hot! Sounds like a cool theory. :cool:
 
Yeah, more or less

We know Black holes are at the centre of each galaxy, and we know Black holes merge

It’s a black hole 6.6 billion times the mass of the Sun. No other known object is as massive—this black hole by itself outweighs entire star clusters and small galaxies. Even compared to other huge black holes, such as the one at the heart of the Milky Way, the monster of M87 is immense.
But how did these black holes grow so massive? The simple answer: Just as big galaxies grew by colliding and merging (as described in Steve Nadis’ recent Nautilus piece, “The Stories That Galaxies Tell”), the largest black holes form when pairs of smaller black holes merge. Trying to grasp the story in greater detail pushes both our theoretical and observational limits: Colliding black holes demand complex computer simulations to understand and sophisticated machines to detect. Studying black hole coalescence may be the best way to understand the effects of absurdly strong gravity, potentially revealing entirely new phenomena.
Black holes seem to have a close connection with their host galaxies, hinting at their shared evolutionary history. The size of a black hole, for example, seems to mirror the size of the central region of its galaxy. Astronomers do not expect to see “super-massive” black holes—those with masses millions or billions of times greater than the Sun—in tiny galaxies or vice-versa (though at least one seems to violate the rule for unknown reasons).
Since the largest galaxies formed out of mergers between smaller galaxies, researchers suspect the same applies to their central black holes. Galaxies showing the signs of recent collisions, such as NGC 6240, sometimes also have two obvious super-massive black holes, lending support to the idea.
The Most Massive Object in the Universe—How Was It Created? - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus


So the model may be BANG........ matter is exploded outwards, it clumps together forming galaxys, the core of each galaxy eventually condenses into a black hole.
And they in turn eventually coalesce.

The evidence is mounting all galaxys have a supermassive black hole at their centres

Do all galaxies have black holes at their centers? Although not even a single galaxy has yet been proven to have a central black hole, the list of candidates has increased yet again. Recent results by astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope now indicate that most - and possibly even all - large galaxies may harbor one of these dense beasts. In all the galaxies studied, star speeds continue to increase closer the very center. This in itself indicates a center millions of times more massive than our Sun is needed to contain the stars. This mass when combined with the limiting size make the case for the central black holes.
APOD: January 14, 1997 - Black Holes and Galactic Centers

So imagine two supermassive black holes have sucked up their galaxys, and now start to gravitate towards each other due to the enormous mass/gravitational forces involved. They merge and in turn start pulling in their nearest black holes and so on and so on.

I suspect its a cycle.
And it may not be "universal" these bang/crunch's may be localised and happening in multiple locations , we would only be able to see our own example given the distances involved
 
like a lake dissapearing down a sink-hole, all the different eddy's, dragged into one giant eddy, until its all gone.

you didnt need to expand on it mike, but thanks, its an interesting concept, my atoms have have 'been', and will be forever.
 
Current evidence says the universe isn't slowing down. There is some mysterious force actually speeding up the expansion of the universe.
Apparently, in the far future, the expansion will become so great that even molecules actually start flying apart.
So, this indicates the expansion/contraction theory doesn't work.
 
Current evidence says the universe isn't slowing down. There is some mysterious force actually speeding up the expansion of the universe.
Apparently, in the far future, the expansion will become so great that even molecules actually start flying apart.
So, this indicates the expansion/contraction theory doesn't work.

If the universe is finite in extent and the cosmological principle (not to be confused with the cosmological constant) does not apply, and the expansion speed does not exceed the escape velocity, then the mutual gravitational attraction of all its matter will eventually cause it to contract. If entropy continues to increase in the contracting phase (see Ergodic hypothesis), the contraction would appear very different from the time reversal of the expansion. While the early universe was highly uniform, a contracting universe would become increasingly clumped. Eventually all matter would collapse into black holes, which would then coalesce producing a unified black hole or Big Crunch singularity.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But as the article says

Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that is postulated to drive the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible (though not observationally supported as of today) that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse

At this stage we still dont know for sure.

I personally favour the big crunch scenario, since it allows for the whole game to continue, the eventual heat death of the universe scenario is a bit of a dead end for everything

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
everything that ever slowed down, speeded up first doc.

I'm not sure what you mean, but after the BB and the age of inflation, space itself continued to expand at a steady rate.
However, in the past 100 million years or so, the universe has picked up speed in it's expansion. And it shows every sign of not only continuing, but gaining more and more speed. This indicates that, following ever increasing expansion, eventually everything will be moving apart at nearly the speed of light. That includes normal baryonic matter flying apart also.
Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever | Hubble Constant | Spitzer | Space.com
 
Unless.........

