Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

Which action model of the Universe do you endorse and why? Static Model, Big Bang Model, or Big Bounce model of the Universe??


Current Big Bang theory supposes Inflation which is an episode of exponential expansion thought to have occurred fractions of a second after the big bang. It is needed to explain, among other things, why the universe today has the geometry it does, but explaining what triggered inflation is tricky.

Quote from Article: Big bounce cosmos makes inflation a sure thing

"Earlier simulations showed that the big bounce creates a repulsive force and so is always followed by a period of rapid expansion that is even faster than inflation. Dubbed superinflation, this episode doesn't last long enough to replace inflation. But the pair's latest calculations show that it has a profound effect on space-time, such that no matter what the initial properties are in the early universe, superinflation "funnels" all the possible ways in which space-time can evolve towards one in which inflation is a near certainty (Physics Letters B, DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.09.058)."​

Currently, in the study of general relativity, there is no way of explaining why the initial conditions of the universe were what they were, you have to invent some theory or model to describe; a big bounce coupled to an big bang prehaps?

A big bounce theory would indicate an oscillatory motion, with a repulsive force coupled to an attractive force, and each oscillation would always be followed by a period of rapid expansion that is even faster than current inflation models. If this is so, it is only a theory, and not predicted by current models which describe General Relativity.

I do not accept this "Universal Oscillation" theory as any fact whatsoever, and, it is up for debate; there is no proof of a big bounce. All current Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) experiments point to a Big Bang model of the universe, in which the mathematics of General Relativity are valid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A combination of the two, given a few well chosen axioms, lol. But I do think it is pseudoscience as opposed to science because anything that is not testable and goes beyond the standard peer reviewed cosmology is speculation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Origin, did you not read the article? Or are you just wishful speculating?

Quote from Article: Big bounce cosmos makes inflation a sure thing

Where these guys are getting their work into standard peer reviewed cosmology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Every person only has their 5 fingers breadth of experience. It could be there are multiple bigbang dramas out there, we have not discovered other forces pulling and pushing in the mega-Universe yet.

Beyond our 15Billion years....here be dragons.

 

OK, let's see where you are going with this instead of speculatively answering the posed question.

BTW, I'm not Origin if you mean the member named Origin.

Also, I read the article long ago and I agree that the Big Bounce Theory would eventually run out of energy, i.e. at some point there wouldn't be enough energy to produce the bounce unless all the previous energy could be recalled into the crunch with each oscillation. How do you recall EM that is escaping the crunch at ... well, the speed of light.

 

Sorry, Quantum_Wave; I have a very mild and crazy form of Dyslexia. My mind was thinking on the topic "origin" of the universe, while I was thinking to write your name at the same time. How funny!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No one knows for sure yet; so all of this is in the speculative nature.

So here is some speculation!

Let’s consider “Heat Death” as regards to a "Big Bounce" scenario for an "Oscillating" model of the Universe. Which starts off hot, then cools; then gets hot again, and cools again....and on and on...

Whenever it is mentioned that Gravity halts the expansion of the universe, this is referring to the fact the "Dark Energy”, which causes Space-time expansion, becomes diluted, and loses its grip. When the expanding "Dark Energy" becomes diluted, and loses its grip, it finally becomes weak enough to allow the matter and the Gravitational Energy to become strong. Eventually "Gravity" will be able to clump matter together in the form of galaxies. This "Gravity" will continue to pull all matter into a single clump and form one big blob of mass.

With Gravity acting alone without the grips of the expanding “Dark Energy”, this could conceivably continue to condense all the matter in the universe forming a Universal "Black Hole" or new Epoch, which would get so hot and dense it would create a new bang, and begin to expand once again. Once, all matter is condensed and forms one big blob of mass; this restarts the process and the Dark Energy wins over Inertial Mass Gravity; and starts the whole process over again.

Once again, this is total speculation, and is meant for discussion. I am not sure if I agree with this scenario; however this is possible.

 

If there is anyone in the forum that is willing to discuss these things it is me. But I have been speculating long enough to know that "total speculation" is hardly worth discussing. I've heard of idle speculation, wild speculation, and reasonable and responsible speculation, and I would put total speculation in the category of idle or wild, not reasonable and responsible.

Since you are not taking ownership of the model you can't be expected to defend it. If I say that heat death and and big bounce are not compatible then to defend the model you would have to define degrees of heat death. Something would have to interrupt the progress toward heat death, aka the Big Rip, or the Big Freeze, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe. That is an ultimate fate of an open universe in terms of GR and not the beginning of a collapse. In GR the collapse is the fate of a closed universe. The bounce is not a GR option.

