What happened before the Big Bang?

Apr 16, 2020
3
1
10
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?
 
Last edited:
Dec 8, 2019
10
0
30
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.
 
Jan 4, 2020
46
12
55
The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.

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.
 
Apr 21, 2020
1
0
10
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.
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
Since Sutter is hedging with the need to test, I assume the claimed "resurrection" is a bit of a jest. The current inflationary big bang universe puts an indefinite period of cold inflation before the hot big bang, at energies that are orders of magnitude less than a presumed breakdown in general relativity. One can arguably speculate in the topology of a universe with a flat space since relativistic locally flat Minkowski space is silent on that - though flat space is the unconstrained, likely topology - but that would be no worse than "bounce" speculations.

Two specific problems with a string bounce speculation would be string respectively bounce. String theory has natural scale - right above standard model of particles energy ranges - predictions of WIMPs and axions/axion like particles as well as natural scale electron asymmetries that hasn't shown up. Bounce theory (in general, but an advance on that would surely be remarked on) do not give the right entropy, it is ever increasing instead of initially zero.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
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?
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/2020/04/skewed-neutrino-behavior-could-help-explain-matter-s-dominion-over-antimatter# ].
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hellopunyhumans
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
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.
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 ].
 
Last edited:
Mar 26, 2020
6
2
35
The doubt has no content, as before the Big Bang, there was the Nil, having this name as only content, also, time, a created element, as matter and energy, does not exist without matter and space.
The Nil may be what Jesus called: 'The outer darkness' in the Gospel. 'The abyss', The fire Gehena', a Black Hole
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carole Gledhill
Dec 8, 2019
10
0
30
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.
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.

But there is no need to rush because it as we can visit it upon our ability to enter into the astral plane, or just by participating in our own lucid dreams. While in this mode, one can view the physical realm of our fourth dimensional existence or strive for something greater. I've tried to capture my understanding of such a persistence in my 'Andrew Adventure' book series about the fictional realm of the Shadow-Forge. Or if you are more into a philosophical approach, there is my companion compendium series, 'The Evolutioning of Creation'. Both should keep your mind occupied while you work it out for yourself. As related in the book, 'Shadow-Forge Revelations': behest of my heart and my soul will follow.
 
Dec 8, 2019
10
0
30
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 ].
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?
 
Dec 8, 2019
10
0
30
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.
I like your last statement - "Every new universe takes an infinity to produce."
 

Urquiola

BANNED
Jan 18, 2020
38
2
555
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.
Does 'Wanda' have any connection to a fish of same name?
You are not the only one in that line of thougt, but it's easy remarking that whatever you accept, reject, think, endorse, shrine, in some cases even watch, does not change at all the reality of things.

The issue of Uncreated Creator, as in the Aristotle expression, 'Aristotle', 'the excellent sight' may have same meaning as 'Malachi', 'the one who sees far away', Greece and Palestine are not very apart, and for sure, besides goods trading, other elements were exchanged, has a clear answer in the Bible: the Name YahWeh, meaning 'The One Who Is', 'The One Existing by Himself'.

'God' comes from an old German root 'Gott', meaning 'The one who is invoked', and 'Deus' is cognate to Vedic 'Dyaus', 'the brightness', 'the force', a cult once ending in Apollyon, 'Abaddon the exterminator' for Jews; for sure, there can be many 'forces', but only One YahWeh.

As 'No one has ever seen YahWeh', this is what Jesus said, also: 'Without me, there's nothing you can do', the question can be reduced to your mental images, your concepts about the 'Creator', and perhaps to what will be the changes in your mind and ethics if an evidence of YahWeh existing were given to you, and you accepted it

Better not having some kind of evidence, as overwhelming info about YahWeh existing will make any sinful, wrong, evildoing action hard to pardon, miracles do restrict a lot the freedom.
So, what?
It's up to you,

Religion, from Latin 'Religare', 'binding back' mankind and god, is a way of life, not a belief, beliefs come from Faith, Faith is not believing the unseen, this is a consequence of Faith, but is obeyance, subdue: 'Thy Will be done'.

The issue of 'Big Bang' an spoof term coined by Fred Hoyle, and Universe Speed of Expansion, Red Shift, may be studied by calculations; depending on the total amount of matter in the Universe, expansion may be endless, to a cold, homogeneous soup of nothing, or stop, even have a return, some propose a bouncing universe, a Yo-Yo type of movement to a 'Big Crush', and Bang again, the doubts about nature and amount of 'Dark Matter', about the so called 'Hidden force', if it exist, may have implications in the forecasts about universe outcomes, ResearchGate maintains discussions about these subjects, with many many posts from experts in AstroPhysics.
Blessings +
 
Last edited:

Urquiola

BANNED
Jan 18, 2020
38
2
555
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'.
We are just aware about a bit of our own universe. To be continued...
 
