From: Zink_Steve@Tandem.Com (Steve Zink)
Subject: Big Bang, Little Bangs and Accelerated Black Holes ...
Organization: Tandem Computers, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:10:19 GMT

Subject: Big Bang Theory of Accelerated Black Holes (Little Bangs)
>From : Steve Zink (Tandem)

Zink Hypothesis: THE LITTLE BANGS HYPOTHESIS  (7/23/92)

Setting the Stage

   First off, we are going to set the stage for the main hypothesis.
   The prelude part is not used as support for the main hypothesis.
   Any defects in the prelude neither prove nor disprove the main
   hypothesis.

Prelude to the Big Bang

   At some point in the distant past, a black hole was accumulating
   the last of the debris, stars, galaxies, of the previous universe.
   There may have, at one time been several of these huge black holes
   gobbling everything in sight, until eventually they attracted each
   other.  Perhaps the last two largest black holes rotated about
   each other for awhile imparting angular momentum and losing linear
   distance, until they merged together into one enormous mass.  For
   simplicity we will call it "The Initial Object".

   As The Initial Object grew in mass, it pulled the tensors of space
   tighter and tighter around itself. With every new bit of matter,
   space itself became smaller, until the radius of the black hole was
   equal to the whole of space-time. The event horizon was the
   perimeter of the black hole itself.

   The Initial Object may have contracted further to the densest
   imaginable physical object. And as it contracted, the radius of
   space itself was shrinking. It should be noted at this point, that
   the nature of space-time may be vastly different in this
   environment, than is normally observed. When the densest possible
   compression occurred, a new phenomena happened:

The Resilience of Space-Time

   The densest possible mass contracted until a limit was reached at
   which point, the resiliency of space would not allow any more
   compression and rebounded, causing The Initial Object to expand
   rapidly, or in other words, it exploded. (Or inflated).

   The Big Bang did not result in the release of plasma or ordinary
   matter, but rather an explosion of the massive Initial Object
   into several large black holes. This explosion was a result of
   reaching an unstable condition of crowding too much matter into The
   Initial Object. (Note, I am not excluding plasma along with the large
   black holes being created, but for simplicity sake, assume just
   black holes emerged).

   The point of instability must be less than the mass density of
   the Initial Object, otherwise the Initial Object would not be
   unstable and explode.

The Instability Mass

   The Schwarzschild equation of space time around a spherical mass:

   ds^2 = (1-a/r)^-1 dr^2 + r^2(d(theta)^2 + sin^2(theta)d(phi)^2)
           -(1-a/r)c^2dt^2

   where a = 2Gm/c^2, r is distance to central mass, t = time measure,
   and theta and phi are the usual angular coordinates. When m= 0
   results in the equation for flat space, but when m = rc^2/2G then
   r = a and the instability shows up!! (The first term becomes
   dr^2/(1-a/a) = dr^2/(0).)    However, since r is rapidly changing,
   (and possibly even c is changing due to the tight tensor effect),
   it may be difficult to calculate the Instability point.

   This does give us a relation of r to m which may hold true in
   all black holes, or normal space. If m is concentrated densely
   enough, so that r is small enough, the relation holds.
   m/r = c^2/2G = 6.737297 x 10^26 newton/kg^2-sec^2.

THE MAIN HYPOTHESIS - LITTLE BANGS HYPOTHESIS

Accelerating Large Black Holes

   The large black holes which had been accelerated by the initial
   explosion were themselves, due to relativistic effect, increasing
   in mass. Although relativistic effects for accelerating masses is
   generally small, there was so much mass in each of the large black
   holes that a moderate acceleration would produce considerably more
   mass. Since acceleration in relativistic terms is equivalent to
   gravitational force, the large black holes could be thought of as
   expanding along with the perimeters of space-time, which also was
   rebounding with the explosion. As the space-time tensors relaxed,
   they pulled with them the large black holes. Space and time were
   actually being reformed or recreated in this event.

Secondary Little Bangs of Accelerating Black Holes.

   The large black holes, upon accelerating to the point where their
   mass reached the instability point, or when the ratio of m/r
   reached c^2/2G, also exploded.

   Because The Initial Object was not moving relative to anything else
   in the universe, (or another way to look at it, there was zero
   space to move in, since the gravitational field wound space tensors
   tightly about itself) The Initial Object exploded uniformly in all
   directions spherically. However, the large black holes, each having
   an acceleration in a different direction, exploded transverse to
   their acceleration because of the relativistic compression in the
   direction of motion. Out of these explosions came other smaller
   black holes, lots of energy, and matter which had not only the
   momentum of the large black holes from which they came, but their
   own momentum away from these centers of explosion.  The faster the
   large black holes, the less spherical was their scattering of
   matter and small black holes. In each of these explosions,
   considerable angular momentum was imparted as well.

