The cause of Bigbang ?

Good Morning! I would like someone to comment , opine or discuss the following idea and, if possible, help to develop it or to disseminate it!
The article (with the address at the end) that has just been published, arguments that reinforce the proposal of Penrose (Nobel winner) about the existence of a cyclical universe!
Respecting Universal evolution: The part already tested by the Bigbang theory, or the inflation model, the presence of dark energy and the concept of entropy, the proposed article:

1. Consider the Universe, a maximum region bounded by the existence of mass and energy at every instant!
The whole existence: mass, energy and space between masses belonging to the Universe.
The space that is not found between masses is outside!

2. How to detect all existence at every instant, when expanding, the Universe does not do work, that is, it does not exchange energy with its exterior, because there will never be anything outside of it!

3. The variation of Universal volume generates variation and transformation of the types of energies existing in the others, but conserves the Total energy!
(Relativity allows the conservation of total energy in the following states: Static or with a non-flat tendency; read:
: authors: Michael Weiss and John Baez!
Which are the conditions for all Universal evolution in the article that follows!)

4. To start or end an expansion motion, it must be stopped (Static)! Thus, the entire Universe in its instants of maximum contraction and maximum expansion, when meeting for a static instant, can be represented by Total Energy (ET) or resting energy (Eo) = Mo x c ²

5. Any resting mass (Mo) has all of its binding energies (Potential gravitational energy: Eg; Internal kinetic energy of its components: Ek; and all of its atomic or quantum binding energies (Eq)) represented by (Eo ) = Mo x c ². (It is a unique way of associating gravity with quantum physics ).

6. With the total energy (ET) of the universe in its extreme instants of maximum contraction and maximum expansion are equal (law of conservation of energy) and the Universe needed instants, it must be at rest, We have: ET = Eg + Eq ( = 0) + Ek (= 0).

7. Right in a state before the start of the BigBang and at the end of the expansion, because it is static, the following internal interaction energies must be null: quantum energy (Eq (= 0)) and kinetic energy (Ek (= 0) ) The only energy that the Universe can have is the gravitational potential energy (in both states to conserve its energy). Thus, with the necessary presence of mass, the Universe can never contract or expand completely! Being cyclical (explanation in the article)!

8. To have great gravitational potential energy and conserve your total energy:
In a state of maximum expansion, the Universe has to be composed of the following mass of rest: two smaller ones separated by the largest possible space: one-dimensional.
In a state of maximum contraction, the universe has to be composed of 2 parts and a particle: One part completely one-dimensional (losing the ability to stay together, because it has no space to bend) and the other formed by the other massive part and the particle , configuring a smaller contraction or a second dimension! (When a part with a contraction becomes one-dimensional, it loses its binding property internally), so the particle moves in the direction of the other part, generating a centrifugation (Without the gravitational effect of a part, expansion begins. Soon after the expansion of the second part happens, we have the explanation of the current accelerated expansion (more detailed explanation in the figures)!

9. Lastly: the increase in entropy in expansion is "compensated" when the Universe passes from the 3rd dimension and returns to the 1st dimension in its instants of maximum contraction and expansion!
Next: the address of the article:
In English : http://www.ijaresm.com/uploaded_files/document_file/Sócrates_Georges_Petrakisw2Ie.pdf
In portuguese: universosgp.blogspot.com

Thanks!
 
Well I disagree with this for a start:

"
1. Consider the Universe, a maximum region bounded by the existence of mass and energy at every instant!
The whole existence: mass, energy and space between masses belonging to the Universe.
The space that is not found between masses is outside!" My emphasis.

Universe cannot be bounded, because it is sum total.

By definition, there is nothing outside the Universe.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
[QUOTE = "Catástrofe, postagem: 536194, membro: 1109827"]
Bem, para começar, discordo disso:

"
1. Considere o Universo, uma região máxima limitada pela existência de massa e energia a cada instante!
Toda a existência: massa, energia e espaço entre as massas pertencentes ao Universo.
O espaço que não se encontra entre as massas está fora! "Minha ênfase.

O universo não pode ser limitado, porque é a soma total.

Por definição, não há nada fora do Universo.

Gato :)
[/CITAR]
Correto! Foi o que eu disse: toda existência está dentro do Universo!
Well I disagree with this for a start:

"
1. Consider the Universe, a maximum region bounded by the existence of mass and energy at every instant!
The whole existence: mass, energy and space between masses belonging to the Universe.
The space that is not found between masses is outside!" My emphasis.

Universe cannot be bounded, because it is sum total.