Apr 22, 2020
7
1
35
Balanced opposite charges, resulting in a charge of zero, slightly interact and provide the energy for photon propagation. This interaction gradually increases the rotational radius which results in a continuous red shift -- and is not a Doppler shift.
 
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
1,555
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/2020/04/skewed-neutrino-behavior-could-help-explain-matter-s-dominion-over-antimatter# ].
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?
 
Apr 22, 2020
7
1
35
"Quantum foam" is just an acknowledgement that probabilistic mathematics breaks down after application to small enough scales.
 
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
1,555
"Quantum foam" is just an acknowledgement that probabilistic mathematics breaks down after application to small enough scales.
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?
 
Apr 22, 2020
7
1
35
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.
Alfred Lande stated that indeterminacy was due to the limits of human measurability. He provided a very convincing proof to that effect.
 
Apr 22, 2020
7
1
35
Dark matter and dark energy are "fudge factors" to maintain mathematical consistency in preserving expansion (big bang) theory. The matter in the universe came from pair-formation (supersymetrically) from micro-charges originating at much smaller scales. Pair-formation of 1.0216 MeV "threshold” gammarays create electrons (negatrons) and positrons which can aggregate into neutrons as (+/-) Beta Pairs, and then acquire orbital electrons to complete atomic shells, and on-and-on to larger scale and cosmological structures. The quanta, or photons, of radiation arise naturally from the virtual particle field when equal but oppositely charged particles form stable rotational structures. They may acquire energy through anomalous constructive interference, or other mechanisms, but will generally lose energy from a slight charge interaction that propels the photon at the speed of light which redshifts its wavelength (though is not a Doppler shift). The photon of electromagnetic energy (the gauge boson) propagates by utilizing a small amount of energy from the opposite charges from which it is composed. This results in a gradual lengthening of wavelength since the rotational radius of the binary photon increases with loss of energy. Since this redshift is not a Doppler shift, distances determined by assuming it was are necessarily in error. The photon was assumed to have zero mass when calculating atomic mass transitions in order to avoid overly complex calculations for electron shell transitions that really weren’t large enough to have a substantial affect on atomic mass. Some “genius” decided to DEFINE the photon mass as zero, and in the process, ruined the capability of quantum mechanics to calculate the internal dynamics of the photon (the gauge boson), which is mass dependent. See "The Mass of the Photon," by Alfred Goldhaber and Michael Nieto in the May 1976 issue of Scientific American. The propagation of the photon depends on the utilization of the oppositely charged particles of otherwise equal mass, for propulsion at the velocity of light. The opposite charges act at right angles which induces a spin (a finding at the LANL plasma physics research facility before 1989) with angular momentum that balances with the charge attraction at a specific rotational radius, defining the wavelength/frequency. This charge interaction is the fundamental force from which all others are derived. As this “fuel” is expended, entropy causes the wavelength to increase over time, providing a redshift that is NOT a Doppler shift, and does not require a limited lifetime of the universe, which in reality manifests from smaller to larger scales, organizing the primordial energy (the only thing that actually exists forever) into larger, more complex structures, including life. Time is simply a referential metric describing motions due to charge interactions at the quantum level, and extrapolated to larger scales using convenient reference clocks, such as orbits and rotations. BTW, when we use QED (not QCD) nucleon representations, with beta (+/-) pairs populating the neutron (1836 electron masses, or 918 stable electron positron pairs) the charges cancel to zero, while retaining the larger mass. The Proton is even more interesting with 917 beta pairs and a shared positron, giving it a resultant charge of +1. This could account for the weakness of the force of gravity compared to the basic quantum charge vs. mass, which would result in a weaker charge attraction for a larger mass. So apparently, gravity might be viewed as a form of electro-magnetism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Urquiola
Jan 6, 2020
41
6
555
Obviously the singularity of the so called big bang was a mega black hole. Even a moment's consideration reveals this. My position is that the universe is still in fact the interior of a black hole and the "bang" and evident expansion is illusory, that the contents merely reached a point at which they all began to contract and pull away from each other in the " big shrink", creating a shrinking universal content that continues to shrink uniformly inside the uncompromised black hole, the contents appearing from within it to travel away from each other while from without the singularity remains the apparent size of that protouniversal peach or basketball.
 
Apr 23, 2020
3
0
10
The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.

What happened before the Big Bang? : Read more
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.
Until we have the physics to answer that, and I'm not sure we ever will, how can I "prove" to biblical devotees that their theories regarding that a god created the universe, are totally and completely ludicrous?
Clive V
 
Apr 24, 2020
1
0
10
When Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before creation, he replied that He was creating a Hell for people who asked such questions.
 
Mar 19, 2020
291
42
1,730
CP violation is a proven fact. The multiple big bang theory is not.
A closed universe could, however, have implications for the theory.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts