The Big Bounce Instead of the Big Bang?

Hi HTRN, I have read this, without fully understanding it.

It somehow seems to me like the single BB is replaced by an infinite number of BBs. And must the process not have started somewhere with a single BB?

The "big-rip" in standard cosmology is (trillions)ⁿ years into the future and the "reversal" is thought to happen "just before" the big-rip! So, does it matter?

Our own sun would have blown us away by then and our galaxy would be gone, in fact everything that we know of today would be gone!

Regards, Jorrie

Does this "postulator" have any equations?

Hi Guest,

The paper with all the gory equations are here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0610/0610213.pdf

Regards, Jorrie

I doubt the human mind will ever have the capacity to formulate the beginning and the end of the universe, it is just so much larger than our ability's will ever be much as we would like to think otherwise. Still its fun to speculate.

I think black holes and interaction between them and Galaxy's is probably the main engine of the universe.

The equations were made up along with the theory. This is just ridiculous. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about dark matter. No one knows if it really exists, much less what equations apply to it.

Hi StandardsGuy, you wrote: "The equations were made up along with the theory. This is just ridiculous."

Relax a bit - one can perhaps say that "the theory is made up along with the observations", but not exactly as you put it!

The cosmological equations started off by applying Einstein's field equations of general relativity to the cosmos and then, as Einstein realized pretty soon, large scale reality did not quite match his equations. He added the cosmological constant to his equations to make them match reality as he saw it in 1916 (wrongly, as it turned out).

Later, when Hubble made his discovery of the increasing redshift of galaxies with distance (implying an expanding universe), Einstein dropped the cosmological constant and declared it "the biggest blunder" of his scientific career.

Almost forty years after Einstein's death, another set of (seemingly) convincing observations showed that something like Einstein's cosmological constant is indeed operating - in the accelerating expansion of the cosmos. So, back went the cosmological constant into the original equations, with a non-zero value - as a matter of fact, with a dominant value!

Now, this does not seem to me like "making up the equations along with the theory"! It seems to me like good science at work - model reality as best you can, using solid physics and observation as guidelines.

Regards, Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

I'm so relaxed, I almost went to sleep in your history lesson. The whole article is about dark matter from the abstact to the formulas. There is plenty of matter that is dark in the universe (such as black holes), but the term "Dark Matter" is often used to describe anything that we don't understand. There is a whole lot of that in the universe. This theory is full of assumptions, and can never be tested.

What if I proposed that gravity attracts at a certain distances and repels at certain distances? The obsevations would seem to confirm it. I think that this was proposed many years ago, but there were no "gory equations" to go with it, so it was forgotten. This same phenomena may be at work in atoms, keeping the protons and neutrons at the proper distance.

Does it seem logical to you that an expanding universe would suddenly reverse and collapse after trillions of years?

Regard,

S

Hi Does it seem logical that a very very long sine wave might keep going up and then all of a sudden start going down to nothingness? Or how about evrything that goes up must come down. Or everything that expands must contract

Hi sail4evr, you said: "Or how about everything that goes up must come down. Or everything that expands must contract."

I believe it is more like "everything that comes will go again", meaning our universe will expand forever and eventually "die a cold death" where there will be nothing but space and a feeble amount of radiation density left. Or can photons also decay?

Regards, Jorrie

I have never bought into the whole "Big Bang theory" anyway. Just another "wild eyed" theory that can neither be prover nor disproven at this point in time. Although he might get a government grant to study it. This sure beats working. The whole big bang theory was based upon what the scientist could not figure out about residual noise. They theorized it was left over from something. I guess they never listened to a seashell. I am amazed at times of where some of these theory's spring from.

The article talks about "dark energy" and "unknown" forces. Really ? No kidding. I fully support the quest for knowledge. But why does the scientific community push them forward as anything resembling fact. Most of these theory's are just nonsense and wind up wasting resources better used elswhere.

Our natural world is both wonderful and mysterious. Our greastes invention will only mimic nature at best. Enjoy and protect the world we live in. Find better ways to use the natural resources without messing things up worse than they already are. That will be science's greatest contribution. Just a few thoughts.

I really think there are too many people in the world.The other day I picked up a seashell, put it to my ear, and got a busy signal.

I was wondering why I couldn't get through. Your cell phone provider was overloaded.

That should have been shell phone provider

Its a big universe out there and something very hard to comprehend however I have a theory as to what infinity is or at least might be. The only thing that I can imagine as having no end is that of a circle, everything in nature is made up or circles or cycles even life itself cells, planets, creation to eventual death.

Could it be that as one approaches the extremeties of the universe, we actually encounter the atomic structures of the here and now? In other words are the atomic structures most close to us, also the distant worlds most furthest away?

Bit of a mind bender but how else do you explain it?

Spot on Frampton! You have demolished all preposterous arguments of the impossible big bang. You have reduced the old "big bang" model to zero possibility. Dark matter is the one overlooked tree in the forest. Now find an equation of state for that in a three dimension Universe.

Perhaps matter itself has a critical mass.When all of the matter is sucked into black holes, and all of the black holes have joined together, and the last spec of energy goes down the drain towards the last singualrity,this critical point is reached, and the next big bang occurs?This too, may occur trillions of years into the future, and it really will not matter to us.But by the same token neither does cosmic expansion, the impending collision with the Andromeda Galaxy, or basically anything that happens outside of our personal lifetimes, yet it stretches the imagination and stirs the synopses to think of it.Imagination allows us to transcend our puny bodies and finite life spans and cross the galaxies faster than the speed of light.Our imagination has no limits and fills us with awe at the grand beauty of the universe.At least that is my personal experience.

HTRN

Personally, I find entropy a very tricky thing, and it seems to drive the hunt for the big bang. A book I read a few years ago called "Maxwell's Demon" said that entropy should be regarded as on par with (as in conserved with) matter and energy.

Has anyone else here heard that?

I have had the privilege of reading Steven Hawking's book A Brief History of Time and watching a video about it from my local library a few years ago. He talks about a math formula that he wrote, which after his colleages helped him find the error that was in it, proved that if the universe was to stop expanding and do the "big crunch", that time would still go forward. I find this and the observation from two groups of scientists that the expansion of the universe is accelerating to be proof positive that the universe was created once, and only once.

Hi StandardsGuy, I agree with you. This whole "big crunch" idea sounds ridiculous. The one proposed by this new theory is different to Hawking's universe in the sense that the second law is met, while in Hawking's is is not. But I do not take either theory seriously.

Regards, Jorrie