A Big Bang Alternative

Quite right.

What is nothing? If nothing is indescribable, then it does us no good to talk about a condition before big bang, no matter how ethereal it is.

But wait a minute, something potential must have existed, because it now seems that this nothingness had just enough of the right kind og something, to bring everything into existence...?

Confusing eh?

So the logic says, before big bang, there was nothing, but there was still enough, to create everything we see.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with cause and effect, maybe more of a philosophical one. But it certainly stands, that if we can at all call any beginning to anything, that implies a cause, and the law of cause and effect would necesserily break down at t=0.

Dr Hawking can remove the beginnin of the universe, by working in imaginary time units alone. But here's the rub, he admits, that it's really nothing but a mathematical nicety. So, there seems to be no way we can remove a beginning completely from a successful big bang model. Moreover, we can't even have a mechanism that created matter itself.

My model explains how matter could be created, or atleast, given a meaning before t=0, by tunelling into this universe from another universe, and can even explain how time itself can begin from a finite past, but it can't answer why we still need inflation, or why the universe at all should have an age. These are aspects of big bang that we need, if we are to believe that the standard model is indeed the correct model.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That ours is a universe created from the collapse of another does not seem too far fetched to me. Perhaps the CERN Haden Collider will shed some light on dark matter or the Planck satellite will make some observations of particular patterns predicted in the CMB...exciting times ahead....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Subatomic matter behaves very differently to larger masses. One example of this estranged behavior is called the 'double slit experiment' introduced by physicist Thomas Young in 1805. This experiment consists of a machine that shoots a beam of photons, electrons or even atoms towards film screen - but before the particles reach the screen and leaves tiny marks, it needs to pass through either an upper slit, or a lower slit that are closely separated. Each slit can be closed, or both can be left opened by the choice of the observer.

Now, when the beam of particles hit the screen, you would suppose the particles had to pass through either the upper slit or the lower slit, yes? However, the strange thing is, is that if you close down one of slits, more particles reach the screen than if you left both slits open! How can this be? You would imagine more particles reaching the screen if both slits were opened - but this is not the case.

One strange answer came about. The particle wasn't a pointlike particle at all. It acted as though it were a wave!

If one uses the wave description, the problem seemed to go away. We know how waves act in the sea, and this also means that the particle will take these attributes on board.

A wave could reach both slits at the same time - and just like a wave coming into contact with two openings, the wave can split into two smaller waves, one, as i am sure you can guess, in each slit. If the two waves travel different paths, they can be made to interfere with themselves after passing the slits; in doing so, less waves reach the screen. If one slit is only open, the wave will travel through the slit, and, just like a wave hitting the shore, it will hit many places simultaneously on the screen - thus hitting more places with one slit open, than having both slits open.

However, the particle wasn't only just a wave - after all, when it hit the screen, it left a tiny 'pointlike' mark. Somehow when the wave hit the screen, it hit many places on the screen as dots. Thus, a new description had to made for a particle that traveled through space as a wave, and finishes its journey as a single object - this description has been come to be called the 'wave-particle duality.' The particle therego was in fact a wave and a particle simultaneously.

Why did the particle act as a wave?
Well, at first, physicists thought that the wave was a product of the human mind - it wasn't real, and it was just a means for us to keep track of experiments. The wave became to be called the 'quantum wave function.' This was a wave of possibilities. The wave probability enables us to calculate the possibility for a particle and its path, location, spin, orbital reference, ect. The wave spreads out over space, and resembles likelihoods, not actualities... or does it?

In 1957 physicist Hugh Everett the third, came up with a rather bizarre conclusion concerning the wave function. His idea was that if the experiment says that the particle passed through both slits at the same time, then both particles, the one traveling past the upper slit, and the particle traveling through the lower slit, must both exist.

Question is though, how and where does this extra ghostly particle exist? The answer was parallel universes. Somehow, an identical particle existed in a parallel world; the wave represented the amount of particles it was composed of, thus one particle passed the upper slit and a particle passed the lower slit, and each 'branch', or universe, it was represented as a wave, having quite a real effect in each universe.

However, why should the particle be a wave and then suddenly become a particle again? It turns out that our universe, according to Everett, is constantly splitting and merging every time some measurement is performed or when something comes into contact with something else.

Each time the universe split, it would represent the wave function splitting into as many possibilities as there where outcomes, and the merging would represent the universe becoming superimposed all over again. Thus, in the double slit experiment, when the particle moves through both the slits simultaneously, this represents the universe splitting, creating as many universes as the possibility allows - in this case, two universes - and the merging represents the pointlike dot when it hits the screen. However, it turns out that the experiment represents only two universes - yet, it turns out that our universe is in fact one in an infinite amount of parallel universes, all 'superpositioned' upon each other, like layers on a cake.



In Everett's intepretation, the wave function is a projection of other matter in parallel universes in their own present time. In my Big Flow Theory, each universe is unique, (finite as they are), the wave function we percieve cannot be seen from Everett's light.

Instead, all matter and energy, space and time (1), squeeze out of existence, and create a new big bang, the beginning of a new universe. It's like passing the parcel, on a grand scale.

The wave function we come to observe as having real effects on how other matter behaves, i declare, is a record of the statistical outcomes of how the matter should operate in a given spacetime vacuum. This statistical information is determined from previous states the matter and energy had existed as, so you can imagine, there is no universe ''out there,'' in this model that cannot sustain matter and energy. This was one of the main reasons why there needed to be a finite number of universe (each allowed to have matter). An infinity of them, would mean at least an infinite amount would have to be void of such matter, in replace of something even more bizarre.

It keeps it safe, but to answer why all these universes are allowed to have matter, would again be to say that the wave function of probability is shared among the universes, and each time it shares the energy, a slight change in the wave function occurs, and allows the universes to be different, but with the same quantum laws at their disposal.


(1) - Matter, according to relativity, are nothing but knots in the fabric of spacetime. And, after relativity, we found that spacetime and matter-energy are codependant. Remove one ingredient, and the rest follows.

 

Where does it say that?

 

You won't take my word for it.

Dr Wolf talks about this known fact of relativity in his book, ''Parallel Universes...'' Pae, 185 i think. I might need to check that. I don't mind looking through it and giving an excerpt of what he says.

And if you don't take his word for it, there are some very accessible sites called, ''ask an astrophysicist,'' and they should confirm what i have said.

Even Einstein once said,

''Before relativity, we once thought that if you removed all the matter and energy in the universe, space and time would continue to exist. We now know space and time would also dissappear.''

 

That Einstein quote doesn't mean that matter is 'nothing but knows in the fabric of space-time'. The quote implies that space-time needs matter, not that matter is space-time. Do you understand the difference?

And can you for once get a quote which isn't Wolf's? Don't you read any other books? For someone claiming to be doing curvature in GR in his classes, you don't seem to ever have any sources which aren't quack pop science books.

 

Wolf is a brilliant Doctor. He is my idol.

Ofcourse i read other books. But i'd rather qoute things Dr Wolf says, due to his excellent way of discussing science to the public.

Wolf, possibly from his days of studying in the UCLA, describes the relativistic look on the vacuum, and the codpendent nature as space-time-matter-energy. He goes onto say that they are all one of the same thing, just different sides to a single coin.

 

''Before relativity, we once thought that if you removed all the matter and energy in the universe, space and time would continue to exist. We now know space and time would also dissappear.''

I have said many times on other forums...

Einstein (and Newton and everyone before them) did NOT even know about SMBH's, Voids or Non-baryonic Matter.

SO...here is a hint for ya'll...IF you eliminated ALL of the baryonic Matter from the universe...(yes, all the way down to the protons/electrons(and don't tell me that electrons are not baryonic!)/neutrons...

Then you would be left with our Universe FULL of non-baryonic Matter...and that is NOT WIMPs.......WIMPs do NOT even exist.

 

When Einstein said all the matter Russ, he meant the stuff we where made of and he also meant the matter we can only observe through telescopes, that means every ounce of energy, every gram of matter. Even the invisible stuff.

His analogy was just. He simply stated, that if you [[removed]] all the matter in the universe, so not a speck remains, it was his point that spacetime would also follow.

It doesn't need to be complicated into differential sorts and types.

 

Geeezzzzzzz Reiku, how could he intend meaning of something he knew absolutely nothing about.........think about it!

Einstein (Newton) never had a chance in hell of figuring out what 'space' is made of!

 

Because dark matter is still a matter. It's just a matter we know not of its properties.

If we removed all matter, we must also include the types that permeate the universe that we haven't observed.

 

Because dark matter is still a matter.

[RED] It's just a matter we know not of its properties.[/RED]

LOL, that's what I said.........Neither did Einstein

Neither does Mainstream

Non-baryonic Dark Matter IS "New Physics" and has been ever since it was introduced!!!

SO are SMBH's!

So Are the Huge Voids Between galaxy clusters!

There are NO "Parallel Universes".

"Space" needs 'somewhere' to 'Tunnel' through to our universe............That does NOT happen in some Pink elephant kind of multi-dimensional "infinite # of realities/universes that somehow reside in bewteen the 3 dimensions we reside in!!!

Einstein already had the correct concept for the Tunnelling>>>

E-R Bridges are SMBH's!!!

 

What? Dark matter is still a matter. It still follows the same relativistic laws. Physics is the same in all area's of the cosmos. You cannot change the laws of relativity, no matter if you live 6 billion light years away or not.