By definition, there is nothing outside the Universe.

Cat :)
Correct! That's what I said: all existence is within the Universe! Non-existence is out!
The universe is expanding, so there is a limit that is growing! If you do not consider this limit , you are not respecting the Bigbang theory!
Thank you for your replies! To try to improve this discussion, I will try to send the answers from the magazines that rejected the article in the peer review, only after the article was published!
 
Last edited:
Correct! That's what I said: all existence is within the Universe! Non-existence is out!
The universe is expanding, so there is a limit that is growing! If you do not consider this limit , you are not respecting the Bigbang theory!
Thank you for your replies! To try to improve this discussion, I will try to send the answers from the magazines that rejected the article in the peer review, only after the article was published!
 
Why must the expanding universe have a limit (boundary)? Do you mean a visual limit or some other physical edge-like maifestation?
I'm talking about an edge! inside + Edge = all existence (Mass, space and energy! Outside: Inexistence = space, without mass and energy! In Bigbang's theory all existence (mass, energy and space between the masses occupied a smaller space, with the expansion of this space) limit or edge was growing, which is the definition of expansion!
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
I'm talking about an edge! inside + Edge = all existence (Mass, space and energy! Outside: Inexistence = space, without mass and energy! In Bigbang's theory all existence (mass, energy and space between the masses occupied a smaller space, with the expansion of this space) limit or edge was growing, which is the definition of expansion!
There is no physical boundary implied in GR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
I'm talking about an edge! inside + Edge = all existence (Mass, space and energy! Outside: Inexistence = space, without mass and energy! In Bigbang's theory all existence (mass, energy and space between the masses occupied a smaller space, with the expansion of this space) limit or edge was growing, which is the definition of expansion! To understand better you have to read the whole article including the figures! It is in simple language and uses simple arguments and therefore has a quick read!
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
I'm talking about an edge! inside + Edge = all existence (Mass, space and energy! Outside: Inexistence = space, without mass and energy! In Bigbang's theory all existence (mass, energy and space between the masses occupied a smaller space, with the expansion of this space) limit or edge was growing, which is the definition of expansion! To understand better you have to read the whole article including the figures! It is in simple language and uses simple arguments and therefore has a quick read!
GR understanding isn’t simple. Do you have the current distances to the edge? Are we in the center, contrary to anything found in GR?
 
Quote
The article (with the address at the end) that has just been published, arguments that reinforce the proposal of Penrose (Nobel winner) about the existence of a cyclical universe!
Quote

Well, I agree with that. I always thought that the Big Bang idea was rubbish.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
Quote
Are we in the center, contrary to anything found in GR?
Quote

Sorry if I am hopelessly out of date, but isn't everywhere at the centre of an expanding Universe?

Cat :)
Yes, you could say that. GR works fine without any center. Relativity, beginning with SR, gives no preference to any absolute frame. That’s not a side issue; hence called “relativity”. Any spot in the universe will produce correct results for the laws of physics. GR offers, btw, no claim that there’s not a center, but the question of one becomes superfluous.
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
It’s easy to think of a balloon expanding as an analog, but a balloon has a center. If you ask an ant crawling on the expanding balloon‘s surface, however, especially a balloon that is so large no curvature is noticeable, the ant will, with lots of crawling, determine there is no center. All points on the surface are separating uniformly from all other surface points.

GR is the 3D version of the 2D balloon.

iPad
 
[QUOTE = "Helio, postagem: 536219, membro: 1111136"]
Sim, você poderia dizer isso. GR funciona bem sem qualquer centro. A relatividade, começando com SR, não dá preferência a nenhum referencial absoluto. Isso não é um problema secundário; daí chamado de “relatividade”. Qualquer ponto no universo produzirá resultados corretos para as leis da física. GR oferece, aliás, nenhuma alegação de que não existe um centro, mas a questão de um torna-se supérflua.
[/CITAR]
Sorry, but you did not see that the article does not show the evolution of the Universe, this is already shown by relativity with the Bigbang theory! The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension! When there is no concentration of energy and you are at rest, you don't need to use relativity! It would be like studying the movement of a car using relativity! Unnecessary! Without complex relativistic calculations (only in these static moments, understanding is much simpler!
 
Sorry, but you did not see that the article does not show the evolution of the Universe, this is already shown by relativity with the Bigbang theory! The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension! When there is no concentration of energy and you are at rest, you don't need to use relativity! It would be like studying the movement of a car using relativity! Unnecessary! Without complex relativistic calculations (only in these static moments, understanding is much simpler!
 