The Formation of Galaxies Around Smaller Black Holes

   The matter accreted around the smaller black holes to form
   galaxies.  The galactic disks had their normal vector in the
   direction of acceleration.  These discs were elliptical or
   spherical in shape, having been compressed in the direction of
   relativistic acceleration.  The galaxies were moving away from each
   other, and away from the Little Bang centers. The Little Bangs'
   centers were expanding away from each other in a linear way.
   However, since these galaxies were moving spherically or
   elliptically away from their Little Bang centers, some were actually
   moving towards other galaxies from other Little Bangs.

The Appearance of Quasars

   Quasars may be the remnants of the large black holes exploding (the
   Little Bangs).  That is why they are the most energetic objects in
   the universe.  They are indeed the oldest objects in the universe
   that we can see, (according to this theory).  So we may be seeing
   the events in space-time at the time the large black holes
   exploded.  All galaxies can therefore be traced back to their
   original large black hole. The picture looks like fireworks: an
   exploding center with multiple pinwheels coming out.

   Quasars may not have been "ejected" from galaxies at all, but
   rather they may be the progenitors of all galaxies themselves,
   having ejected the nuclei (the smaller black holes) which were to
   form the centers of these galaxies. This would explain the presence
   of active galactic nuclei (AGN's) in the farthest galaxies but
   not present in the nearer galaxies which are in proximity to our
   galaxy. (AGN's are redshifted almost to 5 which corresponds to
   near the beginning of the universe). Quasars were exploding
   Active Nuclei and also are rare close by.

Blue Shifted Galaxies Not Found in Clusters Nearby

   The "oldest" galaxies (the blue shifted ones) may appear in the
   middle or far regions of the universe.  The blueness is not due to
   new star formation at all, but rather they are the galaxies on the
   side of the Little Bangs nearest to us.  What we are seeing,
   therefore is the blue shift of galaxies headed towards us at high
   speed.

   Nearby Little Bangs may have exploded through each other's walls
   and so given enough time, after the walls penetrate each other,
   the galaxies previously headed towards each other are heading
   away from each other after they pass. This would explain why
   no blue-shifted galaxies are close by.

Quantized Redshifts and Butcher-Oemler effects

   The theory would seem to suggest that all galaxies formed at around
   the same time, (shortly after the Little Bangs), and that spherical
   or elliptical clusters of galaxies would form around the quasars,
   the ones closest to us would be blue shifted, those farther away
   successively redshifted. The galaxies on the far side of the quaser
   should be redshifted the most.

At the Center of Most Galaxies is a Black Hole

   Then, at the center of most galaxies you would expect to find a black
   hole. They are not the result of neutron stars collapsing, but
   rather the grandchildren of the Big Bang. An abundance of heavy
   elements could be a result of matter being ejected from a black
   hole, as compared to the previous theory of mostly hydrogen gas
   (plasma) being so ejected. The stars, then would start out with a
   mixture of hydrogen, helium, and various amounts of heavy elements,
   which is difficult to explain with an isotropic distribution of
   hydrogen gas (in the old BB theory) from one explosion which must
   later on coalesce into galaxies and stars.

A Large Amount of Matter in the Universe is "Cold" and Dark

   The COBE results point to a large amount of cold dark matter in the
   universe. This theory indicates that black holes are fairly common
   and make up most of the matter in the universe. They are not really
   cold, but because they contain most of the energy within themselves
   and do not radiate much, owing to the nature of black holes, they
   would appear to us as being cold. Only the light that escapes from
   a small aperture at their axis of rotation would be seen by us, as
   is the case with Seyfert galactic nuclei. This theory would be in
   agreement with the COBE results.

Gamma Rays are radiated from Quasars

   Just as black holes radiate x-rays from the high velocity electrons
   at their rim, so the QSOs would emit gamma rays because of their
   massiveness at the point of explosion, (electrons would be accelerated
   faster by a more massive black hole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next part are questions asked in Sci.Astro that could be
answered in whole or part by this new "Little Bangs" theory.

>
> The B-O Effect is that many clusters of galaxies at z>0.3 have *blue*
> members, unlike nearby clusters of comparable morphology. Evidently there
> was considerable recent star formation going on there and then, probably
> with associated gas flows. These observations and their interpretation were
> checked in the early 80s, and as far as I know are now fully accepted.
>
> A related observation is the excess-blue-galaxy population seen by Tyson in
> deep imagery. The inferred redshift is about the same as for the clusters
> observed in the B-O Effect.
>
> In summary, "*strong* evolution of galaxies as a population in just the
> last 1/3 of the Hubble time" is an observed fact.

