The cause of Bigbang ?

Page 4 - 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.
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 :)
OK! however Energy cannot be infinite! But the energy that already exists is conserved and will always be conserved, and only becomes one in the other, through the passage from one body to the other! Since the Universe is unique, there will be no other external body to exchange energy with! So the total of all your energy types has to be conserved!
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 :)
The cause of Bigbang is the title of this topic! (I used it to call attention) But it is not the title of the original article that was published in the journal: "Universe dynamic, Physics and its conservation laws"
 
OK! however Energy cannot be infinite! But the energy that already exists is conserved and will always be conserved, and only becomes one in the other, through the passage from one body to the other! Since the Universe is unique, there will be no other external body to exchange energy with! So the total of all your energy types has to be conserved!

The cause of Bigbang is the title of this topic! (I used it to call attention) But it is not the title of the original article that was published in the journal: "Universe dynamic, Physics and its conservation laws"
OK I understand now. Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
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!
Agreed, though there is some debate, apparently, if the energy conservation law does work for the entire universe. It's hard to imagine, however, that it doesn't.

I don't understand how a cycling of the universe will eliminate an initial causal action? What am I missing.

There are some who argue that when negative and positive are added then the sum is zero, hence if you start with zero and make positive and negative energy that make a universe then starting from nothing becomes plausible. I don't think they mention what potential had to form to trigger something that produced such enormous results. If nothing is required to trigger it then why aren't the zillions of similar events as there is a lot of nothing out there even if only between infinitesimally small regions.

The level of energy found by rewinding time to the point physics can take us suggests and incredible something, or someone, was involved. Since this goes beyond the purview of science, philosophy and religion seems to be all we have, with or without impressive mathematics that make present interesting implications.

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!
These are important moral arguments addressed regularly within the realm of religion and philosophy. Science seems to be more supportive for religion than when the Static Universe was held to explain the universe. Discovering it had a beginning, the incredible degree of fine-tuning, etc., are very powerful suppositions, but outside science.
 
Agreed, though there is some debate, apparently, if the energy conservation law does work for the entire universe. It's hard to imagine, however, that it doesn't.

I don't understand how a cycling of the universe will eliminate an initial causal action? What am I missing.

There are some who argue that when negative and positive are added then the sum is zero, hence if you start with zero and make positive and negative energy that make a universe then starting from nothing becomes plausible. I don't think they mention what potential had to form to trigger something that produced such enormous results. If nothing is required to trigger it then why aren't the zillions of similar events as there is a lot of nothing out there even if only between infinitesimally small regions.

The level of energy found by rewinding time to the point physics can take us suggests and incredible something, or someone, was involved. Since this goes beyond the purview of science, philosophy and religion seems to be all we have, with or without impressive mathematics that make present interesting implications.
The problem is that what we know about current physics, already allows us to have all these explanations! and are obvious! To publish this article I went through several journals! You have no idea of the answers to meaningless denials! I'll post later for you to draw your conclusions! It seemed to me that they do not accept explanations outside of the methods they consider traditional! if today Einstein tried to publish that time is relative! no "reputable" journal would publish! In fact, if I'm not mistaken, only after years, Einstein managed to spread his ideas! Sometimes I think it is bad intention, contempt, or too lazy to consider news!
 
Apr 5, 2020
449
475
1,060
IMO, the reason behind it is said that the universe at first was a heated battle between antimatter and matter is because they wanted to cross the matter out. But the fact is that, no one still knows how matter won that battle.
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!)
There is no person on Earth who is born with good qualities, except for looks, a person's qualities develop along with what they see and feel when they grow up, that is the base for one person's future mentality and future qualities and future ideas and intellect. But this is not a place to debate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
IMO, the reason behind it is said that the universe at first was a heated battle between antimatter and matter is because they wanted to cross the matter out. But the fact is that, no one still knows how matter won that battle.
I think not! In one of the references in my article there is another that according to an experiment shows that the amount of matter may naturally have to be produced more than that of anti-matter during expansion! The my article also describes the possibility of a contraction with an inverse spin that will produce more anti-matter than matter! preserving isonomy in the expansion and contraction set! Older theories are often more complicated and require more complex calculations! Breaking the law of parsimony! I don't see a simpler and more complete theory than this article! But thanks for the discussion!
 
If possible, whoever is interested, read the article in full before commenting, including the figures! so that I don't have to answer questions whose answers are already in the article! But any criticism is welcome! Thank you!
 
