Big bang - not so much a "bang"??


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Big bang - not so much a "bang"??

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Aaron Finney
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 11 Feb 02
Posts: 73
Credit: 202,674
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1281779 - Posted: 9 Sep 2012, 5:24:06 UTC

I have a problem with big bang theory. It assumes that there was originally an extremely dense amount of material that should have resulted in a gigantic black hole rather than an expanding universe of matter and particles that only later condensed to make stars and eventually galaxies like we see today.

I have a theory.

First, we know that particles and anti-particles are randomly created and destroyed at a quantum level all the time. Every now and then; however, an extra "normal" particle is created.

Second, let's assume a complete nothing, or let's call this "neutral" space for the purpose of this argument (the stuff outside our universe)

Third - inside "neutral space" a normal particle and an antiparticle are randomly created. At this point the normal particle creates a pocket of normal space, and let's assume that the antiparticle creates a pocket of something else. Let's call this "anti-space".

Since the particles are created at the same time, and time moves FORWARD in the normal space universe AND BACKWARDS in the anti-space universe, both particles instantly are in a seperate time where the positive universe expands forwards in time, while the anti-universe expands backwards in time (meaning in the direction it is going through time, it expands. Expanding backwards through time). The only time that both particles exist together are at an infinitesimally small point in both space and time - MUCH like the visualization of the center of the infinity symbol.

In both universes, and in the direction of time, the effects of the particles pushes the fabric of space itself outwards, while continuing to randomly create new particles based on the properties of the fabric of both universes. As more and more particles accumulate in each universe, the speed at which the universes expand begins to accelerate. This starts a snowball effect, where in the beginning of each universe, it is filling with particles as the universe around them expands slightly faster (but accelerating beyond the creation rate) thus creating all the matter we see in the universe today. In the beginning, the particles weren't all bunched together in one big mass, they are instead-- filling, quite literally, the space of each respective universe.

This solves the problem of having so much matter "exploding" in some big bang that didn't result in all the matter collapsing down into a black hole.

Any thoughts? Comments VERY welcome.
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3760
Credit: 388,342
RAC: 117
Italy
Message 1281800 - Posted: 9 Sep 2012, 7:00:04 UTC - in response to Message 1281779.

The only problem with the Big Bang theory (preceded in time by the "Primaeval atom" of Abbe' Georges Lemaitre, soon forgotten because no Fred Hoyle (who coined the Big Bang term to deride) publicized it,is to explain why there is more matter than antimatter in the Universe. They should have been created in equal amounts, according to the time-symmetrical equations of physics.
Tullio

____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,615,402
RAC: 2,413
Ireland
Message 1281805 - Posted: 9 Sep 2012, 7:47:44 UTC

Aaron,
In my opinion, don't trouble your mind too much trying to solve the paradox's that are associated with black holes. In time Aaron, new scientific information will surface that will end all the black hole paradoxes. All the problems that are currently associated with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, singularities, the big bang, the big crunch......all of them, they will all go away over night in one fowl swoop!

This new scientific information will be revealed in the next few years. In the mean time, don't worry too much about it. That's my personal opinion.

John.
____________

Aaron Finney
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 11 Feb 02
Posts: 73
Credit: 202,674
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1282366 - Posted: 10 Sep 2012, 20:18:26 UTC - in response to Message 1281800.

The only problem with the Big Bang theory (preceded in time by the "Primaeval atom" of Abbe' Georges Lemaitre, soon forgotten because no Fred Hoyle (who coined the Big Bang term to deride) publicized it,is to explain why there is more matter than antimatter in the Universe. They should have been created in equal amounts, according to the time-symmetrical equations of physics.
Tullio


It would appear that my theory provides for the platform to which that problem would also be erased as the universes filled with particles. The creation of each would be constant.
____________

Aaron Finney
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 11 Feb 02
Posts: 73
Credit: 202,674
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1303097 - Posted: 7 Nov 2012, 13:44:42 UTC - in response to Message 1284597.

