The cause of Bigbang ?

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
QM is far more restrictive than GR in those first nanoseconds.

No, GR was proposed as a powerful but general model to address the Static Universe, which was the popular model in the early 1900s. It was Lemaitre, and a few others, that recognized that GR fails to support a Static model.

To suggest GR is the problem for the early nanoseconds in BBT discourages my interest in any lengthy ATM suppositions.

Perhaps if you could present some short and simple nuggets to help give us stepping stones to your model, then you may find more participation. There are many, many ATM ideas out there that deserve little to no attention.

But, be sure to demonstrate objective evidence for any non-mainstream claim. "Word salads" are far too common and far too worthless, most often.

Well, with his clout, he'd have no problem. But he had no clout when he published his SR theory. But it was published because he offered a solution to the objective evidence found in the Michelson-Morley experiment regarding the aether and light.

I'm unclear what you mean by "possible times". If you mean at t=0, then yes, there is no scientific theory for this.
 
"Basically", it is a scientific -- and a mathematical -- fact that the Big Bang can have a cause. It is a physical impossibility to observe the infinite (the antonym of finite), but never-the-less the existence of the infinite will have influence and consequences (will have 'presence'), as finite physics' facts and potential of the infinite, regarding this finite side (and these finite sides (this infinite self-mirrors to infinity -- it cancels but does not cease to exist)), the only finite side(s) of the infinite (Stephen Hawking: The particle has six faces; six individualized dimensions; therefore is in fact six individualized particles; but never-the-less is exactly one particle).

That "presence" is a single-sided 2-dimensionally flat frame entity of entities, a severally dimensioned (multi-dimensional) collapsed horizon, aka ['Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?'}, the infinite Universe (U) the [Big Crunch / Big Hole binary (0 and/or 1) 'naked singularity'] of Vortex effectively (relatively), but not at all really, closed up to it on its non-local, non-relative, non-existent, side, so to speak (I, for one, would not care to call it any kind of one dimensionality, though that point -- blackhole and/or wormhole -- is one property of 'binary' 3-dimensionality (binary "and/or" is in fact, at the very least, three dimensions)).
Sorry, I don't have time to answer all the time! Tomorrow again I send answers! Thanks for the discussion or questions!
 
SGP, you said: "The third dimension or our existence is at the edge of the Universe! Then yes, it really is a centerless surface! Inside our universe are the second and first dimensions!"

How do you reconcile this with the true (defined) x, y, and z dimensions of space as being mutually perpendicular?

Cat :)

P.S. Maybe I can reconcile this with my "Edgeless Universe". Essentially (space only):
"Consider a flatlander living on a sphere. The surface of the sphere is the Universe of that being. Inside or outside the sphere is (spatially) meaningless.
If the sphere expands, the surface area of the sphere expands I.e., the Universe of the flatlander expands." To a 3-dimensional being the radius increases, but this cannot be perceived by the flatlander. I do appreciate the language difficulty.

Cat :)
Sorry, I don't have time to answer all the time! Tomorrow again I send answers! Thanks for the discussion or questions!
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
728
840
1,760
"Basically", it is a scientific -- and a mathematical -- fact that the Big Bang can have a cause. It is a physical impossibility to observe the infinite (the antonym of finite), but never-the-less the existence of the infinite will have influence and consequences (will have 'presence'), as finite physics' facts and potential of the infinite, regarding this finite side (and these finite sides (this infinite self-mirrors to infinity -- it cancels but does not cease to exist)), the only finite side(s) of the infinite (Stephen Hawking: The particle has six faces; six individualized dimensions; therefore is in fact six individualized particles; but never-the-less is exactly one particle).

That "presence" is a single-sided 2-dimensionally flat frame entity of entities, a severally dimensioned (multi-dimensional) collapsed horizon, aka ['Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?'}, the infinite Universe (U) the [Big Crunch / Big Hole binary (0 and/or 1) 'naked singularity'] of Vortex effectively (relatively), but not at all really, closed up to it on its non-local, non-relative, non-existent, side, so to speak (I, for one, would not care to call it any kind of one dimensionality, though that point -- blackhole and/or wormhole -- is one property of 'binary' 3-dimensionality (binary "and/or" is in fact, at the very least, three dimensions)).
I really don't understand what you mean to say. According to wikipedia:

"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
When I speak of static it is not a model of a static universe! they are the extreme instants of its contraction and expansion!
New Abstract: (Answer given to the Forbes report):
Can the logic of a Cyclic Universe be stronger than the imposition of another model?