The reason it seems to be speeding up from our pov, is because we are being pulled into a supersupersupermassive blackhole we cant see
 
Its a matter of scale

Imagine the bang, expanding outwards in all directions, that the leading edge of expansion contains a lot of matter, much much denser than the density we observe from our locale. That this matter formed supersupersuper massive black holes on the rim of the expansion bubble, and thats its these not dark matter thats causing us to observe the increasing speed.

Take a balloon, blow it up and take a black marker and draw a bunch of big black dots all over its surface and thats the idea.
The matter inside the ballon isnt being pushed towards the ballon's skin, its being pulled towards it at ever increasing speeds
 
i get the idea mike, the nearer the centre of the eddy the faster the motion, dont quite see how the black-holes form, on the edge of the super-heated expanding wave, i thought black holes were formed by dead sun's, and suns form by cooling gases.

i thought you meant a black-hole behind us, was slowing us down, hence speeding up of expansion wave ahead, from our point of view.
 
I need to insert my standard caveat here, im not postulating answer, just ideas.

This was a very powerful bang, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, thats a lot of energy.

Its really hard to communicate these concepts via language, but i'll do my best

Lets locate in our minds eye the point at which the BB took place, lets give it co-ordinates of 0-0-0 (physical co-ordinates only , temporal is another matter again)

lets extend our left arm and point to a point 3 feet from our index finger and call it 0-0-0. You are earth/sol system/milkyway galaxy.

To our right isnt empty space its matter that was pushed out prior to the matter that makes up our galaxy.
I suspect that the distance to our left, to 0-0-0 is shorter than our distance to the right.
That there is a lot more matter to the right of us than the left.

We know how black holes form, and we know they coalesce into supermassive black holes, two supermassive massive black holes will coalesce into a super supermassive black hole and so on and so forth.

I suspect we are the trailing edge of this expansion, that the "lions share" of the energy/matter released is to the right of us, further away from 0-0-0 than we are
(in all directions like a ballon)

That it has already coalesced from energy to matter, to stars to black holes, to supermassive black holes to super super super suprmassive black holes, which exist to the right of us, not the left.

(i use the linear labels to make it easy, its in 3d, like a balloon with 0-0-0 at its centre)

Indeed if this is the case it would seem from our perspective that we were moving away from 0-0-0 at a faster and faster rate, since 0-0-0 has less matter that being the nature of a blast radius.

The lions share of the matter is to the right of us, not the left.

Dark matter is just an explanation for what we observe, but imo older denser matter at the leading edge of the explosive radius is a better answer, we know matter attracts itself and forms black holes we know they coalesce into even larger more gravitationally stronger super massive black holes.

If we want to show our local universe is being pushed outwards, we need to invoke "dark matter" to pad out the equation to match what we observe.
But if we are being pulled not pushed, we dont need it.

In short we are being pulled to the leading edge of the blast radius by the lions share of matter, which has already coalesced into super super super supermassive black holes, and that this is part of the big crunch scenario
 
And again its about scale, we can only see the observable universe

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So while some sources say matter distribution in the universe is uniform, that can only be said of the observable universe

Einstein's cosmological principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on the large-scale average.


Much as a person on a boat in the middle of the pacific could state on observation the world is made entirely of water
 
In the early 1990's, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the Universe had to slow. The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.
Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together........

If the density of matter outside of the observable universe is greater than the snapsot we have of our area, then Super super supermassive black holes are a better explaination than dark energy imo.
 
Physics seems to indicate that there is no such thing as "nothing", that the concept of the perfect and static vacuum is no more than one more flawed anthropomorphic model of nature. Space itself is dynamic and energetic. So much so that the very fabric of space-time may eventually tear itself apart.

Big Rip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Living Universe - new theory by James Carter

"According to Carter, the universe is composed of what he calls "circlons", ring-like structures like "atomic Lego blocks, interlocking rings that snap together to form all the elements".He proposes that instead of the Big Bang theory, the universe began when two circlons combined and mated, subdividing to make up all the matter in the universe. His theory is mechanistic, and does not involve action at a distance. He explains gravity as due to the constant expansion of the universe.[He derived his theories from experiments involving smoke rings, which he sees as forming analogies for the workings of circlons. His theories and experiments resemble those of the distinguished 19th century scientists Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait.[1]"
 
Back
Top