Singularity Absolete Part:3

8/14/2019 Singularity Absolete Part:3

1/7

B-ismi ALLAH 'i Rahman-i Rahim...Hakan OKMutlak Tekillik Ek 2Mutlak Dzenden Isnarak ve Yrngelerde Hareket Ederek Tekaml Eden Evren Hipotezinin Makalesi.

28.02.2010, Pazar 09:29Makale: Mutlak Tekillik Ek 2Yazan : Hakan OK

Mutlak Tekillik Ek 2

Daha nceleri Mutlak Tekillik ve Mutlak Tekillik Ekolarak yaymladm makalelerime ikinci bir ek olarakbu yazy kaleme alma ihtiyac duydum. Mutlaktekillikten snarak ve yrngelerde hareket ederektekaml eden evren hipotezimizin esasna dayanarakbu makalede, Kara Deliklerin bugn gzlemlenebilirhalleri ve Evrenin (genelinde kainatn) yaratlmaanndaki (o sonsuzluk ve mutlak tekillik annda)tekilliklerin farkl olduuna iaret etmeye alacam.Daha ncede defalarca yazm olduum zere, Big-Bang hipotezine gre evren (veya kainat), 4 boyutluhaliyle ilk ortaya kt anda ok yksek slarda ve

ani (sudden) bir genleme ile hacim kazanp(quantlardan/) paracklardan olumaktayd. Oysahacim ve kinetik enerjinin sonucu olan hareket,ancak madde ve bu maddenin muhtelif younluklarile var olabilir, bu biiiir. kincisi elektromanyetik birkuvvetin (foton salnm/emisyonu, yani termik enerji

veya ma) etkili oluportaya kabilmesi veyaylabilmesi iin hemhacme ihtiya vardr,hemde paracklaratomu oluturmal (ilk

var olan hidrojenelementi iin: 1 proton,1 ntron ve 1 elektron)ve elektromanyetikkuvveti tetikleyebilecekoranda younlamalar/beklenmeleri (molekler yap oluturmalar) vesnmalar gerekmektedir ki, Big-Bang'e gre bu,

ilk anda, sz konusu deildir. O an ki, ilk ma balayana kadar ne hacim varolabilir (mutlak tekilliktir), ne de llebilecek (bizim anladmz ekil vezelliklerde) bir zaman mefhumu, yani tekrar belirtmek gerekirse, szkonusu

olan mutlak tekilliktir, 4 boyutlu uzay-zaman sistemi deil.(01.03.2010, Pazartesi 08:30) Bildiimiz 3 boyut ve zaman henz bal olduudier (ister 6, ister 7) boyutlardan ayrlm deildir. O ayrm an, mutlak dzeniniinde (gravitasyonu bilfiil ortaya karan) atomlarn, kritik younluk eiinigetiklerinde (yani younluk arttnda) ve snmaya baladklarnda gereklerirve zaman mefhumu bizim anladmz ekilde ilemeye balar. Artk o andan

itibaren bir hacimden, kinetik (yrngelerdetekaml) ve ortaya kan termik bir enerjiden(elektromanyetizma) bahsetmek mmkndr. Bu i,mutlak tekillikten snarak ve yrngelerde hareketederek tekaml eden (aslnda imeyen vegenilemeyen) bir evren'in resmidir. (08:45)Elektromanyetik ma, tayfn mmkn olan en cranoktasndan balar ve beklenmeler arttka da biran gelir, u aralar kefedilen (CMB) mikrodalga fonmasn ortaya karr, biz de bir gn (gnmzde)gelir, bunu kefederiz. Aslnda bu, evrenin ya 13,7milyar yldr veya deildir, says nem arzetmiyor,

evrenin yoktan var olduunun (yaratldnn)ispatdr, ancak evrenin istikbali (daha dorusu sonu)hakknda hibir ipucu vermez. Evren, sonsuza kadarvar olacakm (tekaml edecekmi) gibi grnr,grnmek zorundadr. Bu konuda bilginin szd biratlak bulamazsnz (Bak. Kur'an- Kerim). Bu bilgi,tahmin edilegelen 11 (veya 10) boyutun tesindedirve ulalamaz. Ben Biliyorum !, diye ortaya kanvarsa, mutlak yalan sylyordur (inancmza gre,Vahy'e inanyorsanz). Bildiini, hesapladn iddiaeden, Allah'a iftira ediyordur, ayetlere muhalefetediyordur (bak. Kur'an- Kerim). Evrenin sonu

