Your opinion and own theory of the big bang?

[pantheory]

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

The universe 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 statement 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?

The major flaw of the BB model in my opinion is that of its beginning related to what I believe is the misinterpretation of galactic redshifts which limit the universe to a specific age. For a universe of 13.7 billion years old (as in the BB model), we should not be seeing very old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances -- which we have regularly been observing for as long as we have been able to make such observations, such as in this link: http://io9.com/58649...ra+red-galaxies

 

When the James Webb scope goes up, I believe it will be these continued observations that will cause the failure and replacement of the BB theory.

//

Edited March 13, 2012 by pantheory

[weeeman]

Very interesting. But, i don't really understand how these galaxies disprove the BB theory.

Why is it that we should not be able to see these galaxies?

 

I look forward to new discoveries even if they disprove my beliefs, so I too look forward to this.

[rigney]

Very interesting. But, i don't really understand how these galaxies disprove the BB theory.

Why is it that we should not be able to see these galaxies?

 

I look forward to new discoveries even if they disprove my beliefs, so I too look forward to this.

 

Galaxies only confirm that our universe exists, nothing more. You be the judge. At the moment, everyone is allowed to postulate new ideas. With everything in abeyance at present, who is to say which theories are right or wrong? If alternative facts disprove your calculations, go at them again. Who knows what might happen? Edited March 13, 2012 by rigney

[pantheory]

weeeman,

 

Very interesting. But, i don't really understand how these galaxies disprove the BB theory.

Why is it that we should not be able to see these galaxies?

For instance, if at a distance of 11 billion light years we see a galaxy that is as big and looks like the Milky Way, then this would be a problem because the Milky Way is thought to be at least 12 billion years old based upon some of the stars within it. This would mean that 11 billion years ago there was a galaxy that at that time was 12 billion years old. If both the distance and galaxy age were correct, this would make the universe at least 23 billion years old (11 + 12) . This totally would contradict the Big Bang model that proposes that the universe is only about 13.7 billion years old. If there are a great number of observations like this at the farthest distances after the James Webb goes up then the BB model in its present form could not survive. If this is what will be observed, then before chucking the BB model I think many will try to make adjustments to the age of the universe according to the BB model, by proposing additional age extending hypothesis for the model.

//

Edited March 14, 2012 by pantheory

[weeeman]

That makes sense pantheory. So after you do the math with the ultra red galaxies, the result is that they are older than the universe (to our knowledge), correct?

[pantheory]

That makes sense pantheory. So after you do the math with the ultra red galaxies, the result is that they are older than the universe (to our knowledge), correct?

In my opinion these and other such observations greatly contradict the Big Bang model. The astronomer discoverers of these galaxies propose that they instead may be a new unknown type of proto-galaxy. These galaxies cannot be observed in detail at the present time, except for their redshift and very red appearance so such depictions of them now are simply artists conceptions. At 10-11 billion light years away however we can see details of what appear to be old galaxies. Although some great new long baseline radio and infra red scopes are just now beginning to produce "pictures" of such galaxies, it will probably take a few more years until the James Webb goes up, before clear contradictions of the mainstream model will be observable via detailed analysis of distant old galaxies, if in fact they exist.

//

Edited March 16, 2012 by pantheory

[weeeman]

Yes this has turned me away from the BB theory slightly, yet it may be that the BB theory only needs a few adjustments.

 

This sounds very interesting but it is slightly out of my understanding to comment on the topic of proto-galaxies. I will learn more as it does sound very interesting.

[finster]

In my opinion these and other such observations greatly contradict the Big Bang model. The astronomer discoverers of these galaxies propose that they instead may be a new unknown type of proto-galaxy. These galaxies cannot be observed in detail at the present time, except for their redshift and very red appearance so such depictions of them now are simply artists conceptions. At 10-11 billion light years away however we can see details of what appear to be old galaxies. Although some great new long baseline radio and infra red scopes are just now beginning to produce "pictures" of such galaxies, it will probably take a few more years until the James Webb goes up, before clear contradictions of the mainstream model will be observable via detailed analysis of distant old galaxies, if in fact they exist.

//

 

Wait, if we are looking back in time 10-11 billions light years at galaxies that are 12 billion years old then, doesn't that make our galaxy 10-11 billion light years AHEAD in time than those galaxies? Thus, making our galaxy around 23 billion years old?

Edited March 20, 2012 by finster

[weeeman]

Good point but I am sure the speed of light has been taken into consideration and therefor the universe is not 23 billion years old.

[pantheory]

Wait, if we are looking back in time 10-11 billions light years at galaxies that are 12 billion years old then, doesn't that make our galaxy 10-11 billion light years AHEAD in time than those galaxies? Thus, making our galaxy around 23 billion years old?

No. Our galaxy could have been just one or two billion years old when the light we are now viewing was emitted from this distant galaxy 10-11 billion years ago. This would be the mainstream assertion.

//

Edited March 23, 2012 by pantheory

[dapifo]

When you ask for theory of big-bang you refers to the Big Bang of Our Universe.

 

If you see the thread http://www.sciencefo...tryoshka-dolls/ withthe following proposal:

 

If we consider the Global Universe as the total Universe. (infinite or finite). and we consider Our Universe like that Universe that we know (from 10 exp -35 to 10 exp +27 meters), I propose the idea that we can divide the Global Universe in various (infinite) power of 10 levels or spectra (see attached file). Like a RAINBOW or MATRYOSHKA DOLLS.

Then Our Universe, is only one bubble inside other bigger Universe of higher scale. The Big-bang of Our Universe is only one explosion inside a biger universe.

Edited June 13, 2012 by dapifo

[Aethelwulf]

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.

 

It's true what you say.

 

When people say, ''physics breaks down at the singularity'' many of them are referring to the uncertainty principle when you try and squeeze particle into a more confined region - which is totally forbidden by quantum mechanics. However, I believe that if it only exists for a very short period of time, who gives a damn about the violation? It's almost poetic to think that the universe arose from an uncertainty.

 

Of course... here is another problem for you to chew on.

 

In the beginning, we ascribe time as t=0 at time zero - then t=1. At t=1, the very first moment of existence, we are led to believe that the universe suddenly appeared as a single ''dot'' - a tiny point without dimensions or space. This is where the first inconsistency or oxymoron arises if you like. If there was no space, there was certainly no time, so how can we talk about ''first instances'' and t=1? In relativity, time is part of the manifold, but in the beginning there was no space - so... how can we really talk about time as a fundamental object?

Edited June 13, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[dapifo]

The big bang is only a explotion inside a bigger universe.

[Ophiolite]

The big bang is only a explotion inside a bigger universe.

What evidence do you have for this opinion?

[Aethelwulf]

It's true what you say.

 

When people say, ''physics breaks down at the singularity'' many of them are referring to the uncertainty principle when you try and squeeze particle into a more confined region - which is totally forbidden by quantum mechanics. However, I believe that if it only exists for a very short period of time, who gives a damn about the violation? It's almost poetic to think that the universe arose from an uncertainty.

 

Of course... here is another problem for you to chew on.

 

In the beginning, we ascribe time as t=0 at time zero - then t=1. At t=1, the very first moment of existence, we are led to believe that the universe suddenly appeared as a single ''dot'' - a tiny point without dimensions or space. This is where the first inconsistency or oxymoron arises if you like. If there was no space, there was certainly no time, so how can we talk about ''first instances'' and t=1? In relativity, time is part of the manifold, but in the beginning there was no space - so... how can we really talk about time as a fundamental object?

 

In light of what I said, I think the problem then about unification is the order of events. If we can't really talk about time in the conventional or (general relativistic manner) then I believe events such as a beginning cannot be described in general.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[dapifo]

What evidence do you have for this opinion?

 

No one, but I think is the most logical hypotesis... and explain better the whole universe.

 

Some time is better to give ab hypotesis...and then to try to prove or observe if it seems logical and possible .

[Aethelwulf]

It's doubtful you can have a universe in another universe if they are exact copies. No subsystem can precisely model the larger system it is made of. Nor do I believe that parallel universes exist because there should or cannot be any system isomorphic to the universe.

[life station]

who ever has invented the idea of big bang theory,has mised to say that big bang is just a recycle of universe ,if it is? and it is correct in my view ,just see the natures sign

water and vapour and rain recycle ,seed tree and seed recycle ,birth and death recycle.energy to matter recycle.matter to energy recycle, and many many recycles ,so in my bold view there could not be any begining and end ,but only recycle

[Aethelwulf]

who ever has invented the idea of big bang theory,has mised to say that big bang is just a recycle of universe ,if it is? and it is correct in my view ,just see the natures sign

water and vapour and rain recycle ,seed tree and seed recycle ,birth and death recycle.energy to matter recycle.matter to energy recycle, and many many recycles ,so in my bold view there could not be any begining and end ,but only recycle

 

The way you word this, forgive me for saying, sounds as delusional as a pre-industrial teacher.

[dimreepr]

I’ve always wondered about the similarities between the big bang explanation and black holes. In my ponderings the initial state of the universe being in a hot dense state, could be the result of a black hole going through a natural process of reaching a critical mass and rebounding. Could every black hole have this potential? I’m sure that this is nothing more than just ponderings of an inarticulate mind and easily dismissed but is there a specific reason this process couldn’t explain the accelerated expansion of the universe? If more than one black hole goes through this process.

 

 

[ukgazzer]

Infinities,paradoxes and unique physics describe both black holes and the Big Bang so we`re wandering into the area of belief and religion when we talk about both - It`s all about the current fashion in philosophy,and guesswork. I can see no reason why we can`t attribute the Big Bang to events in a BH - The distribution of matter around BH`s suggests that they play a bigger part than they should if it was only about their masses ,so maybe they reprocess matter and occasionally spew it out - Maybe the Big Bang was a Big Spew- This is conjecture but the field is full of it and I don`t think that we know nearly enough to say anything concrete about the origin of the universe and the nature of BHs.

This is the current position as I understand it,anyway.

[Yoseph]

I tend to believe the universe is inside something, some call it the "multiverse". This makes the most sense to me because of the almost impossible balance and complexity of the laws of physics; if there was just one big bang out of nothing, what are the chances that the universe created could produce life? Unimaginably small. This could either mean that universes evolve cyclically as mentioned, where maybe black holes lead to big bangs of new universes with slightly different laws of physics. Or it could mean that there's a multiverse of say 10 dimensions and universes are like lifeforms inside it that evolve and change and procreate. But then where did the multiverse come from? God knows.

[SingularityCBG]

N

1330637215[/url]' post='662110']

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.

 

MY HYPOTHESIS IS THAT BEFORE THE START OF UNIVERSE, THE SINGULARITY/ COSMIC EGG EXISTS AS " A DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN ADDITION TO BEING INFINITLY HOT, INFINITLY DENSE & OF COURSE INFINITESIMALLY SMALL". I HOLD A FURTHER HYPOTHESIS REGARDING THE NATURE OF BIG BANG & IT IS AS FOLLOWS :--- BIG BANG IN THE SINGULARITY/COSMIC EGG IS OF THE NATURE OF 'A CONSCIOUS DREAMING PROCESS' WHICH IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONSCIOUS SINGULARITY/COSMIC EGG & WHICH WAS STARTED BY THE LATTER 13.7 BILLION YEARS AGO.TO START WITH THIS DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF CONSCIOUSNESS I.E. SINGULARITY/COSMIC EGG SLOWLY EXPANDED HIS CONSCIOUSNESS TO FORM INSIDE ITS CONSCIOUSNESS A BABY CONSCIOUSNESSBAL -SPACE WHICH WE CALL COSMIC SPACE. CONTEMPORANEOSLY IT ALSO GAVE BIRTH TO BABY PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

[Moontanman]

I think there is a huge mega-verse that contains creatures vast beyond imagining that consume dark matter and excrete universes. Their digestive systems turn dark matter into normal matter but the process, much like any grazer, is inefficient, so most of the dark matter comes back out with just a small fraction of normal matter....

[zapatos]

I think there is a huge mega-verse that contains creatures vast beyond imagining that consume dark matter and excrete universes. Their digestive systems turn dark matter into normal matter but the process, much like any grazer, is inefficient, so most of the dark matter comes back out with just a small fraction of normal matter....

How does your theory account for dark energy?