The universe is by definition a closed system with no outside mechanism to drive it. This means that every mechanism in the universe will have to have some reverse mechanism for it to persist. Otherwise, it will burn itself out and die.
An eternal universe must additionally have a fixed size, or one that pulsates, sometimes expanding and sometimes contracting. If it shrinks to nothing, it's dead, and if it expands for ever, it can also be considered dead.
However, we cannot simply declare our universe to be eternal. We have to present plausible mechanisms that will prevent it from dying.
A fixed size universe
In a model where gravity is the only force of any significance, we cannot very easily argue for a fixed size universe. It's pretty much impossible for a gravity only universe to balance out. It must either expand into oblivion or it will collapse. Even if it expands ever more slowly so that it never exceeds a size limit, bits of it will collapse from time to time until it's all dead.
However, we don't live in a gravity only universe. There are electric currents flowing through space in the form of plasma. Space is full of electric and magnetic forces that can counteract gravity. These forces make orbits stable, and prevent planets, stars and galaxies from colliding catastrophically. Once this is taken into account, the argument for a fixed size and eternal universe becomes stronger.
Heating and cooling
When we look at our Sun in isolation, we're amazed by the amount of heat it generates. It's tempting to conclude that it must possess a powerful internal furnace, and with billions of stars in our galaxy alone, the cosmos must heat up rapidly.
However, when we consider our Sun in a wider context, we see that it may for the most part be externally driven by plasma flows between stars. If so, little extra energy is required in order to account for the Sun's impressive amount of heat.
If stars are hot primarily due to external factors, there's no reason to think that a fixed size cosmos will heat up quickly. But there will be heating over time, so there is a need for a reverse process from the one going on at the surface of stars. We need a mechanism that can suck energy out of the cosmos, and our prime candidate for this are supernovas because they are known to produce a lot of heavy elements. Despite their brightness, they do in fact consume more energy than they produce.
With a model in which stars produce energy through fission and supernovas consume energy through fusion, we have a balance in which a fixed size universe will remain at a steady overall temperature.
Lifecycle of matter
Halton Arp noted in his time that matter itself age over time. Matter starts off with small protons that grow bigger and heavier over time. This too needs to be balanced with a reverse process. Otherwise, we get an aging universe with matter never returning to its initial youthful lightness.
To solve this problem, I've proposed that there's a limit to how heavy protons can become, and that they will evaporate into positrons, electrons and photons once this limit is reached. This radiation can in turn be used to produce new lightweight matter.
The universe can thus be sustained indefinitely in a balanced fashion, with some regions young, and other regions old and dying.
Life
It should be noted that the death of matter doesn't mean the death of life, because life uses whatever materials there are in its vicinity to reproduce. If life finds ways to move out of old, dying regions of space and into newer regions, life can persist for eternity, and it seems likely that this is in fact how things work. Microorganisms can traverse space randomly, and highly intelligent lifeforms find ways to cross the voids of space from dying regions to younger regions.
It's therefore reasonable to believe that our universe is a huge thriving ecosystem teeming with life.
No comments:
Post a Comment