Well I don't believe we had a big bang where there was this infinitely dense material at the beginning in a very small space. It's impossible, considering the laws of physics. The matter would have condensed down into a gigantic and hypermassive black hole rather than expand and create all the galaxies and objects in space that we see today.

My theory provides for a way around the gravity problem, and even adds a way to account for the accellerating expansion of space -- That there is some force at work in matter that pushes space outwards, but pulls matter inwards (gravity, and another force). As more and more matter fills the universe, it will continue to expand the fabric of space at an ever increasing point, until the fabric of space and the force that creates particles randomly reach an equilibrium. The fact that the universe is still accellerating/expanding would only mean that we are still in the phase where the universe accrues more and more matter.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8503
Credit: 4,195,681
RAC: 1,755
United Kingdom
Message 1303711 - Posted: 8 Nov 2012, 20:34:38 UTC - in response to Message 1303405.
Last modified: 8 Nov 2012, 20:37:35 UTC

Very good comment.

One glaring absence is regarding "energy":

Indirectly, energy is mass, or at least a manifestation of mass. Or vice versa... Could that all be tied up with gravity and time...?


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7407
Credit: 76,869
RAC: 41
United States
Message 1307279 - Posted: 18 Nov 2012, 4:41:05 UTC

Remember, (or rediscover) the point that there was no 'explosion' in the big bang.

It was an expansion of space itself, not a 'blast' of our matter into nothingness.

We think of explosions as things that occur outside of ourselves...like dynamite like a bomb. The Big Bang isn't presented properly as such a thing even though many cosmologists lapse into that habit of metaphor.

Truly nothing 'exploded'. It only expanded. It's just a stretching of things and a cooling.
____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1307815 - Posted: 19 Nov 2012, 18:43:55 UTC - in response to Message 1307279.

Remember, (or rediscover) the point that there was no 'explosion' in the big bang.

It was an expansion of space itself, not a 'blast' of our matter into nothingness.

We think of explosions as things that occur outside of ourselves...like dynamite like a bomb. The Big Bang isn't presented properly as such a thing even though many cosmologists lapse into that habit of metaphor.

Truly nothing 'exploded'. It only expanded. It's just a stretching of things and a cooling.


This!

The real problem is that most of this stuff can only be understood mathematically. For those of us who are math-impaired, we make do with metaphor. But people often make the mistake of thinking that the metaphor is real.

Another example: it is surprising to see how many people still think that an atom 'looks' like a tiny solar system. Not even close, but it is a useful metaphor to help get your head around it.

____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

.clair.
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 4 Nov 04
Posts: 1300
Credit: 23,063,759
RAC: 454
United Kingdom
Message 1307830 - Posted: 19 Nov 2012, 19:01:43 UTC

One thing i would like to know is,
In what direction is the centre of the universe ?, where it all came from.
The nearest constalition will do.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,807,351
RAC: 24,864
United Kingdom
Message 1307837 - Posted: 19 Nov 2012, 19:16:13 UTC
Last modified: 19 Nov 2012, 19:19:10 UTC

There is no "centre" Clive. The universe is infinite in every direction. No matter where in it you happen to be, it is still infinite in whatever direction you might look. But agreed, that is a difficult concept for us humans to grasp, living in a finite world as we do.

It is a popular concept that the universe as we observe it today, came about from a "big bang" or explosion of tightly compressed matter, possibly from a super massive black hole. What that theory does not deal with is what was existing before. Did something come out of nothing?

My own view is that the Universe has always been there, and always will be. At one point in time there was a big bang, for whatever reason, in our local part of the universe, the remnants of which we are seeing now. There are probably other big bangs going on in other parts of the universe. It is suggested that our Milkyway galaxy, and therefore us, were somewhere near the centre of our big bang.

