"Big Bang May Not Be The Beginning of Everything, New Theory Suggests"

[Unclear Engineer]

I am going to throw this out as a new thread, even though it is relevant to many of the ongoing threads, because it would be buried in the ongoing discussions and I think it deserves its own discussion: https://www.sciencealert.com/big-bang-may-not-be-the-beginning-of-everything-new-theory-suggests

I have always felt that this line of reasoning seems to warrant more consideration than I have seen it being given. It has always bothered me that the BBT postulates a "universe" so dense that it would collapse into itself if not for the "magic assumption" of "inflation" to somehow violate the well-proven rules of General Relativity Theory. And the BBT's proponent finding the need for even more "dark energy" and "early dark energy" violations of GRT are just more red flags for a theory that insists on extrapolating the interpretations of observed red shift backwards in time to a point (which they then cannot explain anyway), for lack of any better idea.

Well, here is a coherent description of another (better?) idea. One that is claimed to be consistent with GRT, and does not require "magic" forces or "creation of something from nothing". Yes, it does require an infinite time for the universe into the past, so those who insist that there must be a "beginning" will not be happy. But, those who are willing to accept the concept of infinite time will be pleased that the problem of how matter was created without an equal amount of antimatter, will be pleased - it wasn't "created from nothing" - regular matter has always existed. But, that does raise the issue of what "antimatter" really is, since we know something that can annihilate regular matter does exist.

This theory shakes the whole of cosmology and some quantum mechanics assumptions as well, so I expect it to be attacked vigorously.

Please focus the attacks on what is wrong with this theory, rather than just arguing that the BBT is "better".

 

[Gibsense]

This theory shakes the whole of cosmology and some quantum mechanics assumptions as well, so I expect it to be attacked vigorously.

I don't see why. The only originality is the actual quantum bit that avoids the singularity. Many are looking for such a mechanism. Fluctuations and string circles included. The black hole idea has been around for decades, and many posts in this forum have that idea included (but disguised, I think)

Anyway, I agree. It deserves a serious discussion afresh. On another thread, someone alluded to the fact that if the universe were closed and the total mass were sufficient to stop expansion, then an observer " looking at the universe event horizon from the outside" would not be able to differentiate it from a black hole. The jury is out because we are ignorant (plenty of theory) of the inside BH structure. One point to make is that we think (rightly) of the black hole boundary as the event horizon, but perhaps need reminding that inside there is a star at the centre (we assume), and it is exceedingly compressed, we think.

Really?

Perhaps we need to make our own (miniature) BH somehow and check it out