A Big Bang Alternative

There are many reasons why people do not like Big Bang. One reason, is that any finite point in the past, which deals with an infinitesimal period, must mean a point where something appeared from nothing. In fact, even if we deal with a period that is finite before Big Bang, then we will still reach a point that has a beginning, and obviously ''pop's'' into existence, again from apparently nothing.

(I have seen people say that this is not what big bang says), but then what is it saying? If a point in space began, then according to all sources i have read, and even know from relativity, a time must have also began.

The relevent and pivotal question is, ''How can a time spontaneously arise, without a prior cause?''

In fact, Sir Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist, and mathematician stated that this was his main problem. Big Ban defied the law of cause and effect, and because of this, he denied the Big Bang Theory right till his death, and after close statistical equations on the atomic structure of the universe, finding a value of \(10^{40,000}\) for the chances that the ''hydrogen atom'' (i think) was to ever come into existence, led him to believe that a God Superintelligence existed within nature itself.

I don't like Big Bang, not surprisingly, for the exact same reasons. Not because of inflation, or the need of Dark Energy or Dark Matter, but because i cannot settle with a singular, or non-singular finite past. I simply cannot believe that something can come from nothing -- a sudden spurt of matter and gas from an infinitesimal place of only a box area of \(10^{-35}\) in an equally infinitesimal time of \(10^{-44}\).

This is why i came to realize that relativity, and its very prediction of curved timelike paths could answer for how a universe could arrive, without any specific beginning. It turns out, that we may actually be able to talk about a beginning, if that beginning was somehow the same as the end itself.

But a few problems arise, by announcing this, and from a parallel universe model of the universe, this is the only way i would accept that our universe in one of many, but not an infinite amount.

The Big Flow Theory

In Quantum Cosmology Dr. Hawking wants us to view the universe is a very unique way. If we are indeed to take Hawkings seriously by viewing the universe as an atom, does that mean the universe will quantum leap in the future? Coming back to this question, two main things can happen, depending on what kind of energy state our universe is in. There are two known states called 'Ground State,' and 'Excited State.'

A ground state atom arranges its inhabitants; the electron, the proton and the neutron ect., to a certain frequency, so that they can have the smallest energy possible. If our universe isn't in a ground state, it could have come from a singularity in space, a bit like the kind found inside of black holes... However, i would like to add, that Hawkings is not so sure any more if singularities really exist. Thus, if our universe is in a ground state, it wouldn't have come from a singular region. Instead, it will have had at its center an opening in the fabric of space and time; this is a worm hole, threaded with a substance called 'exotic matter’. This wormhole might loop in on our own universe, and anything that can travel through it, might turn up in a different region of space, at a totally different time of history - theoretically, i could jump into the wormhole a few minutes after big bang, and end up coming out of the wormhole, 40-odd billion years later when the universe decides to contract. Or, if theory is correct as we have seen, it might link this universe up with other universes.

A ground state atom will not spill out energy - this means that it is a very stable particle. If our universe is in its ground state, it will not be able to quantum leap in the future. If the atom is in an excited state, then it will eventually spill out its energy and will inexorably quantum leap. If it was a universe i am speaking about here, it will spill out its energy, quite possibly into a branch that is in its ground state, and will quantum leap.

Now even though Dr. Hawking has shown us that anything that moves into a Black Hole becomes ‘’mangled’’ the information creating a thing is never lost, so nothing can move into other universes: That is, unless it was at the very beginning of time. He has never suggested this, but it makes perfect sense, if we assume that if nothing existed, then something from another universe could enter here in this universe, so long as the other universe has just ended… a big crunch, followed by a big bang.

It may become evident that I am suggesting a whole new creation to matter: Something which will allow energy to enter this universe from another universe, without resorting to the standard interpretation that energy came ‘’from nowhere’’. It simply came around into existence.

I don’t like this, and is admittedly the only real problem I have with the big bang theory. But, if energy came from the other universe, crushing its energy into our universe, then even that universe must have got its energy from somewhere.

This is where timelike curves comes into play. Energy flowing through a finite number of universes, in a timelike curve which in theory, even though a beginning was necessary, is possible to remove all notions of what we specifically call a beginning; in short, the universes, possibly something like \(10^100\) or even \(10^500\) predicted by string theory landscape, is from the moment the first universe became excited with energy, was all shared among them in one massive time loop…

If there is a supermassive time-loop within all the universes, then there can’t be a real definite end or beginning to any universe, but rather an infinite amount of beginnings and ends…

How Does Matter and Energy Enter this Univese?

There arises a fundamental problem, that energy and matter and even [[information]], according to Dr Hawking, that it cannot spontaneously leave a universe and enter another universe, due to an information paradox.

The paradox can be resolved, however, if energy enters a black hole, and never really leaves this vacuum, if it becomes mangled, and eventually tunnels back into this universe.

There is another way to resolve this. You can say that for any energy and matter to leave a universe, so must the space and time (for even the vacuum contains information, and even the information of what it contains (1) ). This means, that in my model of the Big Flow, a universe can rid of its energy and matter, of it is willing to give up the spacetime itself (2).

It is possible, that a finite set of universes could give up their energy and matter to another universe who's big bang was just beginning. This means that all the ingredients necessery for a big bang, is provided from a previous universe. But where did this universe get its matter and energy?

The answer comes from curved timelike conditions - a discipline of General relativity. It is possible that all the finite universes act in a synchronized pattern so that each and every universe act's ''independant,'' but in reference to each other, gives each other universe a meaning, and quite possibly a beginning.

We now observe all the universes as a wave function of one universe, that is caught up in a massive curved path, predicted by relativity itself.


(1) - i'll give a quite and simple mathematical proof, if one desires.

(2) - even Einstein once said, ''Before relativity, we thought that if we removed all the energy and matter in the universe, space and time would continue to exist. We now know that space and time would follow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does no one have to say anything

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not gonna go through people, or anything?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's only a relevent question if time already exists. Without time there's no cause --> effect.

The Big Bang theory only goes back so far as the planck time, 10^-44 seconds. Since there were no laws of physics before then anything could have happened, and we'll probably never know for sure what. Even the opposite concepts "something" and "nothing" might not apply, in the same way that the concepts of "here" and "there" don't apply to photons (they can be both here and there at the same time).

It all sounds like a big cop-out, but if the Big Bang theory from the planck time onwards is right then it's the only possible scenario. Without laws of physics or time nothing that applies to this universe need apply to whatever came "before" the planck time.

 

It's like trying to measure, in a time-sense, when a collapsing neutron star "becomes" a black hole singularity; it still has the same mass equivalent and the same gravitational inertial "existence" as pre-collapse.

Time changes its meaning in a BH singularity, can it be used to measure distance-relative events? The entropy (potential) is now a different geometry; that's the bit we think we have a handle on - the entropy-area relation.

Time and distance have an inverted relation in a gravitational singularity, of a certain density (an infinite matter density over some area); the way spacetime gets curved by matter changes to a different shape, matter is conserved as tension over an area, the four forces swap roles somehow, which has something to do with the symmetries we see them behaving with "out here", presumably.

 

I'll think abot what you both said...

 

I just don't like any cosmology that has to struggle to define a beginning. BBT can't quite say there was a t=0 or that there was an infinitely dense zero volume start point. You are talking about making a beginning that can't be defined but moves from here to there and is a beginning here and an ending there, or some path that energy can follow that looks like a beginning but isn't.

I come right out with it and say there was no beginning in my pet cosmology. Every thing is composed of energy, energy has always existed. The greater universe hosts a potentially infinite number of arenas at all times where big crunches become big bangs and the remnants from big bangs mix and mingle to form more big crunches.

Give me a cosmology that either says "This is how it all started", or go with the simple idea, the universe has always existed.

 

Reiku, I don't think you realize how close this really is to exactly what I am trying to get across to everyone.

I will parse this later, with just a couple of relevent points that I think you will agree with and then we can go from there...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let's start here

That is the lowest state for 'baryonic Matter"

Right...now that means that 'space' is not made of baryonic matter.

The Ground State of 'space' is 'Exotic matter', which is Non-baryonic matter.

There is ONLY one kind of non-baryonic matter that we know Exists.

Neutrinos, which for all intents and purposes, is traveling at "c", in every direction.

That simply means that Neutrinos ARE the 'particle that gives electrons/protons their mass.

Now, currently there is a 10^122 Order Of Magnitude (OOM) discrepancy between the energy 'of space' that is predicted by QM/BB theory and what is actually observered.

The "Observered" energy is the CMB at 2.73k.

That is the "Ground State" "Observered" energy of the universe.

SO, now let's look at your statement...

If our universe isn't in a ground state, it could have come from a singularity in space, a bit like the kind found inside of black holes

You said in the other BB thread, that I may be right that SMBH's have something to do with how our universe is working, and your statement right here can do it...

