Multiple Big Bangs and their Origin

LMAO you realize the OP was 11 YEARS ago right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Several years ago I developed a similar theory. It worked using two basic assumptions. The first ssumption was the original singularity of the BB defined conditions similar to a black hole, due to the mass/energy of the universe being contained in a tiny space at t=0. The second assumption was, since we live in a quantum universe, the big bang would not be a continuum expansion, but should be a quantum expansion.

The way the model worked was the original black hole universe, did not just expand and inflate. Rather the initial singularity quantum divided similar to a cell dividing, forming two blackholes. The change of entropy is lower this way compared to a contunuum expansion thereby taking less energy to get the ball rolling. The quantum division of these two continues, forming smaller and smaller blackholes, until a critical size blackhole is reached. Then the universe undergoes a mini-big bang phase, where all the galaxy level blackholes phase change back into matter and energy, simultaneously. The simulateity is due to the blackhole references all overlapping since they all see the same near C reference.

This would explain blackholes in the center of galaxies. The energy output due to the mini-big bang phase change, would cause the galaxies to expand relative to each other. While the extreme energy pressure waves, coming from the umpteen other expansions, in waves, helps contain the expanding matter of the galaxies, allowing some galaxies to form quite rapidly. This could explain spiral galaxies with too many arms for the time they have to form the old way. Now they have an assist. This also helped explain how galaxies and stars were around very early in the BB.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No-one insinuated for there to be more than one universe. Hence the UNI- part. Just more than one bang.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is this another case of Nietzsche and Spinoza not seeing eye to eye?

 

One outlook causes us to not be able to recreate a big bang type of reaction. The other allows us to (in the future) objectively study what happened in the big bang through possible observation. I see no reason to side against ourselves by concluding the big bang only happened one time. My best guess is that it is a continuous process that fluctuates every now and again due to outside influences.

 

It sounds like we have membership in that cult in common.

 

LOL good to hear spread the word of logic.

 

Maybe, but I wasn't thinking that big bangs create energy. I go with the "law" that energy cannot be created or destroyed, i.e. the universe is composed of energy and has always existed.

 

And I love that 2LTD,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. And I agree with the general concept of the Big Bang being a gigantic local reversal of entropy as I have expound upon myself. The exact means of the reversal, the preconditions, are beyond the current state of knowledge and are outside of the current consensus theory. Agreed also that the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking also predicts a similar net zero energy.

Thinking about and discussing alternatives that may have merit is in line and no dogma should rule

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I have been waiting for this to be launched for a long time and maybe you have too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Magnetic_Spectrometer

Are you familiar with it and could it confirm what you are saying? It has been installed in orbit so let’s follow it and see what science it produces.

http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/

 

This is the first time the AMS2 tracking site has been updated after notice of launch and functioning.

They now say, "AMS has measured over 1 billion particles since its arrival on the ISS!".

Watching that link is like watching grass grow, lol. I check it every couple of days and will post updates from time to time.

 

Yes, anthropics disagrees with you, which makes this thread irrelevant.

 

Does that translate into making things more orderly at a local point in order to recreate the process?

 

I don't know NH, it seems like the greater universe that I envision encompasses both order and chaos like you imply. I'm just not sure when we are in order or out of order.

I'm picturing an infinite universe filled with energy that cannot be destroyed. The usefulness of the energy is diminished by increasing entropy that begins with a bang, expands and evolves to an arena full of galaxies all moving away from each other, and during the matter formation period within the expanding arena life is generated naturally and evolves to ... well, us-like intelligent beings who can observe it all going on.

That seems to be the orderly part, the part where we evolve out of the chaos and observe the order around us. If our arena is only one of a potentially infinite number of similar arenas, assuming that the big bang/arena process follows natural laws that are in effect across the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe, then a similar process is playing out in arenas all over out there. But we cannot see beyond the Hubble volume of space that is encompassed by our own big bang arena and so we are oblivious of the greater universe.

That is until the accelerating expansion of our own arena, characterized by the separation momentum of the galaxies that formed as the arena was expanding, causes our arena to intersect and overlap with another arena out there. That is when the chaos starts in a new place, fueled by the galactic material from the two parent arenas and the effect of gravity on the converging galaxies. The rendezvous of galactic material from converging arenas collapses under the effect of gravity and a new big crunch is born out of the remnants. The crunch then "bangs", entropy is defeated, and order begins to form again out of chaos in a new expanding arena.

So I guess my view is "yes" to your question in the sense that we go from chaos to order and back to chaos,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

If we could build something small with our elements that was neither orderly or chaotic, perhaps a view through the object will reveal all there is to see in reality. Where there is order and where there is chaos.

 

That would be quite orderly though, wouldn't it? What are you suggesting that "something small" would be? Our brain maybe?

 

Friday night and I'm watching paint dry (and the Rays game). Now the public site simply says, "The AMS Payload Operations Control Center in Geneva is now operational!"

 

Here's a philosophical one for all of the above . . . .

Imagine that we "live" (if that would be possible!) or otherwise exist in a black hole . . . what would we observe when we looked "out" into space? . . . . . everything expanding!!

wlminex

 

steady state

Well, I had a feeling I wasn't the only one to think like this. But only one thread on the internet???? Anyway, I always thought that the idea of the universe being the result of the Big Bang was the entire universe was absurd. What was there before the Big Bang? What is outside our "Big Bang area?" I like to think that there are infinite "big bang areas" throughout a steady state kind of space that is infinite Things like dark matter and dark energy are accounted for by the interactions between the "big bang areas" .