Any mass at rest has a certain energy (from the interaction between the components that form it at any level).
If this interaction ends, it will have all this energy equivalent to: E = Mo x c².
that is, all internal interaction energies (gravitational potential, kinetic, atomic, quantum, etc.) would be represented by: E = Mo x c²;
In contraction or maximum expansion (only in these cases), could the Universe be considered a mass at rest?
(before starting any motion (expansion) it is necessary to be in complete rest!).
Being at rest and in maximum contraction, the universe could be:
Virtually without internal space for motion existence?
No wave propagation (energy)?
No interactions or particles?
Be interpreted without the use of quantum physics or kinetic energy?
For having to conserve its energy: (the universe cannot have arisen out of nowhere):
The only possible energy to exist is the potential gravitational energy?
(Potential gravitational energy is not gravity, the explanation of its existence in a state of maximum contraction can presented in the article cited below)!
Following this logic, in the instants of maximum contraction or expansion (Instances of complete rest),
would it be possible to determine the structure of the Universe for the beginning or the end of its expansion?

I would like these questions to be answered!
So, maybe I understand how relativity and quantum physics can be used for a universe that can have its energy / mass dissipated in a single dimension!
So that all can understand how there are models that defend a universe that came out of nowhere, or about the existence of Multi universes!
(For me, this has almost the same effect as considering a flat Earth!)
I would like to discuss without imposition and choose which model is more coherent!
Freedom of speech is important! If models discussed fails, they will not have the strength to spread, but everyone should know that they exists!
How many possibilities are there, on such a controversial subject, as the part that is still under debate in cosmology?
Waiting for answers!

The above arguments are part of the following published model and may give rise to ideas for other models and their discussion, or even to clarify my doubts or those of others.
Waiting for any criticism!

Sorry, I don't have time to answer all the time! Tomorrow again I send answers! Thanks for the discussion or questions!
 
I really don't understand what you mean to say. According to wikipedia:

"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space."
ok! the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space." It is this expansion of space that makes the limits of the universe increase (space between mass and energy potential increasing)
 
Last edited:
When I speak of static it is not a model of a static universe! they are the extreme instants of its contraction and expansion!
New Abstract: (Answer given to the Forbes report):
Can the logic of a Cyclic Universe be stronger than the imposition of another model?

Any mass at rest has a certain energy (from the interaction between the components that form it at any level).
If this interaction ends, it will have all this energy equivalent to: E = Mo x c².
that is, all internal interaction energies (gravitational potential, kinetic, atomic, quantum, etc.) would be represented by: E = Mo x c²;
In contraction or maximum expansion (only in these cases), could the Universe be considered a mass at rest?
(before starting any motion (expansion) it is necessary to be in complete rest!).
Being at rest and in maximum contraction, the universe could be:
Virtually without internal space for motion existence?
No wave propagation (energy)?
No interactions or particles?
Be interpreted without the use of quantum physics or kinetic energy?
For having to conserve its energy: (the universe cannot have arisen out of nowhere):
The only possible energy to exist is the potential gravitational energy?
(Potential gravitational energy is not gravity, the explanation of its existence in a state of maximum contraction can presented in the article cited below)!
Following this logic, in the instants of maximum contraction or expansion (Instances of complete rest),
would it be possible to determine the structure of the Universe for the beginning or the end of its expansion?

I would like these questions to be answered!
So, maybe I understand how relativity and quantum physics can be used for a universe that can have its energy / mass dissipated in a single dimension!
So that all can understand how there are models that defend a universe that came out of nowhere, or about the existence of Multi universes!
(For me, this has almost the same effect as considering a flat Earth!)
I would like to discuss without imposition and choose which model is more coherent!
Freedom of speech is important! If models discussed fails, they will not have the strength to spread, but everyone should know that they exists!
How many possibilities are there, on such a controversial subject, as the part that is still under debate in cosmology?
Waiting for answers!

