The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
I have been struggling with these theories and concepts, but then again I am a civilian in the land of physics. I would dearly love to know how "our" universe and whatever went before ours and other universes got started, but I think I will need to have it spelled out in one-syllable words; I just hope I'm still alive when that explanation comes. I accept that I may never know, but I do not accept a "creator" theory (although I can understand why early big-brained humans would have needed to drum up such a story in order to cope with the viscitudes of their existences). As a minuscule grain of sand on one of the earth's dry spots, I almost wish that my brain were not big enough to ask such questions. But since I've asked, I hope the answers become available in my lifetime.The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
The author jokingly uses Biblical terminology, but to me it is sad that instead of applying the scientific method to evidence, this field of pseudo-science is about proving the Biblical origin of the universe, which is in a steady state and had no beginning. This is what the evidence always shows. Yet the creationists never give up.
The red shifts measured by Hubble (and more recently of supernovas) are ISOTROPIC. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, we could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," because the observed red shifts are ISOTROPIC. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory.
When this is pointed out to believers, they may counter with another, abstract version of the big bang theory, which is that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment. It is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.
The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problem. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.
There is also something called the matter-antimatter symmetry problem. In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.
That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. This multiple big bang theory also looks religiously motivated. Why else would anyone believe any of this?
I agree with the article's premise that the concept of 'a Big Bounce' universe has similar problems with the concept of the 'Big Bang' universe. I especially agree with the assessment, "The main sign that we have terrain yet to be explored is the presence of a "singularity," or a point of infinite density, at the beginning of the Big Bang. Taken at face value, this tells us that at one point, the universe was crammed into an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense point. This is obviously absurd …". The concept of considering the 'Big Bang' theory from a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity, rather try thinking of the 'Big Bang' theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a the proposed one dimensional determinant. Then start unfolding this dimensional perspective so space-time fabric into existence; first into a two dimensional space-time fabric, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time fabric and so on. The expectation is that ordinary matter creation took place within a pre-existing medium of space-time. Indeed, the existence of ordinary matter would only warp the pre-existing fabric of space-time. Take away the positive density matter and you would still have a vessel in which the matter once existed. I would only be logical for the vessel to be one of dark energy; dark energy unaffected by this promulgation of matter.
So if the 'Big Bang' expansion theory rubs you the wrong way, try thinking of the proposed one dimensional singularity as the pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, rather than a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity [liken to a black hole]. Then start unfolding it into existence; first into two dimensional space-time, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time and so on. Therefore the universe is only expanding into its further evolution.
Everyone is struggling with the same concepts and theories, which is why there are so many theories. However, no one can relate the answers to you; you have to work through it for yourself. The only true answer is one that can be experienced first hand; for you can never really believe an explanation that you cannot comprehend. And since that will not happen in our life time, there is only the after life to consider. It is rather a strange notion that we can only know the answers to what was before there was anything by discovering what will be. It has been said that the afterlife is the moment of infinity that is enlivened upon our passing into the astral plane. Within the astral plane, there is only the fifth dimensional perspective of all time and all space without time and space. While time continues for those trapped in the physical reality of spacetime, the afterlife stretches our moment of infinity through the connections of the living universe. As long as there is a universe, there is an astral plane upon which we can persist. And the universe will always exist in one form or another.I have been struggling with these theories and concepts, but then again I am a civilian in the land of physics. I would dearly love to know how "our" universe and whatever went before ours and other universes got started, but I think I will need to have it spelled out in one-syllable words; I just hope I'm still alive when that explanation comes. I accept that I may never know, but I do not accept a "creator" theory (although I can understand why early big-brained humans would have needed to drum up such a story in order to cope with the viscitudes of their existences). As a minuscule grain of sand on one of the earth's dry spots, I almost wish that my brain were not big enough to ask such questions. But since I've asked, I hope the answers become available in my lifetime.
Interesting analysis - I cannot really argue with your logic. But what are the "several problems" to which you refer at the beginning of your reply?Several problems here, even if the generic sense is correct.
First, and I think you say this as well as the opposite, a general relativistic universe may be empty.
Second, and I think you say this, a general relativistic universe expansion depends on the inner state.
Third, dark energy is likely the vacuum energy of the universe, which is the ground state of the matter and force fields. But the current vacuum energy became present only *after* matter was created in the hot big bang heating of the previously cold inflationary volume that now makes up our local universe. The previous potential energy of the inflation field was not its ground state, it was under slow roll towards lower energies. Actually the link to youtube I gave in another comment show some of these events.
Fourth, space and time is and has always been 4D. It is the only geometry which has relativistic causality (signals) so has functional laws [ https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf ].
I like your last statement - "Every new universe takes an infinity to produce."My favorite theory, based on the fact the universe is expanding beyond the point of any chance of a crush, is that between the consumption of black holes and the evaporation of matter into energy, that once matter no longer exists, the law of e=mc2 means time and space become infinite, essentially infinatim burgeoning the beginning of the next universe.