Yes, you could say that. GR works fine without any center. Relativity, beginning with SR, gives no preference to any absolute frame. That’s not a side issue; hence called “relativity”. Any spot in the universe will produce correct results for the laws of physics. GR offers, btw, no claim that there’s not a center, but the question of one becomes superfluous.
Sorry, but you did not see that the article does not show the evolution of the Universe, this is already shown by relativity with the Bigbang theory! The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension! When there is no concentration of energy and you are at rest, you don't need to use relativity! It would be like studying the movement of a car using relativity! Unnecessary! Without complex relativistic calculations (only in these static moments, understanding is much simpler!
 
Apr 5, 2020
449
475
1,060
Basically, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause, because, theoretically speaking, time, space and matter all started to exist from big bang. And by the law of causality, the cause of an effect always comes before the effect. Therefore, if big bang is the effect, then the cause is before the big bang, and as there is nothing before the big bang, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause. Therefore, logically speaking, as there is no reason for big bang, and therefore, there is no reason for anything. Now, I know I am delving into Philosophy here and getting distracted from Pure Science, but that is what logic leads me to. I am happy for any feedback,
 
it's not necessarily the big-bang that is what happened
- but imo it's the best theory to date

@voidpotentialenergy is void the precursor in your opinion?
IMO the reason for everything is that Void space had potential energy.
It spawned quantum fluctuation that creates energy and matter until it settles into a energy balance so no more energy is created or destroyed.
BB just an outcome from 2 regions of energy colliding and causing more energy than allowed in any region.

At the beginning (nothing) then (fluctuation from potential of nothing) then (BB's from to much regional energy)

Reason for everything is no more than a quirk of nature that Void = potential energy.
JMO
 
Basically, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause, because, theoretically speaking, time, space and matter all started to exist from big bang. And by the law of causality, the cause of an effect always comes before the effect. Therefore, if big bang is the effect, then the cause is before the big bang, and as there is nothing before the big bang, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause. Therefore, logically speaking, as there is no reason for big bang, and therefore, there is no reason for anything. Now, I know I am delving into Philosophy here and getting distracted from Pure Science, but that is what logic leads me to. I am happy for any feedback,
I think BB theory is a giant leap of faith to believe that (time) something that has no proof exists and creation of it and everything form no point in space to create everything is wrong.

Dents of the microwave background tend to point to a reason for a BB and things happening before the BB.
Doesn't take a leap of faith to believe that the BB is just 1 event inside a never ending sea of fluctuation that is reason and cause for a BB"s.

JMO
 
SGP, you state::
"The article shows and compares the extreme instants of the evolution of the Universe! Static instants with concentrated energy / mass in an extensive dimension!" My emphasis.

Energy/mass has unite m^2/s^2 or length x acceleration.

What do you suppose this corresponds to?

I mean in units such as Force = mass x acceleration with units kg (metres) / (seconds)^2.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Basically, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause, because, theoretically speaking, time, space and matter all started to exist from big bang. And by the law of causality, the cause of an effect always comes before the effect. Therefore, if big bang is the effect, then the cause is before the big bang, and as there is nothing before the big bang, it is impossible for big bang to have a cause. Therefore, logically speaking, as there is no reason for big bang, and therefore, there is no reason for anything. Now, I know I am delving into Philosophy here and getting distracted from Pure Science, but that is what logic leads me to. I am happy for any feedback,
Good Morning! Sorry, but you are giving your opinion according to what you read earlier and it seems that you did not read the entire article sent in full! you are repeating what Hawking said! But do you have any idea how absurd this is? There is nothing before Bigbang is the same as saying that the Universe came out of nowhere! This violates a basic law of physics: the law of energy conservation! Before going through a peer review this article was rejected by some journal and one of the arguments was these! It is an argument without proof and without support! If in the Universe there was no time before Bigbang, there was no internal space (space-time dimension)! there is no internal space, there is no energy for motion (kinetic energy). There was no gravitational energy and there was no quantum energy and no interaction between the particles. What energy was there to start the Big Bang? Do you understand why time couldn't have come with the big bang? Note: this article that is being commented on, respecting the Bigbang theory since the beginning of the expansion, the concept of entropy and dark energy, and anti-matter, but to find these items you have to read the entire article and look at the figures before to give an opinion! talking about another absurd criticism for this article: I was asked if I didn't know that the energy of the Universe is not conserved! I had to look for another article that says that energy can be conserved in certain situations! Which are the same as described in this article! Thanks for joining the discussion! What you think is incorrect can define that when I see the message I reply!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts