A Big Bang, or Cyclic Universe?

[rigney]

One "BIG BANG" or a Cyclical Universe

 

At a point in time some thirteen to fourteen billion years ago, our universe supposedly became such, and continues speeding along at a seemingly vectorial constant. Questions of contention are; Into what is it flying? Is it a closed or open system? Will entropy be the end of it? If so, why and how will that end happen? Can it be said without equivocation that a GENESIS did not occur at that precise moment those aeons ago, as merely the half cycle of a continuously pulsating "universe"? In a word, is our world "eternal", or just passing through?

Since there is no possible way of proving or disproving such conjecture, I would like to see as many opinions as possible for others to read. So, take yours off the shelf and run with it. Who knows, one of them may be the answer to many unsolved questions.

[DrmDoc]

One "BIG BANG" or a Cyclical Universe

 

At a point in time some thirteen to fourteen billion years ago, our universe supposedly became such, and continues speeding along at a seemingly vectorial constant. Questions of contention are; Into what is it flying? Is it a closed or open system? Will entropy be the end of it? If so, why and how will that end happen? Can it be said without equivocation that a GENESIS did not occur at that precise moment those aeons ago, as merely the half cycle of a continuously pulsating "universe"? In a word, is our world "eternal", or just passing through?

Since there is no possible way of proving or disproving such conjecture, I would like to see as many opinions as possible for others to read. So, take yours off the shelf and run with it. Who knows, one of them may be the answer to many unsolved questions.

 

Although I'm no astrophysicist, we have accepted the possibility of a big bang because all the the observable matter (galaxies) in the universe appears to be rushing away from an explosion at a single point in space. In addition to an initial period of inflation, the speed at which the galaxies are rushing away and apart has not decreased but is, in fact, increasing. This increasing speed--a result of something called dark energy--has led many scientist to believe that all matter will eventually disperse or dissolve in the cold continuous expanse of space. I agree with this idea of dissolution because there appears to be nothing beyond the universe slowing it down and there seems to be something in the universe supplying the energy to increase the rate at which it is flying apart.

[36grit]

Define "Universe"

[DrmDoc]

Define "Universe"

 

" All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."-American Heritage Dictionary.

[rigney]

Define "Universe"

 

[/quote "Universe" encompasses everything we know of nature, and much we are still in the dark about. The 'Universe' is a vectorial system of natural phenomena that we have only began to dig into, and thousands of years from an understanding.

[36grit]

I am curious, what do you think could possibly seperate this universe from other universes? Or do you think that this is the only one?

[DrmDoc]

I am curious, what do you think could possibly seperate this universe from other universes? Or do you think that this is the only one?

 

There is only one universe that is beyond speculation and it is the one in which we exist. Theorhetical universes, if they exist, do not appear to have an affect on the outcome or destiny of this one as its increasing dispersion evinces.

[rigney]

There is only one universe that is beyond speculation and it is the one in which we exist. Theorhetical universes, if they exist, do not appear to have an affect on the outcome or destiny of this one as its increasing dispersion evinces.

 

I have to agree with you that, "to me this is the only universe". Not to say there could not be others. But then, who is to really know for sure? Being an optimist, I believe we are not here as a solitary entity??? There may be millions of other suns housing planets like ours throughout the universe, propagating life in this huge vastness. And if not life as we know it exists, perhaps species of creation that we are unable to understand at present. Maybe one day, earth may not seem so isolated. Edited April 1, 2011 by rigney

[36grit]

My opinion:

The universe extends from quantum fluctuation to quantum fluctuation. The universe exists as an infinitly expandig time frame matrix within a field of virtual time. What seperates one universe from another is the same thing that seperates like bodies of mass. If you lay two pieces of steel side by side they will not become one piece of steel because they both exist as two distinct and different time frame martrix bodies. The interlocking time wave edges are defined by the elecron riding the very crest of the expansion. This is the present time dimension. The past time dimension is vary similar except the photon defines this (now volume wise) larger time frame matrix body. At the edge of the universe time begins to break down into it's smallest measurements. All length, width, and depth, collapses exept that which embodies energies, carried by the time waves. They move from "timeatron" to "timeatron" in field of virtual time.

 

The cycle is philisophecly: infinite possibility transforming into statistical probability into reality into an ifinitely expanding past which feeds the need for compound possibility that leads tooooooo another universe that expands right out of the spec that is, our very own. Time and virtual time exist as hills and valleys on an ininte and geometrically formless plane and foundation of life force gravity.

Edited April 3, 2011 by 36grit

[rigney]

While I can't fathom a Big Rip" or "Big Crunch", I do favor a "Big Bang". Your explination is arguably as good as science can produce at this time. My arguement, where did things come from and where do they go "if" there is no place to proceed, or to go back? Perhaps billions of universes similar to ours do exist, but why and how? I hate to think that after 4.5 billion years of evolution to reach this point, humans are merely a progressive figment of their own imagination. (heard that somewhere). Me, I believe dark energy" is the constant transformable link between matter and anti-energy. Is cyclic; and determined as nature decrees.

One thought on "Quantum fluctuation".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Edited April 3, 2011 by rigney

[ZEkeyon]

My arguement, where did things come from and where do they go "if" there is no place to proceed, or to go back?

 

You are not alone in drawing those conclusions. Philosophers and physicists have fallen into the same mental trap. Adolf Grünbaum wrote this paper (entitled The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology) in which he addresses the issue of wondering where things came from before the Big Bang. I myself recently read it and found it a solid piece of work that is also readily accessible to the lay-man (I am just recently learning and catching up with the current cosmological discussion). I am not sure how much of our understanding has changed since he wrote this paper (e.g. the estimated age of the universe has changed since he originally wrote the paper), but he does offer new alternatives to thinking about the time singularity presented in the Big Bang model.

 

I will take this time to directly quote a piece from the paper that represents his argument that is relevant to your qusetion, however reading the entire paper is highly encouraged.

 

"Case (ii). This subclass of big bang models differs from those in Case (i) by excluding the mathematical singularity at t = 0 as not being an actual moment of time. Thus, their cosmic time interval is open in the past by lacking the instant t = 0, although the duration of that past interval in years is finite, say 12 billion years or so. But just as in Case (i), no instants of time exist before t = 0 in Case (ii). And despite the equality of finite duration of time intervals in the two models, the crucial difference between Case (ii) and Case (i) is the following: In Case (ii), there is no first instant of time at all, just as there is no leftmost point on an infinite Euclidean line that extends in both directions. And in both Case (i) and Case (ii), the non-existence of time before t = 0 allows that matter has always existed, although the age of the universe is finite in either case. And this assertion is true because, in this context, the term "always" refers to all actual past instants of time.

 

Nevertheless, even in Case (ii), the finite age of the universe has tempted some people to make the tacit false assumption that there were moments of time after all before the big bang, an assumption

incompatible with both models. And once this question-begging assumption is made, the door is open for all the same illegitimate, ill-supposed creation questions that I undermined à propos of Case (i)."

(Adolf Grünbaum, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 56, No. 3, Sept. 1989, pp. 373-394)

 

I hope this helps in some way. Cheers.

[rigney]

You are not alone in drawing those conclusions. Philosophers and physicists have fallen into the same mental trap. Adolf Grünbaum wrote this paper (entitled The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology) in which he addresses the issue of wondering where things came from before the Big Bang.

 

Since I've never read this particular paper, like so many others that I haven't; it's amusing to find such similarities in the untrained mind, especially one such as mine. Being a Wshy Washy "Agnostic", it's difficult not to believe in a God to some degree. On the other hand, as a "Pragmatist" which I also am, it's hard to believe that a benevelent God would allow this beautiful universe to lay fallow these billions of years only to give humans dominion over it these past few thousand, possibly up to a million years or so. Since I vacillate constantly, it's hard trying to determine who is right, or who isn't.

Is our universe the offspring of some multi-verse system or did a God make it? I don't know as surely as no one else does? But since Science has formulated just about every "yard of distance and second of time" back to the beginning of everything, I can't disagree with sience anymore than I can agree with religion. Wishy Washy me. I hope they can both be right. My thoughts are that the universe is cyclic and perpetual. Perhaps it goes from being a primal soup, to matter, then gradually deteriorates over time into anti-matter and returs to the core of creation as anti-energy. Hey! it's only a thought that science has given me.

Edited April 4, 2011 by rigney

[Edtharan]

Although I'm no astrophysicist, we have accepted the possibility of a big bang because all the the observable matter (galaxies) in the universe appears to be rushing away from an explosion at a single point in space.

This is the mistake. It is not a "point in space" (or an explosion for that matter). What it is, is more and more space being created.

 

The mistake of the "explosion at a single point in space" leads to a lot of misunderstandings. One of the big ones is that the "explosion" needs something to expand into.

 

Once someone can understand this aspect of the Big Bang, that it is not an explosion, but that space is being created (and BTW, it is still going on, the big bang is still happening because space is still being created today), then they can start to understand what is really meant by "Big Bang" (and Big Bang was a term used to try and ridicule the concept of an expanding, non static universe).

[DrmDoc]

This is the mistake. It is not a "point in space" (or an explosion for that matter). What it is, is more and more space being created.