Every new universe takes an infinity to produce.
Does 'Wanda' have any connection to a fish of same name?I have been struggling with these theories and concepts, but then again I am a civilian in the land of physics. I would dearly love to know how "our" universe and whatever went before ours and other universes got started, but I think I will need to have it spelled out in one-syllable words; I just hope I'm still alive when that explanation comes. I accept that I may never know, but I do not accept a "creator" theory (although I can understand why early big-brained humans would have needed to drum up such a story in order to cope with the viscitudes of their existences). As a minuscule grain of sand on one of the earth's dry spots, I almost wish that my brain were not big enough to ask such questions. But since I've asked, I hope the answers become available in my lifetime.
An UFO watcher reported having had a talk to aliens; upon question about their belief in god, the alien's answer was: 'We believe in the Almighty force wich controls 15 thousand billion universes'.I have been struggling with these theories and concepts, but then again I am a civilian in the land of physics. I would dearly love to know how "our" universe and whatever went before ours and other universes got started, but I think I will need to have it spelled out in one-syllable words; I just hope I'm still alive when that explanation comes. I accept that I may never know, but I do not accept a "creator" theory (although I can understand why early big-brained humans would have needed to drum up such a story in order to cope with the viscitudes of their existences). As a minuscule grain of sand on one of the earth's dry spots, I almost wish that my brain were not big enough to ask such questions. But since I've asked, I hope the answers become available in my lifetime.
I watched the video. I didn't like his idea that the beginning was a small ball of 'space' and 'energy'. There are 2 sorts of energy, kinetic and potential. Since it's assumed no matter had formed by then, that just leaves potential energy. Potential energy can be in something like a spring. Energy is not a tangible substance there's no such thing as pure energy IMO. If there's no matter in this original ball, could it be just force fields or quantum fields etc? So, in your opinion, would it be more accurate to say this ball contained highly compressed fields of some sort rather than just calling it 'energy'. On the other hand, if some unknown much smaller fundamental particles made up this ball, then the energy could be stored as kinetic energy if they were moving about rapidly, like in a hot object. Surely it has to be one or the other or a combination - rather than just saying 'energy', which I don't think exists on its own. As for the 'space' part of the filling, that's just quantum fields and foam anyway isn't it? So, in summary, was it just a ball of highly compressed force fields?Opinions may differ, I do not see any references to superstitious texts. Why would there be on a topic of science? While we are on the topic, creationism is theology, and precisely the theology you refer to. Such theologians are nominally what you claim others are.
Speaking of science on the other hand, inflationary big bang is the accepted theory of the universe. Since you do not seem to know what it is about, let me first note that theory here is the original, science term that translates to fact if the theory is well tested - this one is. Second, I'm not going to motivate why this is the current science fact and theory, since you can see that in the nearest decent encyclopedia - it is general knowledge.
On to particulars, that may be unknown to some: It is a misunderstanding to think of "big bang" as an explosion, it is simply the expansion in *every* volume that general relativity permit and which we see (from redshift, say). Let me repeat the observed facts: big bang is not an explosion, and the expansion is precisely as expected from a general relativistic universe:View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Q8tS-9hYo
, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations ]. (If the several senses of "big bang" confuses you, that should be a warning that you may misunderstand some of it. The "hot big bang" era is shown in the video, while another common definition is that the "big bang" era is the ongoing relatively low rate expansion era - inflation expansion rate was *huge*.) The video describes singularities as retired 40 years ago. And I don't think any scientists has ever entertained the notion that the expansion was an "explosion".
It is funny that you raise the issue of matter/antimatter asymmetry - which is not considered urgent as inflationary big bang theory predicts so many observations - since there has been a huge inroad just last week. Neutrinos may suffice to explain the asymmetry [ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...lp-explain-matter-s-dominion-over-antimatter# ].
OK if not quantum foam, the space in that ball was filled with something or we wouldn't be here. Any suggestions as to what space is composed of then?"Quantum foam" is just an acknowledgement that probabilistic mathematics breaks down after application to small enough scales.
I think it's more like our understanding breaks down on small scales, maths can go as small as you like. right down to zero if you want."Quantum foam" is just an acknowledgement that probabilistic mathematics breaks down after application to small enough scales.
Alfred Lande stated that indeterminacy was due to the limits of human measurability. He provided a very convincing proof to that effect.I think it's more like our understanding breaks down on small scales, maths can go as small as you like. right down to zero if you want.
Firstly, let me state unequivocally that I am an atheist, ( although to coin a new term Agthiest; I feel that it is as ludicrous to try to PROVE there isn't a god as to try to prove there is one.), however that is besides the point. The question I am always asked, as I am sure all others are, is what created the initial " infinitely dense "spot." even taking into account the bounce theory.The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.
What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
There is also something called the matter-antimatter symmetry problem. In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.
That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. This multiple big bang theory also looks religiously motivated. Why else would anyone believe any of this?