>"Objects of High Redshift", edited by Abell and Peebles, in 1980:
>
>"ABSTRACT: New data on the colors of galaxies in distant, rich
>clusters of galaxies are presented. Of seven clusters examined having
>z>0.20, all exhibit color distributions indicating that a significant
>proportion of the member galaxies are undergoing star formation. The
>one cluster studied with z<0.20 clearly shows a reduced fraction of
>such galaxies.

The theory would indicate that most galaxies and stars formed at
around the same time, close to the little bangs, and the blue shift is
a result of the galaxies on the side of the exploding sphere of
galaxies nearest us, approaching us at high velocities.

>INTRODUCTION: Several years ago, two-color photometry of the member
>galaxies in two rich centrally concentrated clusters at z~0.4
>indicated the presence of an anomalously large population of blue
>objects (Butcher and Oemler 1978a,b). The natural inference was that
>these blue objects are galaxies in the process of forming stars, and
>that probably we are observing *spiral* galaxies before they somehow
>lost their interstellar matter and turned into S0's. If this
>hypothesis is correct, then we are witnessing a rather great deal of
>evolution in galactic morphological types in clusters in the very
>recent cosmological past -- so recent, in fact, as to be entirely
>unexpected.  If these two clusters turn out to be representative of
>all concentrated, relaxed clusters at such redshifts, then we will
>need to confront the fact that all or nearly all of the giant clusters
>changed in an important way rather abruptly some 2-3 billion years
>ago. For if cluster spirals stopped forming stars any later, we would
>find today that S0's are distinguishable from ellipticals by their
>colors, which they are not (Sandage and Visvanathan 1978), and if they
>did so much earlier, then these two clusters must be quite
>unrepresentative for some reason..."

Once again, those Little Bangs that occurred in our side of the universe
would be expected to have walls of blue shifted galaxies coming our way.
This may explain the high concentration of blue objects in these clusters.
So we are NOT witnessing the creation of new stars, evolution, or whatnot
in the recent past. The further the Little Bangs' center from our own,
the more redshifted we would expect the galaxies to be.

>
>I saw a colloquium about this once.  What struck me then (and now) is
>that sure we have quantized redshifts - galaxies are distributed as if
>on the surface of bubbles, with "great walls" and big voids.
>
>However, this seems so simple that there is probobly a simple
>counter-argument, but I don't know what it is.  Anyone out there up on
>this?
>        Alec Habig

Exactly predicted by the Little Bangs Theory!
The sphere or ellipsoid of galaxies would be expanding all at once from
the center of the Little Bang, and would leave a great void in the center.
Only the walls of the sphere would be populated with galaxies.


>For me (trained in optical extragalactic astronomy) the B-O Effect was
>a big surprise. Up to 1978 the only hard proof that the Universe was
>not steady-state was that radio astronomers found in the 60s that the
>populations of radio sources have evolved. This observation was easy,
>because radio galaxies and quasars are the most luminous objects in
>the Universe and the brightest of them can be seen throughout the
>Universe; the data plainly said that there were more of them in the
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>past (i.e. at high redshift, or at lower signal level {farther away})
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>than there are today. As a typical optical astronomer in the 70s I was
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>uneasy about these radio observations because the technology was not
>unfamiliar. The B-O Effect was the first proof in the optical.  The
>evidence against steady-state is now greater, throughout the spectrum.
>

The quasars that formed the centers of the Little Bangs in our immediate
vacinity had depleted their light and energy long ago. That is why the
only ones we see are at cosmological distances where the light is only
now reaching us from these super emitters.

>     If quasars are really supermassive stars, then some galaxies will
>be more conducive to forming them than others.  The fields around Cen
>A and NGC 6220 serve as controls, in the sense that they are also
>well-studied parts of the sky.  Yet M87 has 84 quasars within three
>degrees, compared with zero for the control objects.
>
>     I agree that discovery bias is the only apparent explanation
>available to the standard model to avoid the implication that quasars
>do cluster around certain nearby galaxies.  That tendency has
>persisted throughout the last 10- 15 years of new
>discoveries.  -|Tom|-

The quasars that were the Little Bang centers in nearby galactic clusters
have long since shined their light, (the light of their explosion). Only
the quasars at cosmological distance from us can be seen as bright objects.
It is no surprise, therefore to see quasars in large numbers at large
distances, and virtually no quasars nearby. To produce a quasar requires
the Initial Big Bang.  The Little Bangs Theory would predict they could
not be produced any other way.