 

The mistake of the "explosion at a single point in space" leads to a lot of misunderstandings. One of the big ones is that the "explosion" needs something to expand into.

 

Once someone can understand this aspect of the Big Bang, that it is not an explosion, but that space is being created (and BTW, it is still going on, the big bang is still happening because space is still being created today), then they can start to understand what is really meant by "Big Bang" (and Big Bang was a term used to try and ridicule the concept of an expanding, non static universe).

 

Although I agree that the "Big Bang" could be best understood as the creation of space, the lingering cosmic background radiation indicative of the enormous amount of heat and energy released at the inception of this universe is suggestive of some explosive event at its origin. It's interesting to consider that the increasing speed at which our universe is expanding suggests the increasing rate at which new space is being created...or is it merely old space expanding into absolute nothingness from a compressed state?

[StringJunky]

Although I agree that the "Big Bang" could be best understood as the creation of space, the lingering cosmic background radiation indicative of the enormous amount of heat and energy released at the inception of this universe is suggestive of some explosive event at its origin. It's interesting to consider that the increasing speed at which our universe is expanding suggests the increasing rate at which new space is being created...or is it merely old space expanding into absolute nothingness from a compressed state?

 

The Universe at it's origin, in time (not space), was much denser than it is now and so was much hotter...the period of rapid inflation occurred at all points in space, so, the idea of a classical explosion is the wrong concept to use.

 

Put yourself standing on the surface of an expanding sphere with some dots on it and only consider it's surface...wherever you are in the Universe (the sphere's surface) you will think you are at its centre because everything (in reality this occurs at Supercluster level) is moving away from you...you can see from this analogy that space is created between objects and no edges are necessary to move (or explode) into a pre-existing space.

Edited April 5, 2011 by StringJunky

[36grit]

The model that I have in mind begins as everything happening everywhere all at once and nothing really happens at all. It's the foundation and layer of infinite possibility. This is where space/distance/time begins it's three layer journey. I'm led to believe that this layer of "everything/nothing" is gravity and that it has always existed and exists within and without everything, everywhere and that infinite universes are like skin cells and the graviry is the cappillaries inbetween and leaking in. Life can only come from life and the living create all things. Only nothing can come from nothing therefore all things had to come from something that has always been. If this infinite layer is gravity then gravity is the force of life.

A train of waves of thought, truth, and reason occur and we see the first stream of time dialations appear. They are made up of "timeatrons". The smallest dimensions of space and time and they alone define virtual time. The space inbetween them is infinitly small and large at the same all at once. The timeatron is basically nothing more than a hole in the "infinosphere" of gravity.

The gravity leaks in through some kind of osmossis process that converts the gravity into positive and negative energies. These energies fill and begin to expand the timeatron, while they attract, repel, and anihalate each other. Heat begins to build as they jump from one timeatron to the other until the heat and collisions begin a fusion of these energies. They fuse into quantum particles that jump in like manner. Some of these fuse into particles that convert this energy into virtual gravity. Quarks are the second time dialation. It is literally the first dimension of a three dimensional realm. A point of real time.

The quarks are like huge stars in this realm. Their gravity attracts and pulls in the positive and negative energies that begin to vibrate them at or near the speed of light. This action causes a wave of momentum that we call the proton. The protons vibration velocity exceeds the acceptable speed of time within the timeatron and we see the third time dialation. The photon has a positive charge and the negative energy is attracted to it but the momentum "throws" it back and forth accross the time dialation "bubble" in an instant to instant manner. It is defining a line. Literaly the first two diminsional entity in a three dimensional realm.

In the begining all of this happened very fast. The first atoms were hydrogen and as the exploded as a nuclear blast it only added to the heat. As things expanded very rapidly in this chain reaction of events. eventually the velocity dialations caused by the photons created enough distance outside of the electron to allow the hydrogen atoms and now helium attoms, to exist. This chain reaction was the begining and the end of the inflationaly period. All the atoms in the universe came from this event. It was a collosal event.

Photon vibrations are the primary source that creates distance in the universe. Literally the three dimensional past recorded as energies consumed and spent within the energy/space matrix that all things are.

I'd speculate that time waves break down into their smallest particles at the edge of the universe then scatter and recollect to start the process again as an endless cycle. It is a bang and then rebang cycle occuring in a formless void. In other words, if there exists a pocket of the universe where time waves break down we'll see a field of increasing virtual particles. These are the energies carried by the time wave being let go into a virtual time zone. Where one inch can occupy thousands of miles or millionths of an inch. depending on the virtual distance of the timeatrons. Like the branches on a tree, my rebang theory.

[rigney]

Ever think of turning that into a movie? Hey! the plot might be a sequel to "Lost in Space".

Edited April 7, 2011 by rigney