Your opinion and own theory of the big bang?

[weeeman]

I am just wondering what everybody thinks happened at the start of the universe. A big question with many different theories.

I'm curious to see the most common belief and the most unusual. Links are appreciated.

So how do you think it all started?

 

Personally, i believe in the expansion theory.

[JohnStu]

I believe parts of the Big Bang Theory.

 

I still don't see how there could a sudden initial force out of no where. What for? Was every particle too together that they had to bounce out? It does not make sense to me for the facts that if particles are too close together, they do not move away, they actually fuse. Even if they aren't photons to begin with, they'd not bounce out. Matters don't bounce each other out once together in close proximity next to each other due to the gravity law is largely controlled by 1/d squared, which means something right next to it would mean tremendous attraction force. The attraction force would be so large that everything just collapse and continue to collapse in this tiny ball that has all the matter continueing to collapse on each other but never actually end, unless they radiate energy away of course, then that'd lead to different results. Atoms, if they were together, they'd already be fused or some other activity, not wanting to seperate. A counter-point to this some might say is that then how come balls bounce off the wall? Well that is because the atoms of the wall and atoms of the ball's nucleaus actually never touched each other. The ball never really touched the wall in that case.

 

If there really was a beginning like the big bang, then what was before the big bang? Right? That would lead to another unanswerable question. My theory is that there was no beginning, nor end. The universe is infinately large and infinately divisible, will always be there no matter what. Humans have this idea of "beginning" because we began, our DNA at a certain time, but the universe itself has always been there I solidly believe. The universe is infinate in size and divisibility of particles. In addition, I somehow get this sense that even though universe is infinate, it is an odd infinate number, as oppose to even.

Edited March 2, 2012 by JohnStu

[ajb]

It is a very complex question that requires sound knowledge of physics we are only starting to understand. We need a proper theory that includes quantum gravity to tackle the initial singularity.

 

The more I think about it the notions of before, causality, time and so on are probably not so clear near the singularity. I very much suspect that these notions may not really be appropriate. But I am speculating here.

 

Short answer we do not understand physics very near and at the singularity.

[weeeman]

Ye i now it's a tricky one and i agree that we do not know enough to have an even 90% sure theory but its an interesting topic. But i dont think we have for more to go before we get to 95% sure.

 

JohnSU I agree with you but i think expantion theory may hold the clue to what was beofre the big bang. Another Universe.

[ewmon]

The Big Bang Theory currently lacks critical facts, making it highly untenable. (What existed before the Big Bang? What triggered the Big Bang? Does the universe expand infinitely, stabilize or collapse? etc) It claims to know, for example, the details of the first 10^–43 seconds, but doesn't know what triggered it. They now say that the universe will expand forever, but also that black holes will continue to suck in the universe around them, so the end game is an infinitely expanding "universe" full of black holes? The Big Bang Theory is the too-small tablecloth that can't cover the whole table adequately.

 

The Big Bounce Theory doesn't have those critical facts that would limit its acceptance. The existence of the universe is cyclic, perhaps between "bangs" and "black holes", perhaps in its entirety (ie, all as one) or partially/locally here and there, etc. Maybe the red shift we see is a local black hole explosion that we are part of, and there's plenty of the rest of the universe beyond the "edge" of what we can see accelerating away from us. We see the universe around us expanding; we see black holes forming and collapsing. The universe is eternal, having done this throughout history and will continue to do so forever into the future. No big mysteries, no big missing puzzle parts.

[MattParkman]

Can the big bang happen more than once, why? If something can happen once it may be able to happen multiple times

If there is more than one Big Bang are we sure we're the first? No, definitely not

 

My Opinion: Every possible state of energy or matter through all time in a standard universal timeline... so every possibility ultimately of everything , has happened , is happening , or will happen. Maybe, only the ones that can get support through the laws of physics. Imagine you could have lived a very similar life over and over with only one thing changing, or maybe something is changing that doesn't change you.

