Hijack from Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense? New Speculation

[Wxman]

The Big Bang theory has always seemed to be a scapegoat theory. There’s no other explanation for the birth of the Universe and, by default, is the best available given observational data. But to me it just doesn’t pass the common sense test….all that we can see resulted from the explosion of something very, very small. Hubble has now seen Galaxies that are billions of light years from earth. All told, there are hundreds of millions of galaxies which contain hundreds of millions of stars and untold number of planets, moons and asteroids. And all of this came from a minuscule explosion? If not a Big Bang, then how did the Universe form? Well, here’s my shot in the dark (sic).

My theory is the theory of nothing (TON). No matter how small the “thing” the Big Bang starts with, you have to explain where “that thing” came from. If you can’t the only other alternative is to start with nothing. Obviously to state the Universe started as an infinite void is about as preposterous as stating it started with the Big Bang. The question of how it came to be will remain more a philosophical question rather than a statement of fact until there is irrefutable evidence that proves the true beginning.

I’ll start by noting the drawbacks to the Big Bang.

• Can’t explain where the “thing” which exploded came from.
• Theory states the Universe is still expanding based on light measurement from furthest stars/galaxies, using the Red Shift. Hubble’s latest observation saw a galaxy so far away, the Red Shift estimates the Galaxy (hundreds of millions of stars) is moving away from us at a speed of nearly 84% of the speed of light! The idea of the Big Bang and the expanding universe (galaxies moving outward) will look preposterous once we note a galaxy so far away it will “supposedly be moving near the speed of light. The alternative is the galaxy developed at/near where it is today…giving the same red shift distance measurement. My TON supports this possibility.
• The Big Bang and current Cosmology/Quantum Physics which tries to work within the Big Bang concept still cannot explain the bulk of the energy and matter in the Universe, calling it dark energy and dark matter.
• There are other theories as well…sting theory etc., but none explain the beginning.

So, here’s my theory from left field…the theory of nothing (TON). My idea is you start with nothing…an infinite void, not even a quark to be found. The equation would be 0 (zero). At some time T, at some point x, at an unbelievable small scale of say 10 to the -43 nm, a discontinuity develops producing a negative and a positive next to nothing. The equation is now 0 = 0. (side note: the equal sign is probably the single most important concept in all of science; essentially defining a continuous movement toward balance). I would call this “Null Physics”; the next/last step below quantum physics. The discontinuity may appear and disappear thousands of times per second, but at some point there is something (quark or smaller) that is maintained. Moreover, I would suggest this interaction is between a negative and positive aspect of nothing and once there is “something” it would be defined as the interaction of matter and antimatter. As the “interface” continues, there are accelerating integrations of the matter and energy waves.
Just as there is a dual nature of light…both as matter (photons) and wave energy. For example, integrating Cos X and Cos X results in Cos X…and ½ Cos X. Another words, you always have what you started with (Cos X) but the product also gives you a result that is ½ the wave height of the original. If you reduce the height/length of the wave you concentrate the energy into a smaller space. Given a small enough resultant wave, the energy under the curve would appear as a mass (photon).
As the integrations across the negative/positive interface continue, larger and larger structures (quarks, atoms, molecules) result. After a period of time (billion, trillions years ???), there is sufficient mass and energy surrounding the initial point that the matter begins to coalesce into stars, planets, moons etc. The starting point would be what we call the center of a galaxy, and the center is what we today call a black hole (where the matter/antimatter interface began). I would also submit, each Galaxy started this way at various time and places within the initial avoid. The Universe could be hundreds of trillions years old…not the currently agreed upon 14.7 billion years old (hundreds of billions of galaxies and only that old…really.). The smaller, currently un-detectable integration results, provide the dark energy and dark mass (via dual nature).

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Welcome to SFN! Your post was split into its own thread due to the speculative nature of it. We try to keep speculations out of the mainstream sections so students don't get confused when they take their tests.

 

When in a thread, please don't hijack the topic with something completely different. Please feel free to open your own threads.

 

Sorry if this seems heavy-handed, we have our reasons. Enjoy!

[Klaynos]

The Big Bang theory has always seemed to be a scapegoat theory. There’s no other explanation for the birth of the Universe and, by default, is the best available given observational data. But to me it just doesn’t pass the common sense test….

Why must the universe conform to the "common sense" of a group of apes on an unremarkable green blue planet?

 

all that we can see resulted from the explosion of something very, very small. Hubble has now seen Galaxies that are billions of light years from earth. All told, there are hundreds of millions of galaxies which contain hundreds of millions of stars and untold number of planets, moons and asteroids. And all of this came from a minuscule explosion? If not a Big Bang, then how did the Universe form? Well, here’s my shot in the dark (sic).