BUT, here's what you need to read several times and get"

1. Don't think of the Universe as "One Unit" that was made all at once.
2. Until I figured this out, I was, as many are doing, thinking of "One" black hole, doing some 'cause/effect'....That's not it.
3. SO, how can we think of cause and effect...'something' coming through to our universe?

SO, once I figured out that IF, "Exotic Matter"/non-baryonic matter was "Going Out Of Our SMBH's (all of them), Then 'Exotic Matter" should be 'coming IN' to Our Universe.

That's when I went Ah Ha. Since then I have worked out many things, BUT mainstream won't buy it...obviously, and most Anti BB'ers don't believe that black holes are 'real'.

Now, that means that the Universe is working as an "Open Sysyem", whereas ALL of mainstream has defined all the Laws of Physics as a closed system.

So, almost everything is the "Opposite" of what mainstream has done.

So, get this part, and then I can show the rest...how the elctrons/protons get their mass when the SMBH's in our univers are created one at a time, creating New Galaxies One at a time.

 

Do you know why the CMB is at this thermal temperature? How about what caused the radiation in the first place? Or why the cosmos is a lot bigger now, than when the radiation first appeared?

What evidence do you have available that BH's emit galaxies, or baryonic matter?

 

If the Big Bang/naked singularity did NOT happen, then the Universe did NOT start, and there was NO hot primordial anything.

The just-so-story of the first 3 minutes does NOT exist. The Universe did NOT start off as Infinite Gamma Radiation.

SO, the 'presumption' that the CMB is 'stretched Gamma radiation is wrong!


What evidence do you have available that BH's emit galaxies, or baryonic matter?[/B}

NO. that's not even close to what I said.

OUR Space/Exotic Matter at "c", is coming to us, in the Voids, between the galaxy clusters, which is where they 'think' they are seeing the universe expanding, from the SMBH's in the universe Above ours.

Each Void is 'attached' to a SMBH in the other universe. SO, if you flew into one of our Voids, you would enter a worm hole and that would get smaller and smaller the further you went until you hit the Torus Ring, and then you would go 'through that Ring' and into the SMBH in the other universe, and if you could keep going you would go our their event horizon, But you can't go out an event horizon.

BUT, that is what is sooo messed up........the whole thing has been ssssssooo Sci-Fi'ed, even by ALL the Astonomers, including the supposed GR giants and Nobel Prize winners, that the Big Bang folk, in prtecting their 'closed system' anything else is Woo Woo, it has become almost impossible to be taken seriously.

The Woo WOO started a LONG time ago, with light traveling 'instantaneously to any distance' AND, a Naked Singularity,. and contacting or expanding universe.............NONE of it is real!!!

 

This is the supreme mystery that man has been trying to unravel since he could think, and will continue to do so until his demise and extinction. It is an unanswerable question that no one will ever be able to solve, but basically, either the universe caused its own existence from 'nothing' or God caused his own existence from 'nothing' and created the universe. I go with the first premise.

Our only problem in understanding this, as you pointed out is the defiance of cause and effect as that something can come from nothing, but when we talk of 'nothing' in this context we are probaly talking about realms that our brains cannot conceptualise. There is probably no such thing as absolute nothingness.

 

Right. I don't think that's what the theory says though.

 

“ Originally Posted by RussT
The Universe did NOT start off as Infinite Gamma Radiation. ”

Right. I don't think that's what the theory says though.

GEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Okay....Near infinite...LOL

 

I don't believe in an infinite anything in the 'real world'. It's something to be toyed with on paper, an irrational number that can never be reached. Sometimes a sign that the equation has broken down or is incomplete, as in the case of a singularity inside a black hole. Infinite density doesn't mean the black hole is infinitely dense, it means the equation has broken down and can't describe the singularity.

Same way I don't think the universe could have existed for an infinite time. It's just as much nonsense as saying the universe appeared from nothing, because infinity, by definition, can never be reached.

 

Infinities are often referred to as potentially infinite for that very reason probably.

If the universe has always existed right up until now, I think it is OK to say the time is potentially infinite backward. To me that is the same as saying that there was no beginning.

If someone leaves off the word potentially, and says that if there was no beginning then time is infinite backward I wouldn't argue about the distinction.

However, if we talk spatially, I would say that the universe is potentially infinite for the very reason that you invoke. In this case, without the "potentially", your point is well taken.

Do you disagree?

 

I'd have to say partly.