There is no person on Earth who is born with good qualities, except for looks, a person's qualities develop along with what they see and feel when they grow up, that is the base for one person's future mentality and future qualities and future ideas and intellect. But this is not a place to debate that.
OK ! this is no place to discuss this! But say this to a person who is born in a country where the majority of the population is starving! If Einstein needed to fight hard for his survival, would he be Einstein?
 
OK! however Energy cannot be infinite! But the energy that already exists is conserved and will always be conserved, and only becomes one in the other, through the passage from one body to the other! Since the Universe is unique, there will be no other external body to exchange energy with! So the total of all your energy types has to be conserved!

The cause of Bigbang is the title of this topic! (I used it to call attention) But it is not the title of the original article that was published in the journal: "Universe dynamic, Physics and its conservation laws"
Conservation of energy could simply be quantum fluctuations idea of a balance point of Energy.
Law of time/space dictated by the amount of void that makes up everything.
Going from point A to B takes energy/activity but time is a suspect idea.

Starting a BB from nothing is a physics problem that really has no answer.
When a question has no answer it usually means the question is wrong.
No proof that our BB local is all that exists and lots of hints that it's just 1 of many or infinite numbers of them.

At best i think educated guesses is best we can hope for.
If a guess either leads to a math problem or many math problems i think it will be wrong.

Nature for sure will take the simplest path possible.
 
Agreed, though there is some debate, apparently, if the energy conservation law does work for the entire universe. It's hard to imagine, however, that it doesn't.

I don't understand how a cycling of the universe will eliminate an initial causal action? What am I missing.

There are some who argue that when negative and positive are added then the sum is zero, hence if you start with zero and make positive and negative energy that make a universe then starting from nothing becomes plausible. I don't think they mention what potential had to form to trigger something that produced such enormous results. If nothing is required to trigger it then why aren't the zillions of similar events as there is a lot of nothing out there even if only between infinitesimally small regions.

The level of energy found by rewinding time to the point physics can take us suggests and incredible something, or someone, was involved. Since this goes beyond the purview of science, philosophy and religion seems to be all we have, with or without impressive mathematics that make present interesting implications.

These are important moral arguments addressed regularly within the realm of religion and philosophy. Science seems to be more supportive for religion than when the Static Universe was held to explain the universe. Discovering it had a beginning, the incredible degree of fine-tuning, etc., are very powerful suppositions, but outside science.
Your missing nothing, and i mean (nothing) :)
 
Dec 2, 2019
12
10
515
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!
Relatively speaking, mankind has not existed long enough to adequately consider and postulate something we have yet to fathom. Telescopic observation has progressed considerably since Hans Lippershey applied for the patent on the first telescope, but we are just now gazing at galaxies previously beyond our view. Everyday we uncover new mysteries that perplex us and challenge our "current" understanding of science. I believe that too often we humans with our tiny brains try and apply our meager knowledge and experience to that which we have yet to glimpse and our imagination fills in the unimaginable with the familiarity of what we have accepted as fact.
I recall being a small child in school and being taught that at one time there wasn't any knowledge or comprehension of the "New World" existing. Of course those who lived in the"New World" knew of it's existence. To be fair, they didn't have any knowledge that the "Old World" existed. Those in the "Old World" were convinced that the Earth was flat. Even as Europeans set sail for Asia the debate still raged about whether the Earth was flat or round. Some were persecuted for even considering that perhaps the world as we know it was in fact a globe.
I'm not sure that we can place limits on the Universe. Sometimes science leads us to what we can not see, and sometimes we imagine what science will never confirm.
In my observations of my very finite time on this tiny rock hurtling around a star of meager proportions as we are all dragged through a minuscule portion of the path our individual galaxy meanders along amongst innumerable other galaxies of which we have still to discover, I am content to enjoy the ride knowing that any limitations or constructs I wish to imagine of our universe is pure frivolity.
We can not place limitations on that we are just beginning to discover.
 
Conservation of energy could simply be quantum fluctuations idea of a balance point of Energy.
Law of time/space dictated by the amount of void that makes up everything.
Going from point A to B takes energy/activity but time is a suspect idea.

Starting a BB from nothing is a physics problem that really has no answer.
When a question has no answer it usually means the question is wrong.
No proof that our BB local is all that exists and lots of hints that it's just 1 of many or infinite numbers of them.

At best i think educated guesses is best we can hope for.
If a guess either leads to a math problem or many math problems i think it will be wrong.

Nature for sure will take the simplest path possible.
There is no quantum physics in a static universe! There is no motion and the only possible interaction is the potential! for quantum fluctuation, there has to be motion!
 
Your missing nothing, and i mean (nothing) :)
I don't know if I understand your question! But the article describes a state contracted to the maximum, massive by an extensive one dimension! During its evolution (expansion) it transforms all its kinetic energy into potential, going in the another one-dimensional state only now formed by space and no longer massive! In short: There is the following isonomy: Maximal contraction = existence of 2 tiny spaces! Maximum expansion = The existence of two tiny masses! Such tiny have to exist for kinetic and gravitational energy to convert back to one another and to reverse the processes of contraction and expansion! Did you understand?
Your missing nothing, and i mean (nothing) :)
 
I don't know if I understand your question! But the article describes a state contracted to the maximum, massive by an extensive one dimension! During its evolution (expansion) it transforms all its kinetic energy into potential, going in the another one-dimensional state only now formed by space and no longer massive! In short: There is the following isonomy: Maximal contraction = existence of 2 tiny spaces! Maximum expansion = The existence of two tiny masses! Such tiny have to exist for kinetic and gravitational energy to convert back to one another and to reverse the processes of contraction and expansion! Did you understand?
The preservation of energy conservation needs this tiny parts to exist !
 
To intensify the discussion, I will describe the reasons why the article was rejected by some editors in chief and by some reviewers, followed by my answer! (Before the publication of the article)
Perhaps you will be able to verify that the peer review can be influenced by the method used, by the one who is sending it or by a protection of a pre-established model in detriment of another! (In the field of cosmology)!
My opinion:
1) The reviewers were never able to know the author's name before the review!
2) The reviewers, forget about any pre-observed methodology and observe only the logic of the article and if it respects all the Physics content already concretely defined!

Starting:

1) critic (editor or reviewer):
"General Relativity does not allow a simple generalization of potential gravitational energy, without which it is not possible to calculate a globally invariant energy conservation law. The differential form of energy conservation is already incorporated into current cosmological models."

My answer: In the article sent, a simple generalization of the gravitational potential energy, happened only in extreme instants, when the Universe was considered to be at rest with its energy concentrated in a large and unique dimension, and where The differential form of energy conservation does not need to be incorporated! Conditions where relativity may not be applied! The other instants of evolution follow the Bigbang theory !

2) critic (editor or reviewer):

His article is a general discussion and interpretation of the scientific literature related to the nature of the Universe and its conservation laws, basically reinterpreting previous works. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that you are creating any insight on the subject.

My answer: The article indicates a new interpretation and in a simple way it describes a reason for the beginning of the expansion! I didn't know that there was another article to clarify this! If there is, please let me know!

3) Critic (editor or reviewer) : "In the present case, we have no doubt that your proposal for an alternative cosmic model will be of inherent interest to fellow experts. But, given its descriptive nature, which makes it difficult to prove or disprove, I am sorry we are not, it returns that the article offers the kind of rigorous advance in scientific understanding that would likely arouse immediate interest in research in a wide range of other areas of astronomy. Therefore, we think that the present article would find a more appropriate way out in this journal".

My answer: I did not answer, because it was clear that I did not accept it because it does not follow traditional scientific methods! (Note: Traditional laws of physics were used, only relativity was not used intensively)!

4) Our editors look for evidence of news, impact and relevant relevance to the field of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. These must be examined thoroughly and clearly explained in the manuscript. In addition, at this stage, verification of similarity with other published sources is carried out.

My answer: Clearer than complementing the Big Bang theory with simple arguments without using relativity? Do you already have a theory that explains the cause of Bigbang? I did not know!

5)
It is a classic view of cosmic evolution and does not take into account non-gravitational energy / dark energy or dark matter / matter or other well-known and generally accepted components of a cosmological model of the Universe.

My opinion : This answer discouraged me! The editor or reviewer may have seen the format of the article and rejected it without reading it in full! Everything they said the article did not have, was described in the article!

6)Time came to exist in the Big Bang (Hawking)!
My opinion : This has never been proved by Hawking! Editor or reviewer completely influenced by an unproven idea ! Did not analyze the content of the article! and do not make room for another arguments !

7) Can your findings be replicated?
I thought: No! Neither mine nor string theory!