Whilst the big bang was small it was also everywhere at once... Size is a difficult concept when you're talking about a probably infinite universe.

 

 

My theory is the theory of nothing (TON). No matter how small the “thing” the Big Bang starts with, you have to explain where “that thing” came from. If you can’t the only other alternative is to start with nothing. Obviously to state the Universe started as an infinite void is about as preposterous as stating it started with the Big Bang. The question of how it came to be will remain more a philosophical question rather than a statement of fact until there is irrefutable evidence that proves the true beginning.

The big bang doesn't really cover the beginning, it is only (currently) valid from a few moments after what seems to be the start of the universe.

 

 

I’ll start by noting the drawbacks to the Big Bang.

Can’t explain where the “thing” which exploded came from.

Theory states the Universe is still expanding based on light measurement from furthest stars/galaxies, using the Red Shift. Hubble’s latest observation saw a galaxy so far away, the Red Shift estimates the Galaxy (hundreds of millions of stars) is moving away from us at a speed of nearly 84% of the speed of light!

Because it is the space between things expanding and not the objects themselves moving the limitation on faster than light travel does not apply.

 

The idea of the Big Bang and the expanding universe (galaxies moving outward) will look preposterous once we note a galaxy so far away it will “supposedly be moving near the speed of light. The alternative is the galaxy developed at/near where it is today…giving the same red shift distance measurement. My TON supports this possibility.

Please provide the maths that shows this, with derivation and a graph showing the predictions from your maths, the big bang theory and the observed red shifts.

 

• The Big Bang and current Cosmology/Quantum Physics which tries to work within the Big Bang concept still cannot explain the bulk of the energy and matter in the Universe, calling it dark energy and dark matter.

Dark energy and dark matter are observed effects. They are distinct, dark matter has been indirectly observed and mapped.

 

 

• There are other theories as well…sting theory etc., but none explain the beginning.

 

Some string theories pose some interesting possibilities for the beginning, these have yet to provided tested predicitions (note theory in this case refers to a mathematical theory not a physics theory).

 

 

So, here’s my theory from left field…the theory of nothing (TON). My idea is you start with nothing…an infinite void, not even a quark to be found. The equation would be 0 (zero). At some time T, at some point x, at an unbelievable small scale of say 10 to the -43 nm, a discontinuity develops producing a negative and a positive next to nothing. The equation is now 0 = 0. (side note: the equal sign is probably the single most important concept in all of science; essentially defining a continuous movement toward balance). I would call this “Null Physics”; the next/last step below quantum physics. The discontinuity may appear and disappear thousands of times per second, but at some point there is something (quark or smaller) that is maintained. Moreover, I would suggest this interaction is between a negative and positive aspect of nothing and once there is “something” it would be defined as the interaction of matter and antimatter. As the “interface” continues, there are accelerating integrations of the matter and energy waves.

A theory in physics is a mathematical model of some aspect of the universe. To become a theory, it must make falsifiable, numerical predictions that have been shown to agree with nature. The first start you'd have to do to move towards this is provide the maths and graph I request above.

 

Just as there is a dual nature of light…both as matter (photons) and wave energy.

I think it's fairer to say that photons exhibit both wave and particle like properties, as do many other things (electrons, protons, bucky balls etc...). Energy is a property of things not a thing itself.

 

 

 

For example, integrating Cos X and Cos X results in Cos X…and ½ Cos X. Another words, you always have what you started with (Cos X) but the product also gives you a result that is ½ the wave height of the original. If you reduce the height/length of the wave you concentrate the energy into a smaller space. Given a small enough resultant wave, the energy under the curve would appear as a mass (photon).

Photons are massless though.

 

As the integrations across the negative/positive interface continue, larger and larger structures (quarks, atoms, molecules) result. After a period of time (billion, trillions years ???), there is sufficient mass and energy surrounding the initial point that the matter begins to coalesce into stars, planets, moons etc. The starting point would be what we call the center of a galaxy, and the center is what we today call a black hole (where the matter/antimatter interface began). I would also submit, each Galaxy started this way at various time and places within the initial avoid. The Universe could be hundreds of trillions years old…not the currently agreed upon 14.7 billion years old (hundreds of billions of galaxies and only that old…really.). The smaller, currently un-detectable integration results, provide the dark energy and dark mass (via dual nature).