The above arguments are part of the following published model and may give rise to ideas for other models and their discussion, or even to clarify my doubts or those of others.
Waiting for any criticism!
Sorry, I don't have time to answer all the time! Tomorrow again I send answers! Thanks for the discussion or questions!
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
728
840
1,760
that is, all internal interaction energies (gravitational potential, kinetic, atomic, quantum, etc.) would be represented by: E = Mo x c²;
Well, no, all interaction energies can't be described by E =mc². E =mc² is simply the equation to get the rest "potential" energy of an object. The equation is about the maximum amount of potential energy that can be extracted from an object. It doesn't include gravitational, kinetic, atomic or quantum things, it is just a representation of the maximum potential energy of an object.
In contraction or maximum expansion (only in these cases), could the Universe be considered a mass at rest?
Yes, and no. Because, yup, it is true that the universe is "expanding" but not moving, the universe is at rest. But the thing is that, to get the motion of the universe, you have to have something else for which you can say that the Universe is at rest "relative" to that object. I don't know how google translate will translate that sentence, but the thing is that, to get the motion of an object, you need another object by which you can say that the object is at motion or rest. And now, as, the BBT says that the universe is space and time in itself, it is impossible to say whether the universe is at rest or at motion, because there is nothing else outside it! So, there is nothing else to say whether the Universe is at "relative" motion according to it or not!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Well, no, all interaction energies can't be described by E =mc². E =mc² is simply the equation to get the rest "potential" energy of an object. The equation is about the maximum amount of potential energy that can be extracted from an object. It doesn't include gravitational, kinetic, atomic or quantum things, it is just a representation of the maximum potential energy of an object.
I have already discussed this in some reviews of my article! If this is not considered you are disregarding the energy conservation law! In fact E = Moxc² is the "cinetic" energy transmitted when all interactions are undone! Think: Energy cannot disappear from nowhere!
 
Well, no, all interaction energies can't be described by E =mc². E =mc² is simply the equation to get the rest "potential" energy of an object. The equation is about the maximum amount of potential energy that can be extracted from an object. It doesn't include gravitational, kinetic, atomic or quantum things, it is just a representation of the maximum potential energy of an object.

Yes, and no. Because, yup, it is true that the universe is "expanding" but not moving, the universe is at rest. But the thing is that, to get the motion of the universe, you have to have something else for which you can say that the Universe is at rest "relative" to that object. I don't know how google translate will translate that sentence, but the thing is that, to get the motion of an object, you need another object by which you can say that the object is at motion or rest. And now, as, the BBT says that the universe is space and time in itself, it is impossible to say whether the universe is at rest or at motion, because there is nothing else outside it! So, there is nothing else to say whether the Universe is at "relative" motion according to it or not!
The motion is the change in position of one mass in relation to the other as time passes! With the expansion of space, the distance between masses increases, right after a relative movement! If you say that there is not, you are saying that the expansion of the universe will not cause it to dissipate and you are disrespecting the Bigbang theory!
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
The cause of Bigbang ? This was the question.

First, it has been pointed out that 'cause' is an anthropocentric concept.

Quote
Anthropocentrism is considered to be profoundly embedded in many modern human cultures and conscious acts. It is a major concept in the field of environmental ethics and environmental philosophy, where it is often considered to be the root cause of problems created by human action within the ecosphere.
Quote (Wiki)

Having stated that, the BB, in my opinion, and not mine alone, epitomises the failure of the human mind to acccept that some questions are beyond its cognisance . "Give a dog a bad name and hang it" becomes "Give something a fancy name and pretend you understand ir".

Just to complicate things a little more, I (as do others) prefer the notion that the socalled BB is just an inflection point, or narrowing, between other stares.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Your questions are being useful, for this I thank you, but I will send tomorrow the restrictions that my article suffered before being published, by the chief editors and reviewers of the journals so that you can see if it makes sense! maybe you can see that in their answers there is no pattern! I sent to journals from nature, even some less reputable!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Your questions are being useful, for this I thank you, but I will send tomorrow the restrictions that my article suffered before being published, by the chief editors and reviewers of the journals so that you can see if it makes sense! maybe you can see that in their answers there is no pattern! I sent to journals from nature, even some less reputable!
Did you receive my conversation notes on Introduction? Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
The cause of Bigbang ? This was the question.