8) Quantum physics does not allow the use of the concept of mass mathematically!
My answer: Correct! In the conditions of an expanding universe! but under the conditions mentioned in a static universe, in extreme instants with no motion, there is no duality between wave (motion required) and mass (particle or parts)! "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. "

9)did you know that there is no conservation of energy in the Universe?
My answer: No! Read the article, observe the mentioned conditions and take a look at this link and see if you prefer to consider that the universe came out of nowhere or if there are multidimensions!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Note that there are no standard answers! I think that some answers may have been automatic!
 
Last edited:
There is only positive or negative after the start of a motion! with the appearance of particles! It depends on the spin of the universe!
Quantum fluctuation creates sub atomic particles then destroys them.
IMO it's an energy balance of fluctuation that creates them then destroys them.
Before fluctuation was in balance sub atomic particle creation probably accumulated them.

Probably why we cant create or destroy energy and probably how everything started from nothing was a potential energy of (nothing).
Nothing is still 99.999etc of the universe with fluctuation filling in almost all the rest.
 
I don't know if I understand your question! But the article describes a state contracted to the maximum, massive by an extensive one dimension! During its evolution (expansion) it transforms all its kinetic energy into potential, going in the another one-dimensional state only now formed by space and no longer massive! In short: There is the following isonomy: Maximal contraction = existence of 2 tiny spaces! Maximum expansion = The existence of two tiny masses! Such tiny have to exist for kinetic and gravitational energy to convert back to one another and to reverse the processes of contraction and expansion! Did you understand?
What proof do you have (A) that the BB is expanding and (B) that the BB is the universe?

If the BB is truly expanding then into what?
Nothing, endless quantum fluctuation?

If it's expanding into nothing then it is loosing energy doing that and no signs exist it is.

If it's expanding into endless fluctuation then the BB looses or gains no energy.

That is the main reason i believe BB theory is wrong about the BB is the universe.
Lots of other tiny details like starting point for everything and reason for a BB are lacking in classic BB theory.
 
To intensify the discussion, I will describe the reasons why the article was rejected by some editors in chief and by some reviewers, followed by my answer! (Before the publication of the article)
Perhaps you will be able to verify that the peer review can be influenced by the method used, by the one who is sending it or by a protection of a pre-established model in detriment of another! (In the field of cosmology)!
My opinion:
1) The reviewers were never able to know the author's name before the review!
2) The reviewers, forget about any pre-observed methodology and observe only the logic of the article and if it respects all the Physics content already concretely defined!

Starting:

1) critic (editor or reviewer):
"General Relativity does not allow a simple generalization of potential gravitational energy, without which it is not possible to calculate a globally invariant energy conservation law. The differential form of energy conservation is already incorporated into current cosmological models."

My answer: In the article sent, a simple generalization of the gravitational potential energy, happened only in extreme instants, when the Universe was considered to be at rest with its energy concentrated in a large and unique dimension, and where The differential form of energy conservation does not need to be incorporated! Conditions where relativity may not be applied! The other instants of evolution follow the Bigbang theory !

2) critic (editor or reviewer):

His article is a general discussion and interpretation of the scientific literature related to the nature of the Universe and its conservation laws, basically reinterpreting previous works. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that you are creating any insight on the subject.

My answer: The article indicates a new interpretation and in a simple way it describes a reason for the beginning of the expansion! I didn't know that there was another article to clarify this! If there is, please let me know!

3) Critic (editor or reviewer) : "In the present case, we have no doubt that your proposal for an alternative cosmic model will be of inherent interest to fellow experts. But, given its descriptive nature, which makes it difficult to prove or disprove, I am sorry we are not, it returns that the article offers the kind of rigorous advance in scientific understanding that would likely arouse immediate interest in research in a wide range of other areas of astronomy. Therefore, we think that the present article would find a more appropriate way out in this journal".

My answer: I did not answer, because it was clear that I did not accept it because it does not follow traditional scientific methods! (Note: Traditional laws of physics were used, only relativity was not used intensively)!

4) Our editors look for evidence of news, impact and relevant relevance to the field of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. These must be examined thoroughly and clearly explained in the manuscript. In addition, at this stage, verification of similarity with other published sources is carried out.

My answer: Clearer than complementing the Big Bang theory with simple arguments without using relativity? Do you already have a theory that explains the cause of Bigbang? I did not know!

5)
It is a classic view of cosmic evolution and does not take into account non-gravitational energy / dark energy or dark matter / matter or other well-known and generally accepted components of a cosmological model of the Universe.

My opinion : This answer discouraged me! The editor or reviewer may have seen the format of the article and rejected it without reading it in full! Everything they said the article did not have, was described in the article!