To get a bounce you need something to interrupt the expansion, or dark energy as you call it. Nothing in the heat death scenario can interrupt the process and turn it into a big crunch. You refer to the dark energy becoming diluted or losing its grip. Way to vague to even hint at mechanics that could bring it about.

And if you could offer a scenario that reverses the expansion and brings about your "ultimate" black hole, you need to at least transition from said UBH back into expansion, not just say collapse leads to the bounce. You definitely need so new physics, but any model that entertains preconditions to the Big Bang would need new physics, don't you agree?

I would suggest you start with some postulates from which you could derive some speculations instead of starting with "total" speculation. Also, I still like the idea that in a universe characterized by a great unknown beyond our Hubble volume of space you could have expanding arenas like ours intersecting and overlapping which would give you a means to fuel big crunches without reversals of expansion. The overlap of two or more expanding big bang arenas would allow gravity to overcome expansion momentum and lead to big crunches.

You then are in a position to talk about the internal mechanics of your UBH that could lead to collapse and bounce.

 

However, the "Dark Energy" would not have to, radically change its behavior. The "Dark Energy" is doing what it is suppose to do, expand Space-time in the presence of matter. And Inertial Mass Gravity is doing what it is suppose to do. Cause Inertial Matter/Mass to clump together.

What this model would suggest is that there is another Force and Energy out there that counter acts the "Dark Energy" over long distances. I propose that this energy is called the "Heat Radiation Gravitation" energy of space-time. The "Heat Radiation Gravitation" energy would cause the expanding "Dark Energy" to become diluted, and loses its grip, and finally becomes weak over great distances.

 

Current consensus is that the expansion is accelerating. To me that is the same as saying that gravity is losing the battle. What do you see interrupting the current state?

Also, spacetime is GR specific and invokes the spacetime geometry and coordinate system. Are those postulates of the model? You should state if your model is or is not a modification of GR and if it is what is going to come into play within GR that can "close" an apparently "open" universe.

 

The Big Bounce model completely agrees with GR and is hidden within the Einsten Field Equation (EFE); one of the basic tenents of General Relativity (GR).

Here is a paper on a similar model: Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time

 

True, and any cosmology that is based on Friedman’s solutions to the EFEs feature singularities or mathematical anomalies sometimes even referred to as absurdities, i.e. equations with no solutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularity

I read Sean Carroll’s Arrow of Time years ago and have followed his blog. He is one of the physicists who produce Cosmic Variance which I recommended as reading in the Physic and Math references thread back in 2008, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73777.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1957774&postcount=13

The Arrow of Time is interesting but it didn’t meet one of my requirements for a complete cosmology, just like BBT with Inflation does not. All of the EFE based cosmologies give no idea about an explanation for the universe except the singularity; “something from nothing”, “God did it”, or “it has always existed” all fit that definition. There is no position taken on the “beginning”. The pillars of Big Bang Theory, i.e. Inflation, General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle have the same short coming in my view. They don’t address the beginning event itself if there was supposed to be one, and they don’t say there was no beginning and so you have no complete view of the cosmology of the universe, you have only what happened after some event.

The Arrow of Time and the Big Bounce have the same shortcoming; they just shove the “beginning” back to the distant past and fill the void of time with their own flavor of how the universe carries on from some point in time but never completely defeat entropy. That is why we quickly get into Pseudoscience on this topic and that is why I suggest axioms. They don’t make a cosmology right, but they don’t leave us hanging with the “We don’t know” or “We probably will never know”, lol. They give you something that is considered either self-evident or at least they acknowledge that there is no evidence and give you something that is considered a necessary truth from which to derive other theory related “truths” within that particular view of cosmology.

“The theoretical scientific exploration of the ultimate fate of the universe became possible with Albert Einstein's 1916 theory of general relativity. General relativity can be employed to describe the universe on the largest possible scale. There are many possible solutions to the equations of general relativity, and each solution implies a possible ultimate fate of the universe. Alexander Friedman proposed a number of such solutions in 1922 as did Georges Lemaître in 1927.[1] In some of these the universe has been expanding from an initial singularity; this is, essentially, the Big Bang.” (From Wiki)

 

Big bang. Though I don't agree with the singularity aspect of it.

There's a different way of looking at this, where you liken the evolution of the universe to pulling away from a black hole.

Talk about riding on the coat-tails of a better theory. People promote this big-bounce hypothesis, but I think it's pseudoscience from people who don't have a clue what gravity is all about. Sells magazines I suppose. Like having "quantum" on the cover. Wooo!

