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

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.
____________

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.
____________

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

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.
____________

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
____________
Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS!
See new freedom Mageia2
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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
____________

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

____________
Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS!
See new freedom Mageia2
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

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 :-)

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

Spot on answer there folks!

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.