"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

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Gibsense, your reply seems to think this is just "the big bang in a bag", but it is actually doing away with the fundamental concepts of "inflation" and "dark energy" as special forces with special fields, etc. It is a different explanation for observations. And, I expect it could have substantially different time lines, because it claims to be consistent with General Relativity. So, no expansions at huge multiples of light speed.

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense, your reply seems to think this is just "the big bang in a bag", but it is actually doing away with the fundamental concepts of "inflation" and "dark energy" as special forces with special fields, etc. It is a different explanation for observations. And, I expect it could have substantially different time lines, because it claims to be consistent with General Relativity. So, no expansions at huge multiples of light speed.

I am not disagreeing with you, it is just my understanding of stuff excludes "Fields" in the sense you intend, so I tend to concentrate on ' spatial shape'. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

unless you totally disregard the fact that an effect always has a cause you must accept that space-time pre existed the event known as the big bang,
The word singular actually refers to something which is strange, peculiar, unknown, and possibly unknowable, I can only wonder how the word singularity, which in this tense was derived from the word singular, came to describe the possible existence of a physical object.

That such an immense amount of energy, contained within such a proposed mind bogglingly tiny volume, could magically emerge from nowhere, into nowhere, and create an instance of spacetime while doing so. is nonsensical

I favour the synopsis that the space-time containing the previous version of our universe contracted, and when it could no longer physically contract it instead expanded. (There is much more to it... But I did say synopsis!)