Of course it is all conjecture, our science does not have the means to prove or disprove it.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8503
Credit: 4,195,681
RAC: 1,755
United Kingdom
Message 1307866 - Posted: 19 Nov 2012, 20:37:57 UTC - in response to Message 1307830.
Last modified: 19 Nov 2012, 20:38:30 UTC

One thing i would like to know is,
In what direction is the centre of the universe ?, where it all came from.
The nearest constalition will do.

That one's easy:

Our solar system. "Sol".

From our viewpoint, our universe is expanding equally in all directions around us.


Or more precisely:

The anthropomorphic religions certainly got it all wrong about orbits. However, unbeknown to them, they randomly got it right about us all each individually being at the centre of the known universe (as viewed by each individual)!

Similarly, that is also true for the viewpoint from each atom...


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

.clair.
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 4 Nov 04
Posts: 1300
Credit: 23,063,759
RAC: 454
United Kingdom
Message 1307973 - Posted: 20 Nov 2012, 0:29:59 UTC - in response to Message 1307866.

From our viewpoint, our universe is expanding equally in all directions around us.

Thanks, That is the info i was missing,
I had wondered if there was possibly any tiny variation in observed red shift of the most distant objects,
The James webb telescope will help us see a bit further.

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1308077 - Posted: 20 Nov 2012, 11:54:49 UTC
Last modified: 20 Nov 2012, 11:55:22 UTC

our galaxy is in movement, no ? we are going towards a direction, and we are coming from the opposed diretion, at X speed ? no ?

and if in theory the light takes X time to reach us...
and with that theory if we check something at 13 billions light years, we generally say, it took 13 billions years for the light reach us... So we see that object was look like ... 13 billions years away ?

but if you check at the exact direction that our galaxy is coming from, the very exact direction...

and if we check, in that direction, at for example 3 billions light years away, or 5 or 9 or 12 billions light years away... in that direction...

we shouldnt be able to see what our own galaxy was looking like 3 5 9 13 billions years away, before today ? :P

we shouldnt receive the light of our galaxy placed at 3 5 9 13 light years away that emited 3 5 9 13 years before today ?

we shouldnt see ourself back in time ?
i'm lost :S
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8503
Credit: 4,195,681
RAC: 1,755
United Kingdom
Message 1308378 - Posted: 21 Nov 2012, 15:39:35 UTC

Now for a really good mind bender for the thread:


Is our Universe "rotating"?

And so can we detect/observe some form of Coriolis effect?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,807,351
RAC: 24,864
United Kingdom
Message 1308464 - Posted: 21 Nov 2012, 19:44:04 UTC

Don't confuse the issue! When I pull the plug out the sink it can go in any direction is chooses as long as it is down :-)

Profile Allie in Vancouver
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 3949
Credit: 1,604,668
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1308545 - Posted: 21 Nov 2012, 23:41:55 UTC - in response to Message 1308378.
Last modified: 21 Nov 2012, 23:42:28 UTC

Now for a really good mind bender for the thread:


Is our Universe "rotating"?

And so can we detect/observe some form of Coriolis effect?...


Keep searchin',
Martin


I don't think so. In order for something to be rotating, there has to be some outside reference for it to be rotating in. Since the universe is everything, there is nothing outside for it to be rotating in.
____________
Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,807,351
RAC: 24,864
United Kingdom
Message 1308699 - Posted: 22 Nov 2012, 9:22:33 UTC

Spot on answer there folks!

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8503
Credit: 4,195,681
RAC: 1,755
United Kingdom
Message 1308926 - Posted: 22 Nov 2012, 19:37:56 UTC - in response to Message 1308545.

I don't think so. In order for something to be rotating, there has to be some outside reference for it to be rotating in. Since the universe is everything, there is nothing outside for it to be rotating in.

What "frame of reference" is certainly quite a conundrum.

Meanwhile from observation:

What is it or why is it we see so much rotation around us for our own solar system, other star systems, our galaxy, other galaxies, all the way up the scale to galaxy clusters all rotating about their own central point?...

Following the scale up further...?


Rotation all the way up?

Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Big bang - not so much a "bang"??

Copyright © 2014 University of California