First, it has been pointed out that 'cause' is an anthropocentric concept.

Quote
Anthropocentrism is considered to be profoundly embedded in many modern human cultures and conscious acts. It is a major concept in the field of environmental ethics and environmental philosophy, where it is often considered to be the root cause of problems created by human action within the ecosphere.
Quote (Wiki)

Having stated that, the BB, in my opinion, and not mine alone, epitomises the failure of the human mind to acccept that some questions are beyond its cognisance . "Give a dog a bad name and hang it" becomes "Give something a fancy name and pretend you understand ir".

Just to complicate things a little more, I (as do others) prefer the notion that the socalled BB is just an inflection point, or narrowing, between other stares.
Philosophical Argument! But the title of the article was not the cause of Bigbang! but Dynamic Universe! The objective is to prove that the Universe is cyclical and eternal, because if it is not, we will be disrespecting a basic physical law! The energy conservation law! In my opinion, something cannot come out of nowhere! Saying you can is similar to considering the Earth flat! I don't know if you noticed, but we are all part of the Universe! If this is considered to end someday (at the insistence of some "researchers" who want to impose their ideas and maintain their power), We are condemned to think that our existence is just this, and to become selfish, not realizing that we are part of a whole! and making the world uneven! Are you sure this is what you want? Or do you think everything happens by chance! A person is born with good qualities and conditions while others are born without any chance in precarious places (in a universe that at all times, in every way shows us the law of action and reaction!) The real goal is not just to know about the Universe!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
maximum potential energy of an object = any type of energy or interaction that the object has!
I have already discussed this in some reviews of my article! If this is not considered you are disregarding the energy conservation law! In fact E = Moxc² is the "cinetic" energy transmitted when all interactions are undone! Think: Energy cannot disappear from nowhere!
I have already discussed this in some reviews of my article! If this is not considered you are disregarding the energy conservation law! In fact E = Moxc² is the "cinetic" energy
I have already discussed this in some reviews of my article! If this is not considered you are disregarding the energy conservation law! In fact E = Moxc² is the "cinetic" energy transmitted when all interactions are undone! Think: Energy cannot disappear from nowhere!
transmitted when all interactions are undone! Think: Energy cannot disappear from nowhere!
I have already discussed this in some reviews of my article! If this is not considered you are disregarding the energy conservation law! In fact E = Moxc² is the "cinetic" energy transmitted when all interactions are undone! Think: Energy cannot disappear from nowhere!
IG2007 said:
Well, no, all interaction energies can't be described by E =mc². E =mc² is simply the equation to get the rest "potential" energy of an object. The equation is about the maximum amount of potential energy that can be extracted from an object. It doesn't include gravitational, kinetic, atomic or quantum things, it is just a representation of the maximum potential energy of an object
My answer: IG2007 you are denying Basic Physics! Read the following answer on the subject of another article:

"The E = mc2 relationship appeared in an article published in 1905 by Einstein. In that article, Einstein considered the loss of energy by a body through the emission of electromagnetic radiation, a loss observed in two inertial references and, as essential axioms, considered the true of conservation of energy and momentum (from which the law of conservation of mass derives), concluding that if a body loses an amount of energy E through the emission of electromagnetic radiation, its mass consists of an E / c2 amount. So, Einstein generalized the argument for all types of energy transfer, concluding that, in this sense, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. "
I hope it's clear!
 