dnda, hipotezler ortaya atmak, hesap kitapyapmak, modeller oluturmak, deneyler yapmak, vs.serbest (belli ahlaki deerler lsnde), elinizdengeleni yapn. Anlalaca zere, zan'nn ou batldrve zan ile yola karak: Evren Big-Bang ile var oldu(yaratld) ! demek de, gayet ak bir ekilde, abesle

itigaldir. Tabi bu benim yazdklarm da hipotezden teye geemez ve abesleitigal etme olasl gayet yksek, eer Vahy'i yanl anladysam. zeletiriyapmadan, dnmeden, dogmalar kr krne kabul ederek yol almak,gzn kapatp (veya gz gre gre) bolua atlamaya benzer. (09:20)Umarm, mutlak tekillik ile ilgili, olas akta kalan noktalar da yeterince analiz

Sayfa 1/7 - Mutlak Tekillik Ek 2
http://h3ok.isgreat.org/MutlakTekillik.pdfhttp://h3ok.isgreat.org/MutlakTekillikEk.pdfhttp://h3ok.isgreat.org/MutlakTekillikEk.pdfhttp://h3ok.isgreat.org/MutlakTekillik.pdf


2/7


yapmmdr, yoksa bir 3. Ek yazmak, iten bile deil.Bir alnt; Kaynak: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/there-was-no-big-bang-worlds-leading-experts-say.html

"Was the Universe Created By A Big Bang?"Several of the World's Leading Cosmologists Say "No"

"What banged?" Sean Carroll, CalTech -Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology& PhysicsSeveral of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang thatbrought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standardtheory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universeinto a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy-except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the restof the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter intoour membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may beonly one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one anotherin as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world."Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds perculating up out ofthe void, giving rise to whole new universes.One of the most important space probes of the century is the WilkinsonMicrowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) launched in 2001 to measure the

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/there-was-no-big-bang-worlds-leading-experts-say.htmlhttp://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/there-was-no-big-bang-worlds-leading-experts-say.htmlhttp://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/there-was-no-big-bang-worlds-leading-experts-say.htmlhttp://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/there-was-no-big-bang-worlds-leading-experts-say.html


3/7


4/7


The Big Bang was NOT a Fireworks Display!Written by Sten Odenwald

The Big Bang wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang. In fact, the event thatcreated the universe and everything in it was a very different kind ofphenomenon than most people--or, at least, most nonphysicists--imagine.Even the name "Big Bang" originally was a put-down cooked up by a scientistwho didn't like the concept when it was first put forth. He favored the idea thatthe universe had always existed in a much more dignified and fundamentallyunchanging, steady state.But the name stuck, and with it has come the completely wrong impression thatthe event was like an explosion and that the universe is expanding todaybecause the objects in it are being flung apart like fragments of a detonatedbomb.Virtually every basic aspect of this intuitive image for the Big Bang (we AREstuck with the name) is incorrect. To understand why, you need to understandAlbert Einstein's general theory of relativity. Or, at least, you need to have a

sense of it. That may sound daunting, but general relativity is the mostrevolutionary scientific advance of the 20th century, and we all ought to acquiresome feeling for it before the century ends.After all, it's been 82 years since Einstein put forth his theory. It's been testedin scores of experiments and has always passed with flying colors and is nowfirmly established as our premier guide to understanding how gravity operates.Moreover, it is part of the foundation of Big Bang cosmology. And it is becauseof general relativity that we know the Big Bang was (and is, for the event is stillgoing on) nothing like an explosion.Albert Einstein developed general relativity in order to make his famous theoryof special relativity include the effects of gravity. It is a better way than SirIsaac Newton's of understanding how gravity works. Like a hungry amoeba,

general relativity ( or just GR for short) had absorbed both Einstein's newly-minted special relativity and Newton's physics, giving us the means to replicateALL of the predictions from these two great theories, while extending them intounfamiliar realms of experience. One of these realms was the Black Hole. Theother was the shape and evolution of the universe itself.Big Bang cosmology says that the universe came into existence between 10 to20 billion years ago, and that from a hot dense state has been expanding andcooling ever since, remains unassailable. Yet, Big Bang cosmology is vulnerable.It is based on GR being accurate over an enormous range of scales in time andspace. Just how good is general relativity? So far, GR has made the followingspecific predictions:

1...The entire orbit of Mercury rotates because of the curved geometry of spacenear the sun. The amount of 'perihelion shift' each century was well known atthe time Einstein provided a complete explanation for it in 1915.2...Light at every frequency can be bent in exactly the same way by gravity.This was confirmed in the 1919 Solar Eclipse for optical light using stars nearthe Sun's limb, and in 1969-1975 using radio emissions from star-like quasarsalso seen near the limb of the Sun. The deflection of the light was exactly aspredicted by GR.3...Clocks run slower in strong gravitational fields. This was confirmed by RobertPound and George Rebka at Harvard University in 1959, and by Robert Vessot inthe 1960's and 70's using high-precession hydrogen maser clocks flown on jetplanes and on satellites.4...Gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical. Most recently in 1971,Vladimir Braginsky at Moskow University confirmed GRs prediction of this towithin 1 part in a trillion of the exact equality required by GR.5...Black holes exist. Although these objects have been suspected to exist sincethey were first introduced to astronomers in the early 1970's, it is only in 1992that a critical acceptance threshold was crossed in the astronomical community.

It was then that Hubble Space Telescope observations revealed monstrous,billion-sun black holes in the cores of nearby galaxies such as Messier 87,Messier 33 and NGC 4261.6...Gravity has its own form of radiation which can carry energy. Russel Hulseand Joseph Taylor in 1975 discovered two pulsars orbiting each other, andthrough careful monitoring of their precise pulses during the next 20 years,confirmed that the system is loosing energy at a rate within 1 percent of theprediction by GR based on the emission of gravitational radiation.7...A new force exists called 'gravito-magnetism'. Just as electric and magneticfields are linked together, according to GR, a spinning body produces amagnetism-like force called gravitomagnetism. GR predicts that rotating bodiesnot only bend space and time, but also make empty space spin. A NASA

satellite called Gravity Probe B will be launched in the next few years to seewhether this effect exists. This is a killer. If it is not found, GR is mortallywounded despite its long string of other successes.8...Space can stretch during the expansion of the universe. This was confirmedby Edwin Hubble's detection of the recession of the galaxies ca 1929. Morerecently in 1993, Astronomer Kenneth Kellerman confirmed that the angularsizes of distant radio sources shrink to a minimum then increase at greaterdistances exactly as expected for a dilating space. This is not predicted by anyother cosmological model that does not also include the dilation of space as areal, physical phenomenon.We have now boxed ourselves into a corner. If we accept the successes of GR,



5/7


we are forced to see the world and the cosmos through its eyes, and its eyesalone, since it is the theory which satisfies all known tests to date.So, how should we think about the Big Bang? Our mental 'fireworks' image ofthe Big Bang contains these basic elements: 1) A pre-existing sky or space intowhich the fragments from the explosion are injected; 2) A pre-existing time wecan use to mark when the explosion happened; 3) Individual projectiles movingthrough space from a common center; 4) A definite moment when the explosionoccurred; and 5) Something that started the Big Bang.All of these elements to our visualization of the Big Bang are completely falseaccording to GR!Preexisting Space?There wasn't any!The mathematics of GR state specifically and unambiguously that 3-dimensionalspace was created at the Big Bang itself, at 'Time Zero', along with everythingelse. It was a 'singular' event in which the separations between all particleseverywhere, vanished. This is just another way of saying that our familiar 3-dimensional space vanished. Theorists studying various prototypes for theTheory of Everything have only modified this statement somewhat. During its

earliest moments, the universe may have existed in a nearly incomprehensiblestate which may have had more than 4 dimensions, or perhaps none at all.Many of these theories of the earliest moments hypothesize a 'mother space-time' that begat our own universe, but you cannot at the same time place yourminds eye both inside this Mother Spacetime to watch the Big Bang happen,and inside our universe to see the matter flying around. This is exactly what thefireworks display model demands that you do.Preexisting Time?There wasn't any of this either!Again, GR's mathematics treats both space and time together as one objectcalled 'space-time' which is indivisible. At Time Zero plus a moment, you had awell defined quantity called time. At Time Zero minus a moment, this same

quantity changed its character in the mathematics and became 'imaginary'. Thisis a mathematical warning flag that something dreadfully unexpected hashappened to time as we know it. In a famous quote by Einstein, "...time andspace are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live". StevenHawking has looked at the mathematics of this state using the fledgling physicsof Quantum Gravity Theory, and confirms that at the Big Bang, time wasmurdered in the most thorough way imaginable. It may have been convertedinto just another 'timeless' dimension of space...or so the mathematics seemsto suggest.Individual objects moving out from a common center?Nope!

GR says specifically that space is not a passive stage upon which matter playsout its dance, but is a member of the cast. When you treat both galaxies andspace-time together, you get a very different answer for what happens than ifyou treat them separately, which is what we instinctively always do. Curvedspace distorts the paths of particles, sometimes in very dramatic ways. If youstepped into a space ship and tried to travel to the edge of the universe andlook beyond, it would be impossible. Not only could you not reach a supposed"edge" of the universe no matter how long or how fast you traveled, in a closeduniverse, you would eventually find yourself arriving where you departed. Thecurvature of space would bring you right back, in something like the way thecurvature of Earth would bring you home if you flew west and never changedcourse. In other words, the universe has no edge in space. There is nothingbeyond the farthest star.As a mental anchor, many have used the expanding balloon as an analogy tothe expanding universe. As seen from any one spot on the balloon's surface, allother spots rush away from it as the balloon is inflated. There is no one centerto the expansion ON THE SURFACE of the balloon that is singled out as thecenter of the Big Bang. This is very different than the fireworks display which

does have a dramatic, common center to the expanding cloud of cinders. Theballoon analogy, however, is not perfect, because as we watch the balloon, ourvantage point is still within a preexisting larger arena which GR says neverexisted for the real universe.The center of the Big Bang was not a point in space, but a point in time! It is acenter, not in the fabric of the balloon, but outside it along the 4thdimension...time. We cannot see this point anywhere we look inside the spaceof our universe out towards the distant galaxies. You can't see time afterall! Wecan only see it as we look back in time at the ancient images we get from themost distant objects we can observe. We see a greatly changed, early history ofthe universe in these images but no unique center to them in space.It is at this point that common sense must give up its seat on the bus, and yield

to the insights provided by GR. And it is at precisely this point that so manynon-physicists refuse to be so courteous. And who can blame them? But there'smore to come.Projectiles moving through space?Sorry!GR again has something very troubling to say about this. For millions of yearswe have learned from experience on the savanas of the African continent andelsewhere, that we can move through space. As we drive down the highway, wehave absolutely no doubts what is happening as we traverse the distancebetween landmarks along the roadside. This knowledge is so primal that we areincapable of mustering much doubt about it. But science is not about confirming



6/7


our prejudices. It's about revealing how things actually are.What if I told you that you could decrease the distance from your house and theWashington Monument by 'standing still' and just letting space contract thedistance away? GR predicts exactly this new phenomenon, and the universeseems to be the only arena we know today in which it naturally occurs. Likespots glued to the surface of the balloon at eternally fixed latitude and longitudepoints, the galaxies remain where they are while space dilates between themwith the passage of time. There is no reason at all we should find this kind ofmotion intuitive.If space is stretching like this, where do the brand new millions of cubic lightyears come from, from one moment to the next? The answer in GR is that theyhave always been there. To see how this could happen, I like to think of theshape of our universe as a "Cosmic Watermellon". The fact that this is only theshape for a 'closed' finite universe is only a technicality. Finite watermellons arealso cheaper to buy than infinite ones.GR predicts the entire past, present and future of the universe all at once, andpredicts its entire 4-dimensional shape. As we slice the 4-dimensional, CosmicWatermellon at one end of the cosmic time line, we see 3-dimensional space

and its contents soon after the Big Bang. At the other end of the CosmicWatermellon in the far future, we see the collapse of space and matter justbefore the Big Crunch. But in between, our slices show the shape of space(closed, spherical volumes) and the locations of galaxies ( at fixed locations) asspace dilates from one extreme to the other.As a particular slice through an ordinary watermellon, we see that its meat hasalways been present in the complete watermellon. The meat is present as acontinuous medium, and we never ask where the meat in a particular slicecame from. Cosmologically, GR ask us to please think of 3-dimensional space inthe same way. Space, like the meat of the watermellon, has always existed inthe complete shape of the universe in 4-dimensions. But it is only in 4-dimensions that the full shape of the universe is revealed. It is a mystery why

our consciousness insists on experiencing the universe one moment at a time,and that is why we end up with the paradox of where space comes from. Therereally is no paradox at all.Space is not 'nothing' according to Einstein, it is merely another name for thegravitational field of the universe. Einstein once said, "Space-time does notclaim existence on its own but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational]field". If you could experimentally turn-off gravity with a switch, space-timewould vanish. This is the ultimate demolition experiment known to physics forwhich an environmental impact statement would most certainly have to be filed.The gravitational field at one instant is wedded to itself in the next instant bythe incessant quantum churnings of the myriad of individual particles that like

bees in a swarm, make up the gravitational field itself. In this frothing tumult,the gravitational field is knit together, quantum by quantum, from perhaps evenmore elemental building blocks, and it is perhaps here that we will find theultimate origin for the expansion of the universe and the magical stretching ofspace. We hope the much anticipated Theory of Everything will have more tosay about this, but to actually test this theory may require technologies andhuman resources that we can only dimly dream of.Was there a definite moment to the Big Bang?GR is perfectly happy to forecast that our universe emerged from an infinitedensity, zero-space 'Singularity' at Time Zero, but physicists now feel verystrongly that this instant was smeared out by any number of quantummechanical effects, so that we can never speak of a time before about 10^-43seconds after the Big Bang. Just as Gertrude Stein once remarked about myhometown, Oakland, California that "There is no 'There' there", at 10^-43seconds, nature may tell us that before the Big Bang, "There was no 'When'there" either. The moment dissolves away into some weird quantum fog, and asSteven Hawking speculates, time may actually become bent into a newdimension of space and no longer even definable in this state. Ordinary GR is

unable to describe this condition and only some future theory combing GR andquantum mechanics will be able to tell us more. We hope.Something started the Big Bang!At last we come to the most difficult issue in modern cosmology. In thefireworks display, we can trace the events leading up to the explosion all theway back to the chemists that created the gunpowder and wrapped theexplosives. GR, however, can tell us nothing about the equivalent stages leadingup to the Big Bang, and in fact, among its strongest statements is the one thatsays that time itself may not have existed. How, then, do we speak or thinkabout a condition, or process, that started the whole shebang if we are not evenallowed to frame the event as "This happened first...then this...then kerpowie!"?This remains the essential mystery of the Big Bang which seems to doggedly

transcend every mathematical description we can create to describe it.All of the logical frameworks we know about are based on chains of events orstates. All of our experiences of such chains in the physical world have beenordered in time. Even when the mathematics and the theory tell us 'Whathappened before the Big Bang to start it?' is not a logical or legitimate question,we insist on viewing this as a proper question to ask of nature, and we expect afirm answer. But like so many other things we have learned this century aboutthe physical world, our gut instincts about which questions ought to havedefinite answers is often flawed when we explore the extreme limits to ourphysical world.I wrote this essay before seeing the new IMAX file at the Air and Space Museum



7/7


'Cosmic Journey", by far one of the nicest and most heroic movies of its kind Ihad ever seen. But of course it showed the Big Bang as a fireworks display. Nomatter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to accept the fact that the Big Bangwas a spectacular moment in history. What is amazing is that the daringaudacity of humans may have demystified some of it, and revealed a universefar stranger than any could have imagined.Still, we are haunted by our hunches and intuitions gathered over millenia, andunder circumstances far removed from the greater physical world we are nowexploring. No wonder it all seems so alien and maddeningly complex.

Hadi ben samalyorum diyelim. Ayn ekilde akln kullanan bunca vatanda nehalt ediyor o zaman ?Belli ki, bizler Hereyin Pratiini doru yorumlayabilmekten aciz durumdayken,Hereyin Teorisi diye bieyin peinde kouyoruz (biz derken, dogmatik bilimikastediyorum...).

(03.03.2010, aramba 13:05)En aktel verilere gre, evrenin ya (bildik 4 boyutlu uzay-zaman, t=1 den bu yana geen sre; Bak. yandaki resim) aabe yukar: ~13,75 Milyar yl. Bu da, genel ve zel grelilik gibikonular gzard edersek (etmeli miyiz ?), evrenin idrakedebildiimiz kadarnn (Hubble Hacmi) 13,75 milyar kylyarapl bir kre olduu sonucuna gtrr bizi. Buna greapnn da, bunun iki kat (yani, ~27,5 milyar kyl) olduusonucuna ulatrr. Grdnz zere t=0 gibi soyut bir zamanmefhumu da izdim resimde. Bu o malum (mehur) MutlakTekilliin/Mutlak Dzenin olduu ve maddenin henz, Ktle ekimharicinde, hi bir elektromanyetik emisyonun olmad Sonsuz An'dr (Protogen). (13:22)


Documents

Singularity Absolete Part:3