6)Time came to exist in the Big Bang (Hawking)!
My opinion : This has never been proved by Hawking! Editor or reviewer completely influenced by an unproven idea ! Did not analyze the content of the article! and do not make room for another arguments !

7) Can your findings be replicated?
I thought: No! Neither mine nor string theory!

8) Quantum physics does not allow the use of the concept of mass mathematically!
My answer: Correct! In the conditions of an expanding universe! but under the conditions mentioned in a static universe, in extreme instants with no motion, there is no duality between wave (motion required) and mass (particle or parts)! "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. "

9)did you know that there is no conservation of energy in the Universe?
My answer: No! Read the article, observe the mentioned conditions and take a look at this link and see if you prefer to consider that the universe came out of nowhere or if there are multidimensions!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Note that there are no standard answers! I think that some answers may have been automatic!
Have you received my resend? Cat :)
 
Quantum fluctuation creates sub atomic particles then destroys them.
IMO it's an energy balance of fluctuation that creates them then destroys them.
Before fluctuation was in balance sub atomic particle creation probably accumulated them.

Probably why we cant create or destroy energy and probably how everything started from nothing was a potential energy of (nothing).
Nothing is still 99.999etc of the universe with fluctuation filling in almost all the rest.
Quantum fluctuations require motion! In an instant for Bigbang there can be no motion! The universe has to be completely static! (the basic laws of physics override any mathematically accepted theory and quantum physics cannot exist in a static universe instant)
 
What proof do you have (A) that the BB is expanding and (B) that the BB is the universe?

If the BB is truly expanding then into what?
Nothing, endless quantum fluctuation?

If it's expanding into nothing then it is loosing energy doing that and no signs exist it is.

If it's expanding into endless fluctuation then the BB looses or gains no energy.

That is the main reason i believe BB theory is wrong about the BB is the universe.
Lots of other tiny details like starting point for everything and reason for a BB are lacking in classic BB theory.
What proof do you have (A) that BB is expanding and (B) that BB is the universe?

Observational data determines the expansion of the Universe! The only argument that is contrary to this would be the existence of what they call "tired light" that has never been proven and goes against what we know about electromagnetism!

If BB is really expanding for what?

Expanding is the increase in volume, characterized in the frame of the body that is expanding and not in relation to any other existence or "non-existence"!


If he is expanding to nothing, then he is losing energy doing it and there are no signs that he is!

Precisely for this reason The universe cannot lose energy, but exchange the internal ones it has for each other! In nature there is no loss of energy, when you spend energy you are transferring it to the environment or another body in the Physical environment! When considering the Universe as having any existence at every instant, it cannot exchange energy with "non-existence"! So he has to conserve his Total or global energy

If it is expanding in an infinite fluctuation, the BB loses or does not gain energy. There is no infinite, if there were, there would be no expansion!

That is the main reason why I believe that the BB theory is wrong about BB being the universe.
Many other small details, such as the starting point for everything and the reason for a BB, are lacking in classical BB theory!

It is lacking in theory, but not more in this article! and the article is based on the BigBang theory!
 
Have you received my resend? Cat :)
Have you not received notes on Introduction? Cat :)
Have you not received notes on Introduction? Cat :)
Not received! I don't know if it's allowed in the group! Maybe this is it! I only saw it once! and the complementary post you added was not highlighted! Try to send only the complementary part without inserting parts of the article! in the form of an answer!
 
Not received! I don't know if it's allowed in the group! Maybe this is it! I only saw it once! and the complementary post you added was not highlighted! Try to send only the complementary part without inserting parts of the article! in the form of an answer!
I think we should keep this in the Conversation, not here. I have sent the Abstract with initial comment, then just the translation, which is really only one paragraph. Sent by Conversation.
 
VPE, you stated in post #93:

"
If the BB is truly expanding then into what?
Nothing, endless quantum fluctuation?"

I think we have extablished elsewhere that there is nothing "outside" the Universe for it to expand into. J have a serious question for you, as I would like to understand better these "quantum fluctuations". I have come across an idea, in another context, the idea that entropy may wear different clothes in different settings. When the Universe proceeds to heat death, (if, indeed, you agree with that scenario) interchange between atoms may cease because of the increasing distances apart. But what happens (in your opinon) at a quantum level? Do subatomic particles cease to run around each other? We keep hearing about smaller and smaller entities. Does entropy still have a function, indeed, a driving force under these circumstances?

Cat :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS