Big Bang Theory Is Bang Wrong

I beleive that this is a finite cozmos. I think that the parts are in orbit around the point of orgin. However I beleive that matter exists on different fequencies. Since matter exists on different frequences we can only see our kind. As I already stated there is only one set of poles in this cozmos. those are the poles at the center of the galaxies. There is only enough room for one. The reason that there seems to be so much space to us is that our matter has decressed because the medium of the cozmos has shifted away from us. When it shifts back towards us the universe will begin to shrink in our perspective as the empty space inside matter will incress as more energy is added.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Beercules

I`m aware that it was/is part of early inflation scenarios.
As i said the original string theories required that TIME or space be transformed to normal baryonic matter.


I am tempted to say that omega is 1...( there is a good probability), therefore the mass density of the universe is not infinite.

The early universe was full of baryonic energy, but it was too hot for it to condense out into matter...

When the universe was full of energy ,did it not have ANY density.
Energy IS the same as mass, as far as omega is concerned.

I could even calculate how much there is, by counting how many photons there are in a region of space. (this number is directly linked to the amount of protons and neutrons ).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only a universe that has always been infinite can be infinite
in volume, since a finite cosmos stays finite no matter how
long it expands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When omega is less than one , the universe will expand forever AND accelerate.
When omega is equal to one , the universe will expand forever But only just. (one atom less and it would stop).

This is of course the expansion of space.....

It is not the same for the inflation of the early universe.
It may have expanded an infinite amount...(it didn't, i think)

I introduce the boundary conditions of a foamy-space scenario, where our universe (not just the visible horizon universe) is a bubble that has expanded (with many others) it has a certain size and a `wall`.
This bubble ,of course ,is a higher dimensional object.

When higgs particles decays in a virtual vacuum (big-bang) it creates the energy that drives the inflation.

If the early universe contained too much energy then it would have quickly collapsed.


(is this the physics forum?)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i've been following up on this thread becuz i've found it to be very interesting and its a fantastic topic... im not a extremely well versed in these matters, but i just have a few q's..

- accordin to SST.. the universe has existed infinitely... how is that possible? i know it removes the complication of a having a cause, but how can somethin exist without a beginning? that means it would the entire cosmos (everythin that exists) would have existed infinitely in time... how can you possibly have that? if time is infinite in the universe, then its not possible to arrive at the present from the past cuz its infinitely further... maybe im confusin some ideas...

- how does e=mc^2 pertain to this discussion of how the universe was created? i know the equation basically says that energy is basically equal to mass...

- accordin to BB, the universe sprung outta a singularity... but the theory doesn't explain how that singularity came into place.. right?

these are the only ones i can think of right now.. i apologize if these have already been covered.... just curious.. thanks..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point is that the amount of mass and mass density are not the same thing. A universe with an infinite amount of mass (energy) would not need to have an infinite density. Cosmologists seem to favor a flat and infinite universe today.

 

DOH! Mass and mass density are not the same thing?

Hum,

Can we reconcile the fact that a virtual particle can be created and not add to the mass density of the universe.?

A pair of virtual particles (for those that don`t know) can be created from the energy of space/time. the two are oppositely charged and quickly recombine , so in essence they never existed . A virtual particle can behave/is like normal particles.
(this is because all particles are virtual?)

I may add that in the case of black-hole evaporation this mechanism is the way that mass is `shifted ` from the black-hole back to the rest of the universe. (there has been no net gain/loss in mass).

My point is that every part of space is teeming with fleeting virtual particles (even though their existence is brief) and they all add to the overall mass of the universe...(or not?)

An experimental example would be the casimir effect ,

where only certain harmonics/frequencies can exist , in the small gap. (virtual particles also have a wave/particle duality).
Only certain energy ranges can exist within the small gap, on the outside all ranges can exist...therfore there is a `pressure` to close the gap.

I don`t know how m-theory fit into all this EXACTLY, (need to think about it) but i think that energy can be `borrowed` from the expansion `energy` of the universe and be converted to other forms of energy (OR MASS).

I propose that the universe is finely tuned so that the creation of virtual matter is balanced with the expansion rate. (The flat universe we see today is the result).

 

Well, let's say we were to take a given region of the universe and slice it out. The region is about as big as a kitchen sink, and let's say it has X amount of energy. At every point of this region, there is a X amount of energy, which contributes to the total sum of the overall region.

Now if you stretch the region out to expand it, the overall energy will remain at the rate (X) that we started out with. However, the size has increased, and that means the density has decreased. Each point should now have less energy. While the overall energy is conserved, density is not. This is what happens with the expanding universe.

Energy from a cosmological constant keeps a constant density, however. But I don't think anyone really knows whether or not the the constant is vacuum energy or some kind of exotic field, ie. quintessence.

 

blobrana - In response to my question as to how can something that is either eternal or which came into existence from nothing be cyclic you replied:

.
This is avoiding the issue. We know by logic alone that the universe, if we define the universe as everything, cannot possibly be cyclic. It does not need a research grant.

 

@ Beercules

Yes i agree that at every point of this region, there is a X amount of energy, which contributes to the total sum of the overall region. (imho)

quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if you stretch the region out to expand it, the overall energy will remain at the rate (X) that we started out with. However, the size has increased, and that means the density has decreased. Each point should now have less energy. While the overall energy is conserved, density is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hum, this sounds like that you think that the value of omega will change over time...(perhaps it does?)
My personal view is that it started with the EXACT properties to make it flat...

Are you saying that the energy from a cosmological constant keeps a constant density, by `lending` it to the baryonic energy?

@ Canute


I don`t want to get too deep into this statement but my view is that this universe is a product of a larger `super-universe` (one that has membranes floating about in 5 dimensional space). time and space are really only a product of this universe. It is pointless talking about a `TIME` Before this universe was created. But i can imagine the conditions (colliding branes and false vacuums)that may have brought about the Big-bang.
This universe may or may not, at some time in the future, cool so that it could break another symmetry and condense into another `type` of universe and perhaps give birth to a child universe (that for all intents and purposes) is exactly like our own .
This is what i mean when i say cyclic. Although the original membrane behind all this the very same and eternal...

(However this is too blue-sky thinking for me)

I think i`ll avoid this line of thought, as it is getting almost religious

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thus the cosmos is a multiverse which is timeless and the Big Bang is the start of this universe but not the start of everything. In this multiverse universes may come and go in a cyclic manner, but the cosmos just endures timelessly.

I quite agree, but feel that you make it sound over-complicated.

 

I don't think it matters much. The point is that even though an infinite universe would have infinite energy, it would not have infinite mass density and thus no big crunch.

I think it borrows from it. As the universe expands, the constant must by definition stay constant, but with more space you get more vacuum energy total. The increasing vacuum energy is said to come at the expense of the gravitational field.

 

Hehe, agreed.

So (see previous posts) <b>can</b> there be an infinite amount of stars (baryonic matter)?

And is a virtual particle the `SAME` as a normal particle. (<i>pointless question</i>)

 

It is said that all laws of physics break down at the big bang. therefore, it is possible that it detonated in a flat disk or something like that. another theroy is it was all condensed into a solid. the solid split in two at the moment of detonation. so the matter expanded outward into a disk

 

Congratulations! You are right! Big Wrong!

The big bang theory is a singularity changed and so incomplete theory. One can obtain everything from a singularity - a point in which a physical parameter (e.g. mass) can reach infinity. The real bodies and the universe as a whole are finite and self-defined. Thus they are self-similar, suggesting a universe made of similar sources of interaction that interact and build every structure (see the tread The Universe is a Fractal Interaction).

The patchy (i.e., classical plus quantum) Big Bang theory shows only the current state of our understanding, which to my surprise is taken too seriously by some.

The big bang theory and any other theory as well should be thought from the point of its flaws if we do seek a scientific truth.

 

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html


My comment: now if the light was going through a medium (like ether) it would probably act like a waveguide and prevent blurring, only due to the resistance of the medium we would have some photondecay, read : redshift.

 

Good link Vortexx, Thanks

Think about the light as particles, whose 3D spiral structure expands as they age along the long way from the distant galaxies as so they create what we see as redshift and crisp picture in Hubble telescope.

The stars and planets are much, much ... larger 3D spiral interaction patterns that similarly unfold creating atoms in their centers. See for detail the free downloads at http://www.eugenesavov.com

The proposed theory of interaction sends the big bang into the
history.

We live in a universe made of self-reproducing, similar, multiscale
interactions and it can not be otherwise as shown in the Eugene Savov's theory of interaction.

 

Ah..I've actually never been to this site before, and I'm only here now because I was browsing to find the accepted mass of the Milky Way for a calculation..anyhow..

I don't want to sound rude, but you're the one who is bang wrong, and it's somewhat rude of yourself to call the theory so. If you go back and look again, you'll notice that the universe is never described as being flat. That is only a perception: a trick that shames empiricists as well. This will, as you said, be verified by any astronomer or phsyicist. What is said is that the universe appears flat to us, because we are on the "surface" of its expansion. The analogy is that of an ant on the surface of a balloon. At the time when the balloon began inflating (as our universe did) the balloon appeared curved to the ant, and for practicality, we can say it was a small sphere. As the inflation made the balloon larger, the curvature decreased, making the ant believe that is was standing on a flat surface. If we could look at the universe on a time scale from its birth to the present, we would see the same thing happening. Note that it does not follow that the universe eventually becomes flat. Though curvature decreases, it never reaches absolute zero.

Balloons do pop though..but that's neither here nor there with regard to the universe. Feel free to speculate on that one.

 

Who knows. All the current theories are more or less guess work as to how the universe really works, flavoured by individual prefferences and thought paterns. My personal thinking tells me that anybody with a trible digit inteligent quocient cannot possibly beleive the BB t is the orrect one. I have a good friend who is a professor of physics at the U of A Edmonton. He tells me that when they have a free for all discussion about astrophysic in his clas, about 50% dont agree with the BBt, and he tells them, "when you get out in the world lookking for a job, keep that opinion to yourself, or you wont keep your job for long, if you're working in the field of astrophysics.
REGARDS APOLO

 

I have a good friend who is a professor of physics at the U of A Edmonton. He tells me that when they have a free for all discussion about astrophysic in his clas, about 50% dont agree with the BBt, and he tells them, "when you get out in the world lookking for a job, keep that opinion to yourself, or you wont keep your job for long, if you're working in the field of astrophysics.

Of course, those who don't agree don't know what their talking about, hence won't get a job in astrophysics.

And if they don't agree, what exactly is it that they don't agree? Can anyone of them offer a better explanation for the observations?

Sounds like barking dogs with no bite.