The True Origin of The Universe?

Again, we have no observational evidence or any other kind to support your fallacious hypothesis.
And at the same time you ignore the evidence for the BB in post 354.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pure unsupported speculation, nothing more, nothing less.
Again, the evidence for the BB is in post 354.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fundamental laws of the Universe were most probably inherited at the BB, and encompassed in GR gravity, and other rather mundane aspects of everyday life, like the laws of motion, thermodynamics and indestructibility of matter/energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have failed to address the following four objective observations yet humbleteleskop

[1] Observed expansion: Distant Galactic redshift measured and observed:

[2] CMBR: The BB predicts that this glow should exist, and that it should be obvious as the microwave part of the EMS at 2.7K:

[3] Abundance of light elements: [The BB predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies matches that.

[4] The particle zoo verified to a great extent and as predicted by the BB:

I would also add to the above list, how logically and sensibly the BB fits in so snugly with SR, GR and abiogenesis and evolution.

 

dumbest man on earth:
- "does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?"

Given your failure to explain yourself it looks like you don't know what are you talking about.

Please give us some examples of "fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW". Do you even know?

I answered your question, what part do you not understand? What part of your question do you believe I did not address? Do you even know?

 

Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

 

No need. I know that.
That does not invalidate the BB though.

so educate yourself.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.) "
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

My only objection to BB is creation of space and time "on the go" as it expands. I don't have any objection to anything else, just pointing out that it is all very indirect evidence.

 

You agree fully with the theoretical near facts of Abiogenesis and Evolution, don't you?
Although and in spite of the fact we cannot be sure of the exact details and methodology.

The same applies to the BB. Great evidence it happened...Nothing yet as to how and why.
Although we do have some Interesting speculative takes on the matter....
see....http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf


and.....
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


yes, it's all speculative, but it can be classed as educative speculation, since nothing violates current laws of physics or GR.
Just saying.

 

High energy Plasma , to your first question

 

It didn't exist in actual fact.

 

Of course it did , in actual fact

 

No it didn't in actual fact.
Even after the BB, matter did not, nor could not exist.
Stop making things up.

 

That's what I'm telling you, 98% certainty estimate is irrationally overconfident. At least half of it is like proving God by citing Bible. Instead of conclusions you should be considering actual measurements, instruments, margin of error, and most importantly what is it they actually measure and how they arrive to that conclusion in the first place. Then you will understand just how INDIRECT all that evidence is. Even 50% is overestimate and wishful thinking. And on the other hand we have abiogenesis and Szostak lab experiments which is a direct evidence it works in principle. I call that makes it at least 80% certain all by itself. This is not an argument, just my opinion. You have yours, and that's fine.

 

Again, you misinterpret what I said....
The speculation concerns those links I gave about the Universe being the ultimate free lunch.....pre BB. That is obvious.
Not the near certain BB.


It's getting so painfully obvious that the Alternative hypothesis pushers, will twist squirm, misinterprete, ignore, concoct nonsense, and just about anything to support their fragile position.

 

river, is this "High energy Plasma" that you are referring to the high energy "quark-gluon plasma" that composed the early Universe, prior to cooling that allowed the "hadrons" to form?

Personally, I would have to agree with your opinion, simply because it seems to correspond to the early (first few seconds!) of the Theorized Time line of the Big Bang.
It is what is commonly referred to as the Hadron Epoch.

river, I cannot follow any interpretation of the Big Bang theory that proposes that after the Big Bang matter could not exist, simply because 13.8 billion years later matter does in Fact exist.

river, possibly you could do some research into the Hadron Epoch.

 

it appears CMB is not understood.
nor E and B modes

 

It also appears some do not understand that the "Hadron epoch" started at 10-6 seconds after the BB,
Relatively speaking leaving a great deal of time between 10-43 seconds, and 10-6 seconds, during which matter/Plasma could not possibly exist.

The following excellent WIKI summary says it beautifully......

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Summary[edit]
The very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no matter particles existed or could exist except perhaps fleetingly, and the forces we see around us today were believed to be merged into one unified force. Space-time itself expanded during an inflationary epoch due to the immensity of the energies involved. Gradually the immense energies cooled – still to a temperature inconceivably hot compared to any we see around us now, but sufficiently to allow forces to gradually undergo symmetry breaking, a kind of repeated condensation from one status quo to another, leading finally to the separation of the strong force from the electroweak force and the first particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Matter and of course the Hadron epoch, came later.
Naturally this also aligns with the BB in that it was an evolution of space and time in the first instant.

 

yeah, i know what post you are referring to,
i read that nonsense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As a layman, I actually find it pretty awesome that such powerful theories such as the BB and GR, can not only describe the Universe with varying degrees of precision, way back to t+10-43 seconds, but that we can also predict with the same amount of confidence, the future epoch of Universal/spacetime evolution, and eventually the end of the Universe, as we know it.
Quite dramatic and awesome.