| The First Three Minutes? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
After three decades of reading
"popular" publications on relativity I still cannot
believe that the dimension time should have developed linearly
since the Big Bang.
Using a linear time scale anywhere near the Big Bang or Omega
point appears - to me - an absurd idea.
This is the main reason why I have opened this electronic
"poster session". Physicists and Relativists of the
Net, please help.
All cosmologists use time on a linear base in the abscissa -
all the way back to the Big Bang. Is this not in contradiction
with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, according to which
gravity influences time?
Speaking of "10-35 seconds
after the Big Bang" sounds to me as there had never been an
Einstein!
With the enormous density of the young Universe, spacetime must
have had a near infinite curvature. The dimension
"time", cannot in my view, have been linear up to the
present.
If mass density approaches infinite, how can they speak of e.g. "The First Three Minutes"?
Referring to the genesis of helium from hydrogen, how can one
speak of the first 100 seconds after the Big Bang?
Given the enormous density then, spacetime should have been bent
accordingly, so that these "seconds" could not
correspond to the seconds in our time scale. Why is this view
never mentioned in the literature?
At the calculated density of the Universe after "10-35 seconds" spacetime must have
been of a nearly infinite curvature. The dimension of time can
certainly not have been linear to the present expanded state of
the Universe.
Where do I err?
If the universe is at one point in an endless series of
expansions following Big Bangs followed by contraction followed
by Big Crunches, does it follow that all memory of previous order
is erased with each recreation?
Or is it conceivable that matter "learns", perhaps
roughly analogous to the code of genetics in the DNA molecule,
but micronised down to the level of quarks or sub-quark
particles?
Should the universe really be embedded in a closed, cyclic spacetime continuum, then anisotropy of matter would prevent history to repeat itself endlessly. The effect of fluctuations would be that matter is reshuffled in a new configuration at every cycle.
Nature seems to prefer globular shapes and uniform motion. Thus, if the expansion of the Universe stops and reverses, the effect on the fourth dimension - time, as we know it - will be a gradual one, like following a sinoid wave in the two-dimensional analogue.
Assuming quasars to be the oldest observable objects in the
Universe, could it be that we are looking at structures created
close to the time of the Big Bang?
If we could see beyond those objects, would we be able to see
creation itself? Is the sky black because light is curved back
within so small an object as the young Universe, so as to emit no
light at all?
Please help, e-mail