The Big Bang time paradox

[Jon Miller]

What is traditionally thought of us dark matter doesn't absorb light or energy. It's whole point is that it doesn't interact much ('dark' to interactions).

I would think that if there was a particle that absorbed light and matter, it would be relatively easy to observe it (like Black Holes).

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What is traditionally thought of us dark matter doesn't absorb light or energy. It's whole point is that it doesn't interact much ('dark' to interactions).

I would think that if there was a particle that absorbed light and matter, it would be relatively easy to observe it (like Black Holes).

JM

Yeah, and that's not the only problem. That by itself might be explicable, but all together it seems a bit kooky.

[Jon Miller]

That's the only sentence I read.

JM

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
KH, I am thinking the following:

The big bang was caused by a collision of singularities that broke down the event horizon of at least one of them releasing its mass and energy. (Actually, both of the might have to break down, otherwise the one that didn't break down would absorb the expelled matter of the one that did, not so?)

Dark matter somewhat behaves like a singularity would: Matter behind an event horizon. You would never see dark matter because it would absorb any light or matter that it encounters. (Right?) However, you can detect its presence due to its gravational effects.

Dark matter may have been formed during the Big Bang when everything was dense, or may be "residual" expelled singularity matter. I can imagine some of the expelled matter becoming light matter and some of it remaining dense enough to immediately form further singularities.

What does this proposal aim to solve? Indentification of the dark matter as singularities? I had thought that like neutrinos experimental evidence has shown that most of the dark matter can't be black holes?

I think one of the most important points to take away from this thread was when we were shown that before we can meaningfully speculate on the cause of the big bang we *really* have got to nail down the cause of the inflationary period.

Without understanding the inflationary process any speculation on processes that preceed it (like causes of the big bang) are almost impossible to take further than idle speculation.

[KrazyHorse]

Without understanding the inflationary process any speculation on processes that preceed it (like causes of the big bang) are almost impossible to take further than idle speculation.

Correctamundo.

[Kuciwalker]

I thought no non-trivial physics could be taken further than idle speculation without understanding most or all of the mathematics modelling it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I thought no non-trivial physics could be taken further than idle speculation without understanding most or all of the mathematics modelling it.

I suppose in that absence of even a mathematical description of an idea it is safe to say that is not "understood".

[Heresson]

God, 9-pages thread about physics... You nerds give Apolyton a bad name

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Even within galaxies you will see a denser concentration of DM at the center than you see of regular matter. There's nothing to stop it collapsing other than its own kinetic energy. Regular matter gets blown away from overdense regions due to radiation pressure (plus some other effects). Dark matter just sees the gravity pulling it in.

If it is so, then what gave DM it's initial speed ? or did it take over the velocity of whatever created it ?

[KrazyHorse]

Simple: DM used to be in thermal contact with the rest of the Universe. After a certain point it dropped out.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I don't see why evryone fawns over KH and thinks him this great "brane". How hard is it to become a beautician after all?

What's frightening about this is that I'm doing a bunch of b-physics right now. But how the **** would you know that?

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What's frightening about this is that I'm doing a bunch of b-physics right now. But how the **** would you know that?

Actually, KH, I really appreciate your posting in this thread. You and I have long had a "difficult" relationship due to our different politics. But here we have common ground in an interest in physics. From my part, I now bury my hatchet and hope we have good conversations in the future.

[Chemical Ollie]

This is an interesting thread, but I don't have time to read all through at the moment. So I just bookmark it for later use, by asking the question:

Some believe in a cyclic universe, following a sinus curve that starts with a big bang and expands, until it eventually turns around and contracts into a single black hole, creating a new big bang. Repeat for eternity. At the moment, We are in the expansion phase. As we all know, the laws of thermodynamics defines that the total entrophy (delta-S) in any reaction always increases. But would that law be valid in the contraction phase of the universe?

[Ned]

Olie, what would cause a single black hole to explode?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Olie, what would cause a single black hole to explode?

evaporation of it's last bits of mass by hawking radiation?