The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
What could be worse than the second coming of the big bang? The theory will be endlessly resurrected, like ...<many words removed>
Well, is our current situation the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? I don't mean to be flippant but I think it is a serious question as to what is going on with our universe.The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
i am an ordinary person without high science twisted mind.....and to me the universe is endless and eternal--no beginning,no end....it s in human mortal nature to seek for the beginning and end and also a human nature is not comprehending the nature of eternity,endlessness,infinity....but i have always pondered abut impossible....and have understood the infinity of reality---and at the cost of my mental health--i am considered now a schizophrenic--and i am under pressure for what i have understood and experienced....The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
I have a passing amateur interest in cosmology but what I've read (in Deep Space by G Schilling 2014) confirms above comments. The universe was not a tiny point at the "big bang" the universe was probably infinite then as it probably is now, it was just very densely packed together.What could be worse than the second coming of the big bang? The theory will be endlessly resurrected, like an episode of the Twilight Zone, as long as there's an overpowering psychological need to validate the Genesis story and prove that the universe was created. To its adherents, the big bang theory proves the existence of God. But the evidence shows that the observable universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.
The first problem is that the red shifts of galaxies, measured by Hubble, and more recently of supernovas, are all isotropic. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, one could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. It has never been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," though, because the observed red shifts are isotropic. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory. Only recently have creationists stopped claiming that the red shifts are caused by the Doppler effect. This was the main evidence cited by them, until the red shifts were shown to be isotropic.
Now, they argue an abstraction of the big bang theory, that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with empty space, which doesn't act as a medium for light the way water does for ocean waves. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was one of the most important in the history of physics, and can't be ignored. It has been repeated and validated all across the EM spectrum.
Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.
The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problem. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.
There is also something called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. (CERN) In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount of antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.
That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. Yet nothing will convince the zealots whose religious beliefs are always in need of support.
Being a person of common sense rather than mathematics, I always thought; where does all that "everything" go when it enters a black hole?
My thoughts are that it returns via string theory to another single point and when everything has left this "universe" the big bang repeats itself again in another plain. Thus another big bang repeats its self. My common sense of string theory.
Since space and everything in it appears to be expanding in all directions, it would seem to be closer to the "end of the beginning" as you put it.Well, is our current situation the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? I don't mean to be flippant but I think it is a serious question as to what is going on with our universe.
What could be worse than the second coming of the big bang? The theory will be endlessly resurrected, like an episode of the Twilight Zone, as long as there's an overpowering psychological need to validate the Genesis story and prove that the universe was created. To its adherents, the big bang theory proves the existence of God. But the evidence shows that the observable universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.
The first problem is that the red shifts of galaxies, measured by Hubble, and more recently of supernovas, are all isotropic. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, one could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. It has never been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," though, because the observed red shifts are isotropic. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory. Only recently have creationists stopped claiming that the red shifts are caused by the Doppler effect. This was the main evidence cited by them, until the red shifts were shown to be isotropic.
Now, they argue an abstraction of the big bang theory, that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with empty space, which doesn't act as a medium for light the way water does for ocean waves. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was one of the most important in the history of physics, and can't be ignored. It has been repeated and validated all across the EM spectrum.
Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.
The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problem. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.
There is also something called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. (CERN) In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount of antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.
That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. Yet nothing will convince the zealots whose religious beliefs are always in need of support.
So, in short, no one has a clue...ok then,
“Sentience Orders,
Nothing else does,
Therefore the Universe
Is Ordered By
An Agency of Mind;
The Secret to the Universe
Is not a Secret -
And We are Legion."
-Stanza I, The Next Testament.
Origin studies are a mugs game, its all about the order.
Perhaps not impossible, but it was certainly rejected as being unprovable. The consensus at the time was that no information could be obtained earlier than the Big Bang -- it provided an impenetrable barrier -- so it would be impossible to prove any previous universe.The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
The space.com reports does point out near the end:
"In other words, the complicated (and, admittedly, poorly understood) physics of this critical epoch may indeed allow for a radically revised view of our time and place in the cosmos. But to fully test this model, we'll have to wait for a new generation of cosmology experiments, so let's wait to break out the ekpyrotic champagne."
Here are some thoughts from Alan Guth in 2014 on the early BB modeling events. "We agree with Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb [12] that important questions remain. A well-tested theory of physics at the Planck scale remains elusive, as does a full understanding of the primordial singularity and of the conditions that preceded the final phase of inflation within our observable universe.", nflationary paradigm after Planck 2013
Being a person of common sense rather than mathematics, I always thought; where does all that "everything" go when it enters a black hole?
My thoughts are that it returns via string theory to another single point and when everything has left this "universe" the big bang repeats itself again in another plain. Thus another big bang repeats its self. My common sense of string theory.
Well, is our current situation the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? I don't mean to be flippant but I think it is a serious question as to what is going on with our universe.
Since space and everything in it appears to be expanding in all directions, it would seem to be closer to the "end of the beginning" as you put it.
Since we're talking about expansion here, I asked you a question in the thread of the same name and article topic on Live science website. No one answered my question. So, I thought I would ask the same question here. In that post, Torbjorn Larsson said:Perhaps the video I posted in my first comment is helpful here? It describes the current setting (apart from the multiverse consequences of the slow roll inflation we seem to see [see Planck Legacy Archive 2018 cosmological parameters paper]).
If you want to dig into inflationary physics, there is more here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCX2NlhdTc
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0
[And if you want my opinion, we have to mind that our local universe is just that in slow roll inflation, since there will likely be an infinite number of them, see the videos above. It is more likely than models putting a constraint, and we wouldn't even know where such a constraint would come from. If that is the case, the universe was, is and will always be inflating.
A subset of zero measure in volume (using measure theory of math) are local universes - some 1/10^120 of which are habitable - will always have dropped out of inflation and are heading to heat death (*and* will always expand). So "our" situation is either neither with end or beginning - global scale - or at the beginning of structure formation but eventually will be nearing the heat death "end" (which isn't an end to expansion) - local scale.]