Some of this seems to go along to a certain extent with the cooling of the universe, it is difficult to tell though. Of course even in what you've presented here there is always a "what about before that" question, an absolute beginning is a difficult thing to try and picture because everything humans deal with is a consequence of previous actions, this kind of point is more philosophy though.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Duplicate threads merged.

[Astrogator]

My reading of your “TON” speculation yields three “insights”: (paraphrasing)

 

1) You start with nothing; incredibly minute discontinuities develop; negative/positive interface accelerate, larger and larger structures (quarks, atoms, molecules) are built up.

2) Continuous Creation: Galaxies have formed at various time and places within the void.

 

3) The current Big Bang theory (BBT) doesn’t explain what happened before the beginning or how so much matter and energy could come from such a small “singularity”, no matter how hot or dense, or how the galaxies could be receding from each other at nearly the speed of light.

 

(Please correct me if I’m wrong)

 

Comments

 

1) Let me start with #2 first: No observable bursts of energy from new galaxy creation in your "continuous creation" mini-Bang (?) scenario in the TON theory seem to be happening. If TON were true, wouldn't we be observing tremendous amounts of the new precursor bits of "stuff" and energy spewing out of the new mini-Bangs that will eventually form elemental hydrogen? We aren't. It appears that the stars and galaxies all go through a fairly predictable life cycle and that they were all formed billions of years ago. When astronomers observe “new star formation” what they’re really looking at is something that happened “long ago and far away”, not last week.

 

2) Your "what happened before the BB?" (#1) sounds a little bit like the "perturbation theory" in Quantum Mechanics". But the circumstances before TON have to be pure speculation and in the realm of the unknowable; "my untestable hypothesis better than your untestable hypothesis"; some of this is you and I asking improper questions: "Where does the world end?" was a question from Columbus' time, but it was an improper question because the world doesn't "end" -- it's a sphere. I suspect a lot of our questions now are in the same vein, such as "what happened before the BB? Or what happened before time began?? Where did the discontinuities come from and how do they form anything? Just reducing the scale down to 10 to the minus -43 NM doesn’t solve the dilemma…HOWEVER,

 

3) Time did not exist before Big Bang; neither did matter; at the point of Big Bang there was apparently just pure energy: some combination of energy and "dark energy" pouring out similar to matter and anti-matter. (Universe currently composed of 4% matter (stars, heavy elements, helium, and free hydrogen), 22% "dark matter", and 74% "dark energy" -- repulsive force driving the galaxies apart) I've always thought that the categorization of energy into 2 categories, kinetic and potential, along with the 4 "Fundamental Forces of Nature" (electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak forces) was somehow inadequate: there's a lot more there to be discovered. We need an "energy physics" as well as particle physics.

 

4) For that matter, I feel that our science of physics, far from being "nearly complete”, as some are claiming has in fact barely started. We have identified the 4 fundamental parameters of existence: matter, energy, space, and time. Each of these may also have analogs: anti-matter, anti-energy (dark energy?); and MAYBE anti-space and even anti-time. (The 8 properties?) So of the 8, we have a handle on 3 or 3 ½? And all these may be equivalent and convertible into each other. Run the clock backwards and each of these parameters cancels itself and each other out and so you get your zero, nothingness, oblivion at “The Beginning”...so to that extent I buy into your TON hypothesis as far as a plausible process (good as any)

 

From Wikipedia: "It is generally believed that these are manifestations of the same underlying interaction, and appear very different at the kinds of temperatures common in the universe today. For example, it is believed that the electromagnetic and weak interactions are actually two facets of one interaction, known as the electroweak interaction, and above a temperature of about a million billion Kelvin they would merge into one force again. In the same way it is believed that the electroweak and strong interactions are also likely to be two facets of one interaction, and might be indistinguishable above a certain extreme temperature as well. This is sometimes called a Grand Unified Theory."

 

5) Gravity, on my view, is NOT one of the fundamental properties, but merely an interaction of matter with space; (mass warps space-time) there may indeed be "anti-gravity": an interaction between anti-matter and anti-space. Anti-space and anti-time may also have manifestations that occur between them. And by the way, I'm not saying any of these could be artificially manipulated by human technology, even in the remote future, indeed, not even by the Krel (Forbidden Planet)...

 

6) The galaxies furthest away from us are approaching the speed of light as seen from Earth but it isn't because they have velocity themselves; it's because space itself is expanding, like a balloon being blown up, except the "balloon" is Space Time, apparently driven by "dark energy"…

 

7) Your explanation on the BBT (Big Bang Theory) starts with matter coming from nothing; but the matter just didn't pop out of nothing. It was an energy-to-matter conversion process that took billions of years. Particle physicists keep getting smaller and smaller bits of atoms in their research but I believe that in the end all they will find is pure energy ("Let there be light?") Matter is "frozen energy"...right?