[Schrödinger's hat]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations as the OP was inviting speculatory and unusual theories.

[ewmon]

Can the big bang happen more than once, why?

With slight modifications → Why can't the Big Bang happen more than once?

 

Supporters of the Big Bang are necessarily saying that the Big Bang had never happened before and can never happen again, yet without proof. And if it had never happened before and can never happen again (ie, for all eternity), how did it happen just that once for all eternity? The eternal uniqueness of the Big Bang, without proof, places it too close to Creationism. This problem does not exist with the Big Bounce ... it has happened before, it will happen again, it always has, and it always will.

[ajb]

The Big Bang Theory currently lacks critical facts, making it highly untenable.

 

There is plenty of evidence for the lambda CDM model.

 

What is true is that details about the very early universe are not so well known, say at and very near the singularity. It is also true that the exact nature of dark matter and dark energy are missing from our understanding. However, there is very strong evidence that the big bang is a good theory of our Universe. Many of the predictions match nature very very well.

 

I do not think there are any credible cosmologists who really doubt the idea of an expanding universe, but they all acknowledge that our understanding is not complete. These gaps cannot be used to shoot down the whole theory.

 

Supporters of the Big Bang are necessarily saying that the Big Bang had never happened before and can never happen again, yet without proof.

 

This is not true. The idea of a cyclic universe is as old as the big bang itself.

 

However, this requires a very particular geometry. We know today that this Universe is near enough flat, expanding and that this expansion is accelerating. This makes the collapse of the universe to form a "big bounce" impossible, given what we understand right now.

 

This does not mean that our Universe is not the product of a previous big bounce. However, it is unclear how you would test this.

 

V.G.Gurzadyan and R.Penrose [1] proposed that there is evidence of what they call Conformal Cyclic Cosmology in the CMBR. This result is not widely accepted and people doubt the details of the statistics used.

 

References

 

[1] V.G.Gurzadyan and R.Penrose. Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity. arXiv:1011.3706v1 [astro-ph.CO]

[michel123456]

I am just wondering what everybody thinks happened at the start of the universe. A big question with many different theories.

I'm curious to see the most common belief and the most unusual. Links are appreciated.

So how do you think it all started?

 

Personally, i believe in the expansion theory.

You asked for unusual thinking.

 

Personally I don't think it started.

I think that everything is geometric: there is nothing absolute, no absolute big, no absolute small, no beginning, no end. Everything must be relative.

Relative to us, we observe an immense universe that seems to have a beginning, yes. And another observer anywhere else should observe also an immense universe that has a beginning. The distance from both observers to both beginnings (in space & in time) will be the same. If you spread that idea in space and in time that would mean that an observer somewhere 10 billion years ago could observe a universe as big and as old as ours. And an observer 100 BY in the future should also observe a BB happening 13 BY ago. That is what I call the extended copernican principle and it is not part of standard cosmology.

[moonjelly<3]

I'm a fairly young arising scientist. But this is what I believe base doon my knowledge; the big bang makes practically anything seem possible if you really think about it. I mean there was a tiny particle that erupted into an entire universe in less than a second. This makes almost any sort of travel in the universe with in a certain time frame seem possible. Such as traveling to our neaest goldilocks planet which is 20 light years away. If we were to able to create a space craft that would be able to travel 50 % light speed, we'd be there in 80 years. Seems impossible right. But think about what the big bang did and how fast it was in such a short period of time. Just something to think about

I believe parts of the Big Bang Theory.