>     No need.  The general plot of angular separation versus galaxy
>redshift for 392 galaxy-quasar pairs is given by Burbidge et al. in
>ApJ Supp 74, 675 (1991).  It is repeated as figure 2 in the
>just-published "The case against the big bang" by Arp and Van
>Flandern, Phys. Lett A 164, 263-273 (1992).  The plot clearly shows a
>roughly linear trend for both a lower limit and an upper limit to
>angular separations versus redshift over four orders of magnitude in
>both parameters.  I quote from the latter paper:
>     "Fig. 2 proves in two ways that these [galaxy-quasar pairs] are
>physical associations.  First, at a given galaxy redshift the
>associated quasars cannot be accidental, because the area in which
>additional discoveries can occur increases as the square of the
>angular separation but the observed quasars only occur close to the
>galaxy.  Secondly, the observed separation of quasar from galaxy
>becomes larger as the redshift of the galaxy becomes smaller - that
>is, as the pair is closer to us in distance the apparent separation on
>the sky becomes larger."
>     In effect, this plot takes the anomaly I cited for M87 versus
>control fields and extends it to galaxies and quasars all over the sky
>for galaxy redshifts up to z = 1.  And the effect you cite, a galaxy
>redshift dependence for the angular separation, is strongly present as
>the local theory predicts.
>     No one argument now available can yet disprove either the
>standard or the local hypothesis for quasars.  I have conceded a point
>for your side with the absorption lines in quasar-galaxy pairs near
>z = 1.  But I claim a counterpoint for this demonstration that high-z
>quasars do associate with low-z galaxies in just the way the local
>hypothesis predicts.  I am interested to hear how you might propose to
>explain this observed association in the standard model.  If it were
>an observational selection effect, why would the mean separation
>get *smaller* as the galaxies get fainter?  -|Tom|-

Each Little Bang galactic clustering would exhibit the red shift
association with separation from neighboring galaxies. I.e. The
galaxies would be most blue nearest to us, and get successively
red-shifted as you go around the sphere to the far side.

>     I'm still puzzled.  If that were the explanation of the "blue
>galaxies", why is everyone so surprised by their abundance at high-z?
>Why are astronomers asking, "What are these things?"  Local clusters
>of galaxies would have their fair share of blue galaxies too, if they
>were just late-type spirals and irregulars.  I had the impression that
>the high-redshift blue galaxies really were blue, not yellow; and that
>when removing the effects of the redshift, they would then peak in the
>ultraviolet.  Where have I been led astray?  -|Tom|-

The blue shift is not due to a red-shifted ultraviolet. It seems so
obvious that it is truly a blue shift. These galaxies are headed
towards us! Some of the nearest clusters may have had their "blue shifted"
galaxies pass through our cluster, they are now heading away from us and
so appear to be red-shifted. That is why only farther away Little Bang
clusters exhibit "blue galaxies".

>The prima facie inference from the B-O Effect was that the S0's seen
>in nearby clusters are the same class of objects as the (blue) spirals
>seen in the distant clusters, and that star formation has stopped
>between the time of z=0.2 and z=0.0. The surprise is that this
>observation is saying that we seem to be living in a specially favored
>time, the period just after star formation stopped in rich clusters.
>This coincidence is unnerving for any cosmologist, because we don't
>like to postulate that there is anything unusual about our time or
>place.  It is also exciting, because it says that we can see evolution
>in action fairly easily with present observational technology.

We are seeing blue galaxies where we would expect to by the Little
Bangs Theory. Once again, close by, the wall of nearby clusters has
already passed us by, so we see only red-shifts as they speed away.
Further out, the blue wall is seen as approaching us, as the slower
galactic clusters expand. Farthest out, the galactic cluster centers
are moving away faster than the wall of galaxies on the side facing us
are approaching us. Therefore we see these as slightly bluer but
overall red in the most distant galaxies. We are not living in a
special period of galactic evolution. This may be the best evidence
for the Little Bangs Theory.

>J.Gunn (Princeton) & A.Dressler (Mount Wilson): "...[Samples of 7
>clusters z=0.5 and 7 at z=0.75] clearly indicate strong evolution of a
>sizeable fraction of the cluster population, in the sense that there
>were many more "active" galaxies then than at the present epoch.."

See above answer as to why you would expect to find these "blue" galaxies
between z=.5 and z=.75.

>Y.Mellier (Toulouse): "...[cluster] A370 presents a high star-forming
>galaxy fraction (50%) composed of two populations: a red one and a
>blue one, this latter being constituted of the blue Butcher-Oemler
>objects. From the spectroscopic sample of cluster members, we found
>that the blue galaxy fraction is of 15%.."

Ditto the above answers!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate hearing any evidence for or against this theory
from sci.astro.  Perhaps we can refine it further if it turns out to
have merit.

Zink_Steve @Tandem.Com

Newsgroups: sci.astro