 

8) E = MC2: most of the first third or half of the 13.7 billion year history of the Universe seems to be turning that elemental energy into matter and transmuting the various elements first from pure energy into hydrogen and then into heavier elements-- helium, -- by stellar transmutation. There apparently was an entire earlier cosmos made up of ancient primitive "Generation 1" stars (precursors to the current stars) which processed their hydrogen into the elements we know, and which went through their entire life cycle then exploded in supernovae blowing the elements out into space to form 2nd generation stars like our Sun and their accompanying planetary systems around 5 -10 B years ago. Now the process has reversed and the Universe is experiencing entropy where matter is being converted back into energy as Stars burn through their hydrogen. Perhaps there is a cycle that when all the matter has been "used up" and converted to energy the process will repeat itself (??) Hence, I tend to believe in one creation (Occam’s razor) instead of many, as in TON.

 

9) I suspect a lot if what we "observe" about the Universe using astronomy might not even be there anymore -- half or more might be completely gone and all we're "seeing" is the light that was emitted and has taken billions of years to reach us. Space Time has the characteristics of a huge optical illusion except its not physical objects but the energy we see that's being distorted by phenomena such as "tired light".

 

10) Finally, I suspect existence may be far older than 13.7 billion years: how long did it take for the initial energy to coalesce into even the most basic building blocks (quanta) of bosons, leptons, quarks, charm, strings, etc. eventually resulting in atoms of hydrogen??? Also time might not have been “running” at the same rate at the beginning as it is now. Incidentally I do not put much credence into “multiple universes or multiple dimensions”.

[Wxman]

Klayons. Thanks for the comments. There are no supporting graphs or math. Just a theory...just as the big bang is just a theroy. Again, if you can't explain the what and where of the "Big Bang" then the beginning is still up for discussion.

[Klaynos]

Klayons. Thanks for the comments. There are no supporting graphs or math. Just a theory...just as the big bang is just a theroy. Again, if you can't explain the what and where of the "Big Bang" then the beginning is still up for discussion.

A theory in physics is the highest level of an idea, it is a well tested mathematical model of part of universe that makes falsifiable, numerical predictions. Not just an idea or a story. To challenge the big bang theory you must match the observations more closely than it , this requires maths.

[ajb]

There are no supporting graphs or math. Just a theory...

How did I know you was going to say that?

 

Your understanding of theory as used in physics is wrong.

 

just as the big bang is just a theroy.

I don't know what the "theory of the big bang" is, but I know of the Lambda CDM model, which is also known as the standard model of cosmology. Please compare this with your "theory".

 

 

Again, if you can't explain the what and where of the "Big Bang" then the beginning is still up for discussion.

We have a good model that allows us to go back quite far almost to the initial singularity prdicted by the theory. It is true that the real physical nature of this singularity is not understood. This is up for discussion, but the rest of cosmology not so much. Anyway, you have not shed any light on the initial singularity as you don't have any mathematical frame work we can use to investigate and hopefully find some relation with out physical world.

[Wxman]

Thanks for your comments. OK, it's not a theory. However, the elephant(s) in the room is not only where did the singularity come from, but how did that signularity mass result in hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundereds of billion of stars and planets. The "model" may still be valid, but the beginning may be different. I'm offering a "speculation" to finally address these glowing shortfalls of the Big Bang theory.

[ajb]

... but how did that signularity mass result in hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundereds of billion of stars and planets.

Galaxy seeding in indeed an interesting topic. The best thought at the moment is that quantum fluctuations in the inflation field are responsible for the tiny density differences in the early universe and that these small purturbations grew seeding the galaxies. Another viable alternative are quantum fluctuations in some other field, known as the curvaton field.

 

Cosmic strings are now thought not to be a dominant factor, but I hear that they may have still played a role and this can be seen in the CMBR.

 

The "model" may still be valid, but the beginning may be different. I'm offering a "speculation" to finally address these glowing shortfalls of the Big Bang theory.

As you don't actually have a model, one cannot really say that you are offering any resolution to the questions posed in studying the very early universe.

 

One thing that any new theory that attempts to replace or modify the lambda CDM model is that it will have to agree with our observations to the same degree of accuracy. The real killer here is the power spectrum of the CMBR, you will need to match this very closely.

 

Basically any model of any time earlier than the lambda CDM model would have to more or less evolve into the lambda CDM model.