There's no way to explain it because there's no available evidence, and without that what you're "inventing" might be science fiction.

Yep.

Agreed.

 

Or "relativity" in the title...

 

Are your middle names Irony and Hypocrisy?

 

Trolling?

 

Are you suggesting a third middle name for Farsight? After all Farsight whines about various mainstream concepts/models supposedly being short on evidence or being 'fiction' when his work, which he has claimed is worth 4 Nobel Prizes but has been rejected by every journal he's submitted to, cannot model anything and he cannot provide justification for other than asserting it is so. Hence his comments about a mainstream notion being short on evidence is at least somewhat hypocritical. Given I've pointed this issue with his comments many times he cannot claim to be unaware of his hypocrisy, hence it is trolling.

Of course you weren't implying that, you were accusing me of trolling. It just happened to dovetail nicely with Farsight's general attitude.

 

You are a troll but even trolls can make a point if pressed. You may or may not be right about FS but you certainly have let him get under your skin. He plays you.

 

How so? He ignores me most of the time. I snipe at Farsight for amusement. He doesn't wind me up any more than any other wilfully ignorant person does. He says I throw 'tirades of abuse' at him, as if I'm wound up. No, I give lengthy explanations why he's a hypocrite, a liar and a hack.

I know you and he (and plenty of other hacks) want to think that you frustrate people like myself, that you play on our minds, that you get under our skin but you don't. You tried numerous times in the pseudo forum to imply I was obsessed with you, you wanted to think that your work was somehow a bother to me. I said at the time you'd go nowhere because it was pointless and now years down the line you're precisely where you were, illustrating my point. Likewise for Farsight, his Nobel Prizes never materialised, his book was a flop and he's wasting money paying for adverts for it.

The only time I think about Farsight when I'm not literally in front of a computer is when a friend of mine who has crossed paths with Farsight in the past on another forum and I are having a drink and we laugh about how much of a crackpot he is. You never enter my thoughts away from this forum.

Farsight clearly wants to be taken seriously and many times he's stated I was wasting my time doing my PhD subject and that soon I'd be teaching his work to people. He isn't subtle, he isn't about 'playing people' over the space of years, if he could retort my criticisms he would do so. Instead he ignores them. The fact he repeats falsehoods and I point them out is hardly the best way to go about 'playing' someone, doesn't you think? Farsight wouldn't make himself look a lying hack just to 'play me', he wants recognition for what he deems to be his works of genius. He wants people to think he is a genius.

I don't find him frustrating (beyond anyone else who is wilfully ignorant and dishonest), I find his behaviour pitiable and somewhat sad. I would honestly like to know what he hopes to achieve with his lies and nonsense, as it hasn't worked for him at all thus far and he's desperately tried to get his work taken seriously and into the mainstream. You just waste your time spouting nonsense like 99% of the cranks online. Then there's people like Reiku who lie about themselves, their knowledge and try to appear to be doing mainstream stuff. All he wastes is his time. Then there's Farsight. He wastes time and money, lots of each, and refuses to change his approach or accept any correction no matter how glaring. He isn't interested in fitting into the mainstream by doing as they (sorry, we) do, he wants to have everyone bend to his take on things, to remake physics in his own image. In that regard Farsight stands out from the typical crank. When I'm on this forum and he's posting then I'll pass comment. When I'm not on the forum I couldn't give a stuff. That's hardly 'getting under my skin', I respond to his posts and his attitude when he's around.

I know both of you want to imagine you hold some lofty position in the minds of those of us who paid attention in school, it helps to feed your egos. However, the fact of the matter is neither of you are going anywhere fast. You each take up similar amounts of my attention on this forum as a fair number of other posters. Aside from enquiring about your mindset and pointing out the laughable mistakes and nonsense in your posts when you post you take up no additional run time in my thoughts.

And as for the 'troll' comment I might be blunt in my comments and views about hacks but I've contributed more physics and maths than you. Perhaps if you demonstrated some intellectual honesty and made an effort to learn actual physics/maths you and I would have more relevant discussions? Perhaps if Farsight listened when educated people corrected him on subjects he knows nothing about we'd move on in our discussions? I've tried to engage you both in rational discourse, neither of you want to know. Your loss.

 

No, what you have shown us is that you are social misfit without the personal skills to carry off a relevant discussion unless it centers around you and your views.

And you claim you must be right because I didn't respond to you on my Pseudoscience thread but I did, in three posts which you must have overlooked. OK, you want to discuss something relevant, start by addressing why you cannot read as is evidenced by your reply to me in Pseudoscience and then address what I said to you in those posts.