Potentially infinite is something I could agree with, but if I'm understanding it correctly it means something along the lines of 'so close to infinite that we may as well think of it as infinite' or 'impossible to fathom'. But no matter how close to infinity it is it will be finite unless it's infinite, and that implies a beginning.

If the universe is infinitely old I'd have to assume that means the laws of physics have remained the same that whole time. If they can change when the universe 'renews' itself (it'd need to due to entropy) then they must have gone through an infinite number of iterations, which means every possible variant must have happened already. And if even one of those variants causes a universe that for some reason can't renew itself the chain is broken.

That's the problem with infinities, they just breed more and more infinities until you're left with nonsense.

 

Infinity is not impossible to fathom. Humans came up with the word to represent a possible condition. There are many fathomable infinities. If you think they are not fathomable it is your thinking that makes them unfathomable. I think infinities are fathomable. They just cannot be experienced or iterated.

For example, let's make a distinction between being able to go somewhere that is infinitely far away and going to a point in space at any specific location no matter how far it is away. With a specific location in the equation, it is no longer infinitely far away because there is a finite distance between any two defined points. But to go to a point with an undefined location that is referred to as infinitely far away is not possible physically. However it is possible to fathom the concept of something infinitely far away meaning that it has no specific location in space no matter how far we go toward it.

Qualifying infinites with "potentially" does what you say, i.e. we may as well consider them infinite but they are fathomable in that the concept itself is fathomable.

Not so fast. If you say that the universe has always existed which I do, I am invoking a potentially infinite length of time backward. Saying that "potentially" means not quite infinite is wrong. Potentially infinite means that even if we could physically go back in time we could never get to the beginning because there was no beginning.

This is a valid argument against the cyclical cosmologies that contain a finite amount of energy and that "bounce" in phases of growing and reversing entropy. Like you say, eventually the ability to pull back in enough energy to perform the next bounce will fail.

My personal cosmology avoids complete entropy if you care to take a look but it is becoming a "long read" and someone else's idea never seems interesting enough to go the duration

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. And the thread has a lot of off topic conversation that makes it even harder to stick with. But I say go for it and see what you think. Wait for a day and I will have an interesting post that describe it (it is called QWC) in a series of sentences that all start with the word energy. So far I have about forty sentences and I plan to finish to post tonight or tomorrow.

It is hard to argue with you on that point. There is no answer to the true cosmology and BBT is the best consensus that science professionals can come up with. I mentioned earlier that BBT evolves as new facts and evidence are produced. So we can say that BBT will remain the best until a grand unification theory comes along and decouples spacetime. Only then will BBT be replaced by a new standard cosmology which would be based on quantum physics in 3 dimensions if I have my way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

If there was no beginning then logically the universe has existed forever. It may not make any difference to someone travelling backward through time if it's infinitely old or potentially infinitely old, but it makes a big difference theoretically. One requires a beginning, no matter how far back in time it is, and the other doesn't.

Hit me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Honestly I'm not sure I agree with BBT either, it seems more like a clumsy first attempt than a final theory. But we'll see where it goes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ok, let's talk about the gamma background of the universe, since it seems to be spurring interest. Why is it the way it is?

According to the antiquated BB model, we started off the universe, about the size of a human skin cell. However, it turned out, that as small as this even is, was too large, and did not allow enough time for light to reach all four corners of the universe.

To balance these temperatures, astrophysicists and physicists alike, came toether to create a model that began at a much smaller size than that of a blood cell and then went through an Inflationary Period, where the vacuum dragged it's gas and matter faster than the speed of light, setting a nice balanced and smooth gamma ray distribution.

So we have had to change our model of the universe three times in order to get it right, and still today, some astrophysicists are sure it's still not enough.

Certain superalaxies seem extremely complicated, and maybe due to a lack of observational evidence, some hold that it would take longer than the universes age to even be created. Even Einstein once said,

'There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic line-shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion leads to an origin of this expansion which lies only a billion years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear likely that the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is no way known how the incongruity is to be overcome.'

And physicist Lerner once wrote:

'Present evidence shows that the Big Bang initially introduced to explain the Hubble expansion, does not make predictions that correspond to observation. It is clear supercluster complexities arise and by the more recent confirmations of large-scale structures. This returns us to the problem; what caused Hubble expansion? The cosmological debate will not be resolved until this basic question is answered. The question of the Hubble remains unanswered until an adequate theory is found. Far more theoretical and observational work is needed.'

There is a problem with big bang, and i don't even know if we can agree on the same problem. Until we can do that, the arguements are not but messy.