 

I still don't see how there could a sudden initial force out of no where. What for? Was every particle too together that they had to bounce out? It does not make sense to me for the facts that if particles are too close together, they do not move away, they actually fuse. Even if they aren't photons to begin with, they'd not bounce out. Matters don't bounce each other out once together in close proximity next to each other due to the gravity law is largely controlled by 1/d squared, which means something right next to it would mean tremendous attraction force. The attraction force would be so large that everything just collapse and continue to collapse in this tiny ball that has all the matter continueing to collapse on each other but never actually end, unless they radiate energy away of course, then that'd lead to different results. Atoms, if they were together, they'd already be fused or some other activity, not wanting to seperate. A counter-point to this some might say is that then how come balls bounce off the wall? Well that is because the atoms of the wall and atoms of the ball's nucleaus actually never touched each other. The ball never really touched the wall in that case.

 

If there really was a beginning like the big bang, then what was before the big bang? Right? That would lead to another unanswerable question. My theory is that there was no beginning, nor end. The universe is infinately large and infinately divisible, will always be there no matter what. Humans have this idea of "beginning" because we began, our DNA at a certain time, but the universe itself has always been there I solidly believe. The universe is infinate in size and divisibility of particles. In addition, I somehow get this sense that even though universe is infinate, it is an odd infinate number, as oppose to even.

[rigney]

I'm a fairly young arising scientist. But this is what I believe base doon my knowledge; the big bang makes practically anything seem possible if you really think about it. I mean there was a tiny particle that erupted into an entire universe in less than a second. This makes almost any sort of travel in the universe with in a certain time frame seem possible. Such as traveling to our neaest goldilocks planet which is 20 light years away. If we were to able to create a space craft that would be able to travel 50 % light speed, we'd be there in 80 years. Seems impossible right. But think about what the big bang did and how fast it was in such a short period of time. Just something to think about

 

I'm an "on again off again" proponent of the Big Bang?? Not being steeped in knowledge, I am more into guesstimation than fact. But each time I find a theory that seems to hold water, the bucket is empty before I can get it back to the house. As ajb stated: a cyclical universe has been a theory for years. I follow that thought quite well, but don't know how it can happen without a big bang of some sort, on occasion?

 

You asked for unusual thinking.

 

Personally I don't think it started.

I think that everything is geometric: there is nothing absolute, no absolute big, no absolute small, no beginning, no end. Everything must be relative.

Relative to us, we observe an immense universe that seems to have a beginning, yes. And another observer anywhere else should observe also an immense universe that has a beginning. The distance from both observers to both beginnings (in space & in time) will be the same. If you spread that idea in space and in time that would mean that an observer somewhere 10 billion years ago could observe a universe as big and as old as ours. And an observer 100 BY in the future should also observe a BB happening 13 BY ago. That is what I call the extended copernican principle and it is not part of standard cosmology.

 

If a person had actually lived 10 billion years ago, I don't believe they would have seen the universe as we see it today. That is, if the universe is expanding as science seem to think. A hundred billion years from now, will those folks even see a universe?

[Ophiolite]

I lack the mathematical skills and the intellectual rigour to have a meaningful opinion on the matter. It is fascinating to discover that many other do not have these limitations.

[michel123456]

If a person had actually lived 10 billion years ago, I don't believe they would have seen the universe as we see it today. That is, if the universe is expanding as science seem to think. A hundred billion years from now, will those folks even see a universe?

You see, we are privileged.

.

.

.

That is not in agreement with my principle.

[rigney]

You see, we are privileged.

.

.

That is not in agreement with my principle.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with your concept, just trying to get a better idea of it myself. By the same token, if a person in some far corner of this universe is having the same thoughts as you or I are having at this moment, and using brain waves that may bring us into coincidence, none of us will ever know it has happened unless those times converge somewhere in the future, if ever? Is that like light?

[Schrödinger's hat]

That is not in agreement with my principle.

 

To know that, wouldn't we have to know how the density of opportunities for life changes with time. Perhaps it is much more likely in this comparatively young universe?

On top of that, someone has to land near the beginning of the scale. A civilisation that was mediocre in every single respect would in many ways be less mediocre over all.

[weeeman]

One problem with the big bang is that the expantion of the universe is speeding up. If you look at any explosion, big or small the rate of expansion of the blast dicreases with time, but our universe's expansion is speeding up. This in my eyes, tells me that it can't be as simple as a bang. I know that people now say that this is due to dark matter but so far this has not been proven.

A part of me doubts that we will even find out how the universe began because the mathamatics and physics of everything brakes down when we reach the start of the universe. Everything is just too close together and too, well, weird.

[ajb]

One problem with the big bang is that the expantion of the universe is speeding up. If you look at any explosion, big or small the rate of expansion of the blast dicreases with time, but our universe's expansion is speeding up.

 

But you should not think of the big bang as an explosion.

 

Though you make a good point. It was expected that the rate of expansion of the Universe would decrease in late time. One would expect the mutual gravitational attraction of everything in the Universe to slow down any expansion. But an acceleration has been confirmed. To understand this we need some extra component to the Universe which drives this, this is known as dark energy.

 

Our understanding of dark energy is in its infancy.

Edited March 10, 2012 by ajb

[weeeman]

but what is dark energy "theoretically"? I mean what properties does it have that would cause expantion to speed up?

Could it be some kind of anti-gravity force, repelling heavier bodies like that of similar magnetic poles, which is causing it to speed up?

[Dabz]

The big bang is a robust exercise that shows nothing is something and as such, nothing has energy... But whatever nothing is, it's big!!!

 

Could it be some kind of anti-gravity force, repelling heavier bodies like that of similar magnetic poles, which is causing it to speed up?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64652-gigo-theory/

 

 

 

Dabz

Edited March 11, 2012 by Dabz

[weeeman]

A very detailed and plausable idea dabz. I like it, but, once a balloon/ball has too much pressure inside it, it explodes.

 

If our universe is a ball and the pressure is increasing as the universe expands then it looks like we are inside the biggest balloon/ball ever that is about to explode. Oh Dear!

Still a very nice theory. GiGo.

[ajb]

but what is dark energy "theoretically"? I mean what properties does it have that would cause expantion to speed up?

Could it be some kind of anti-gravity force, repelling heavier bodies like that of similar magnetic poles, which is causing it to speed up?

 

There is basically two kinds of models here, either the the cosmological constant, which is non-dynamics, or a scaler fields like quintessence which are dynamic.

 

Dark energy has not directly be observed as such, but rather it is implied via the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. So right now the exact nature of dark energy is very speculative. What we think is that it interacts only via gravity, is not very dense and must have negative pressure.

[weeeman]

Its very interesting I must say. I will keep any eye out for dark energy/matter in other science topics/discoveries.

[pantheory]

I am just wondering what everybody thinks happened at the start of the universe. A big question with many different theories.

I'm curious to see the most common belief and the most unusual. Links are appreciated.

So how do you think it all started?

 

Personally, I believe in the expansion theory.

(bold added)

 

Expansion theory? The expansion of Matter? The expansion of space?

 

My own model concerning the beginning also starts as a singular entity, but a simple one, unlike the BB model. It might be best described as a steady-state model with a beginning, and a matter-shrinking model with the creation of new matter from shrinking matter discards. My website URL is pantheory.org

 

Your opinion ............

My opinion is that very little or none of the standard BB model is correct

Edited March 13, 2012 by pantheory

[weeeman]

Also known as the big bounce. It is basically a periodic expansion and collapse of the universe.

The uninverse expands (like now) then collapses (in the future). All that matter crammed into a single point will cause Big Bang number 2. BUT. If there can be another BB after us, what says there wasn't a BB before us? Maybe millions of BB's and so millions of different universes where millions of scenarious have been played out?

In one universe, there could be no life at all, in another you were actually a frog and another you were born on the 12th of december 1023 not 12th december 1954. You see, all possabilties may have happened or will eventually happen. (according to this theory)

 

That is a fair statment as no theory is correct at the moment and so you may believe as you see fit. Though may I ask, what do you think that the major flaw of the BB model is?