IG2007 said:
Well, no, all interaction energies can't be described by E =mc². E =mc² is simply the equation to get the rest "potential" energy of an object. The equation is about the maximum amount of potential energy that can be extracted from an object. It doesn't include gravitational, kinetic, atomic or quantum things, it is just a representation of the maximum potential energy of an object
My answer: IG2007 you are denying Basic Physics! Read the following answer on the subject of a report:

"The E = mc2 relationship appeared in an article published in 1905 by Einstein. In that article, Einstein considered the loss of energy by a body through the emission of electromagnetic radiation, a loss observed in two inertial references and, as essential axioms, considered the true of conservation of energy and momentum (from which the law of conservation of mass derives), concluding that if a body loses an amount of energy E through the emission of electromagnetic radiation, its mass consists of an E / c2 amount. So, Einstein generalized the argument for all types of energy transfer, concluding that, in this sense, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. "
I hope it's clear!
Reference : Einstein
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Philosophical Argument! But the title of the article was not the cause of Bigbang! but Dynamic Universe! The objective is to prove that the Universe is cyclical and eternal, because if it is not, we will be disrespecting a basic physical law! The energy conservation law! In my opinion, something cannot come out of nowhere! Saying you can is similar to considering the Earth flat! I don't know if you noticed, but we are all part of the Universe! If this is considered to end someday (at the insistence of some "researchers" who want to impose their ideas and maintain their power), We are condemned to think that our existence is just this, and to become selfish, not realizing that we are part of a whole! and making the world uneven! Are you sure this is what you want? Or do you think everything happens by chance! A person is born with good qualities and conditions while others are born without any chance in precarious places (in a universe that at all times, in every way shows us the law of action and reaction!) The real goal is not just to know about the Universe!
Classic think of the universe IMO is so far from reality as to be a giant guess.
No reason for a big bang and creation of mass/energy from nothing that is a universe.
That is current thinking and theory.

Lots of holes in quantum mechanics also.
An electron simply orbits a neutron forever with no loss of energy?

Black holes as singularities, an infinite mass point that should consume the entire universe is created with current theory about black holes.

Get the feeling that every idea so far is totally wrong?

How about we start from void/empty space.
It has some feeble potential energy simply as a property of a void.
It spawns quantum fluctuation that sets an energy balance creating particles that stay until a balance is reached.
Then no more energy creation or destruction.
Mass and energy created from fluctuation slowly meets other regions mass/energy until we have the first BB when an E value is surpassed in any region, then all other BB's are started with impact of the first BB over unthinkable time scales if that even exists.

Black hole simply a region of compressed mass with little or no space and compressed activity or time to stop compression into an infinite mass point.

Electron orbiting a neutron/proton.
Orbits in the lowest possible energy location, cant orbit lower because nothing exists between an orbit location (void area).
Would take energy to change orbit so no loss or gain of energy in a electron orbiting forever and not loosing energy.

My thought is BB universe and most of general theory is wrong because the idea of BB as the universe is wrong.

Good ideas come from simple thinking.
I like to think simple :)
 
Last edited:
The part, that I understood I agree with you! just add that I interpret the expansion or mutation of the Universe as a variation or transformation of its energies: when one potential increases as the others decrease! conserving the total of them! because there is nothing outside the universe for him to exchange energy!
 
The part, that I understood I agree with you! just add that I interpret the expansion or mutation of the Universe as a variation or transformation of its energies: when one potential increases as the others decrease! conserving the total of them! because there is nothing outside the universe for him to exchange energy!
Simple cause and effect i think is the key.
Our BB universe might be cyclic but it might also be just flotsum in the universe being used and reused by other BB's.
Our BB universe might simply run out of energy for expansion and start contraction.
No energy level is infinite

Fun to think about all the possibilities :)
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Philosophical Argument! But the title of the article was not the cause of Bigbang! but Dynamic Universe! The objective is to prove that the Universe is cyclical and eternal, because if it is not, we will be disrespecting a basic physical law! The energy conservation law! In my opinion, something cannot come out of nowhere! Saying you can is similar to considering the Earth flat! I don't know if you noticed, but we are all part of the Universe! If this is considered to end someday (at the insistence of some "researchers" who want to impose their ideas and maintain their power), We are condemned to think that our existence is just this, and to become selfish, not realizing that we are part of a whole! and making the world uneven! Are you sure this is what you want? Or do you think everything happens by chance! A person is born with good qualities and conditions while others are born without any chance in precarious places (in a universe that at all times, in every way shows us the law of action and reaction!) The real goal is not just to know about the Universe!
The cause of Bigbang ? This is the title in English.
Do you not consider that The cause of Bigbang is the title of this thread?

Cat :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY