Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Big Bang's Loop Theory


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, I'm Karunboerg, a new member, and I would like to submit you a theory regarding the history of our Universe. Any feedback is welcome!

The "universal" and the common opinion concerning the history of the Universe is that it has started in the exact moment when the Big Bang has taken place, reduced by the stereotypes to a giant explosion, when instead it’s a complicated phenomenon difficult to analyze. However, the most widespread opinion, taught also in schools on the books of astronomy in which only a few chapters are dedicated to the history of the Universe: the cosmology. Perhaps out of laziness, it was not possible to wander and go beyond the dogma: the Universe was born 13.7 billion years ago at the exact moment the beginning of the Big Bang. Dogma objectively right that I’m not going to discuss because I fully agree, although with some modifications: our Universe was born 13.7 billion years ago in the exact moment of the beginning of the Big Bang. While I’m writing these sentences I already imagine the thoughts of some readers who resort to the theory of parallel Universes ... But there is no need to worry. It’s not a theory related to the topic here. Why our Universe? There's another one? Well, my answer is uncertain but I won’t hesitate: yes, definitely there are two Universes, but there was one, and there is one in progress. What does this mean? To explain this theory, that I consider fascinating, we must start from the Big Bang. Think of the absolute nothing. The void. In a certain instant, indeed, the Instant, in one point, there is an unimaginable explosion for our mind. Just think of all the matter in the Universe compressed into a dimensionless point. It’s already difficult to imagine a person compressed into a cell phone (for example), think to billions of stars and planets in a point billions of times smaller than an electron. This explosion causes the birth of the Universe. The matter, in the form of quarks, leptons and other particles, combines first forming atoms, then millions of years after we get to the planets. Since I’m quite skeptical regarding the fatal explosion theory in the middle of nowhere I propose another theory. Not to make the know-all, but I appeal to the fundamental law of chemistry: "Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, and everything is transformed" (A. Lavoisier). This would be in conflict with the theory of all matter that is created in one point. Now forget the void and think to the Earth, which, as every other planet, has a center of gravity, which is the cause of the gravitational attraction. The Sun has its center, as well as Saturn, Uranus, the Moon, Alpha Centauri and Sirius. So, why can’t the Universe have a center of gravity? And what would this center be? Obviously the point where Big Bang has taken place. A center that attracts everything there is in the Universe, stupid theory someone would say, the Universe is expanding, is even accelerating. The explanation for this theory is found in the Big Bang itself. We must now imagine that before the Big Bang there was another Universe, similar to ours, such as planets, stars and everything else but totally different. The same matter, the same little particles, only arranged in a different way. A Universe lasted billions of years, first expanding and then shrinking because, if you launch a stone from a center of gravity, this will fly in the air but then it would come back. Same concept for this hypothetical pre-Big Bang Universe, first expanding and then shrinking. Imagine an entire Universe that converges to a single point. The planets and the stars will clash creating bloated explosions that will raise the universal temperature and all elements will start to decompound, because the high temperature can break down the elements’ bonds. Going forward with the compression of the Universe all the planets, the stars and the complex elements whether created would be reduced to the primordial state: protons, electrons, neutrons, then quarks, leptons, etc... The temperature rises as well as the density that would reach “stellar” values. And all the forces that govern the Universe? All the forces, as the Universe is increasingly being compressed are unified. All billion gravity forces would merge, as well as the centrifugal and centripetal force. All the forces unified into one, and the energy would increase more and more. Finally we arrive at the fatal moment. All matter concentrated in a universal dimensionless point. The temperature and density are endless. The forces and physical laws that govern the Universe canceled and unified into one. The energy of the imminent explosion reaches values ​​unimaginable. And then... The story is known. Planck era begins, after that the era of the Great Unification and then the inflation. The matter is launched at a speed unthinkable by the energy of the explosion that overcomes the universal gravity force that leads to the birth of our Universe. And so, after of millions of years, the matter in the form of primordial particles is composed thus forming the planets and stars. Stating that the Universe 13.7 billion years is right, just as it is fair to say that the Big Bang is the result of the maximum contraction of a previous Universe. This theory, therefore, opens our horizons. The greatest techniques in the field of cosmology was able to study phenomena that occurred 13 billion years ago, but this conception of the Universe radically changes what we imagined for years. We can say for sure that the space (defined as absolute nothingness) occurred an explosion that destroyed a Universe and has created another. The existence of a previous Universe extends the horizons of cosmology of billions of years. Now we’re moving from the past to the future of the Universe, with the imperative to point out an essential fact: the expansion of the Universe is caused by the energy of the Big Bang, but is in turn "braking" by the universal gravitational attraction. To give a better idea you can imagine a plane that leaves from the ground, whose energy wins the gravitational attraction taking flight, even if the apparent power is the actual result of the energy of the plane's engines slowed by gravity. It’s not necessary to explain that if the shift caused by the universal gravitational attraction of bodies is less than that caused by the energy of the Big Bang the Universe is in a state of contraction. Otherwise the Universe is in a state of expansion, the current state. The theory of contraction of the Big Bang (Big Crunch) has been disproved by the acceleration in the course of the Universe and was found an exciting name to the cause of all this: the dark energy, extra energy that would have accelerated the universal expansion. It’s called dark energy not because is not used by the Dark Side but because it is still unknown. I can’t give an explanation to the dark energy, but the acceleration of the Universe can, starting from one of the most common physical laws: more a body moves away from a center of gravity it’s less attracted. This would perfectly apply to every planet and star in space. To make an example we'll consider the planet Kraunboerg (obviously fictitious). The planet Kraunboerg continues to move away from the universal gravitational center ‘cause of the energy of the Big Bang. With time gravitational attraction decreases. Let's say that in ten years the movement caused by the gravitational attraction is equal to X and the movement caused by the energy of the Big Bang is equal to Y. In this case Y is greater than X, since the Universe is in expansion, and therefore Kraunboerg in ten years has path Y - X any measure of length you want to use. In the next ten years the movement caused by the gravitational attraction is equal to X - 3 (because the gravitational attraction decreases while the planet is getting away from the universal center) and displacement caused by the energy of the Big Bang is Y - 1. So the actual, observable displacement is Y - X + 2 that, compared to the displacement of the ten previous years, is greater, then Kraunboerg is accelerating. This reasoning doesn't explain, however, the probable contraction of the Universe. We know that energy sooner or later you will run out, but the gravitational attraction, it can get close to the zero line and yet it will never reach that value. Perhaps among billions of years, in an instant, the energy will run out altogether and X will be greater than Y. At that moment the contraction will begin and it will be much faster than the expansion, since the gravitational attraction will increase dramatically in the absence of a force or energy to overcome it. Triggered the contraction should know how to finish. The stars and planets collide, bloated explosions, the temperature and density increase. All matter will be decomposed by the high temperature to its original state and will revert to the center of the Universe. It would concentrate at that exact point and, as we know, the high temperature and density would lead to an explosion of unprecedented proportions, called Big Bang ... Junior. As energy BBJ equates the father, as the matter remains unchanged, even though the Universe that would create would be totally different from ours. Other planets, other stars, maybe some analogies, but surely, I say it firmly, there is a 100% chance that or in the ancient Universe or in the future one there was or there'll be at least one extra-terrestrial civilization. Personally I find this conception of the history of the universes fascinating, and it will bring to considerer thirteen billion years as a phase, while the life of the universes would be hundreds of billions of years. It is a continuous loop, an infinite loop in which we are and, occasionally, pass in the same way: the Big Bang, the symbol of total destruction and a new beginning.

post-31792-0-89845600-1377897417_thumb.p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I managed to read it ok and have to agree with watchman, the so called heart beat of the universe expanding and contracting!.There was a great episode of "through the wormhole" explaining this the other night. Fascinating if to be true but no one knows what is within the singularity of the contraction because the singularity is a point of expression that really means....dont know! The same as black holes bieng thought of as the start or recurrence of our own big bang .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get the idea that there is 'dogma' amongst cosmologists? There isn't. The BB comes in many flavours and even the redhift has been the subject of intense debate.

I second the idea that coherent thinking comes in paragraphs. If you want to be read, take care of your readers. (A bit of dogma from a former English teacher! :grin: )

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it the current thinking that there is not just one universe but an infinite number of universes all existing at the same time.

Presumably there are Big Bangs and Big Crunches going off all over the place.

This reminds me of the ancient Indian philosophy of how the universe comes into being in an instant and after a time withdraws into itself. The cycle repeats itself endlessly, In other words Big Bang and Big Crunch ad infinitum.

They also believed that there are an infinite number of universes.

Avtar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one looooong paragraph. You definitely need to learn to break your text up to make it readable, otherwise a lot of people will just take one look and move on to the next topic without reading any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it the current thinking that there is not just one universe but an infinite number of universes all existing at the same time.

Presumably there are Big Bangs and Big Crunches going off all over the place.

This reminds me of the ancient Indian philosophy of how the universe comes into being in an instant and after a time withdraws into itself. The cycle repeats itself endlessly, In other words Big Bang and Big Crunch ad infinitum.

They also believed that there are an infinite number of universes.

Avtar

You have to be careful with 'All at the same time,' I think. Time as we normally use the term refers to a dimension within our own universe. I think it perfectly reasonable to think of multiple uninverses existing all at the same something, though! Not sure what the something is. Ah, we are not equipped for this, or I'm not!

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are not equipped for this

And there lies the problem.

We have no idea where the universe we know came from, where it's heading, what it really is, what it really means etc etc.

I can't see how we could ever know the answer to these questions, we appear to be soooo very tiny/insignificant compared to it all. Can a being with such miniscule dimensions ever get to a stage where any of this could one day become comprehendable? .. Could we ever answer any of these questions looking at it all from the inside out as it were?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is always and cordially (whatever the revolutionary theory):

Is there a mathematical basis / representation of this stuff? :)

I was once persuaded, by a (very capable) theoretical physics friend to attend a seminar given by one of the luminaries of the field. The lecturer lost me half way though blackboard #1! LOL. But my mate watched entranced, with occasional small (stifled) squeals of delight. Afterwards, I timidly asked: "Did you understand that?". He laughed loudly: "Of COURSE NOT! -- But Bl***dy Good stuff, wasn't it"?!! :D

But I think there is a moral in there? One GOOD thing about the movie "Hawking" was that he was seen to be doing some maths! The notion that theoretical physics just consists of having (visual) "ideas" always bugs me. And with all the circumspection and vague antipathy of a sometime experimentalist / hardware guy, I have to give theoretical physicists their due... They do (know) their MATHS? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Macavity. Mine is a theory with no mathematical basis since I didn't search them. Laziness wasn't the reason, it's just a sketched theory. Although it's fascinating. Surely, over the years, will know more about the history of our universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt WE will ever understand the whole of it and it's reality.

It is of course possible to know what is inside the box, it is impossible to see how the box is made and its function until you are on the outside of the box..... This may prove to be a slight problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to SGL, Krauenboerg.

Your theory is essentially the idea proposed in 1848 by Edgar Allan Poe in "Eureka", so you might like to have a look at that:

http://www.gutenberg...7-h/32037-h.htm

Like you, Poe assumed there to be a "centre" of the universe where the primordial particle was situated. It would explode, then the fragments would expand until gravity made the whole thing contract again. As Poe put it:

"are we not, indeed, more than justified in entertaining a belief—let us say, rather, in indulging a hope—that the processes we have here ventured to contemplate will be renewed forever, and forever, and forever; a novel Universe swelling into existence, and then subsiding into nothingness, at every throb of the Heart Divine?

And now—this Heart Divine—what is it? It is our own."

In modern theory (i.e. general relativity) there is no centre: the singularity is everywhere (i.e. everywhere collapses to a singularity if we run things backwards). Cyclic models were favoured by some theorists, but in the 1930s Tolman showed that they fell foul of the second law of thermodynamics: entropy increases with each cycle, making them longer and larger, and if you run things backwards you find there must have been an infinitely short one to start with, so it's back to the same problem. In recent years there have been different kinds of cyclic model e.g. the ekpyrotic model, arising from string/brane theory, in which the entropy issue is supposedly resolved.

http://en.wikipedia....yrotic_universe

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Cyclic_Model

Poe's purely speculative theory was ignored by scientists until the 1980s when it was realised that he had actually come up with one very good point: he argued that Olbers' Paradox proved the observable universe to be of finite age and extent. The darkness of the night sky was the one piece of evidence that Poe could put forward for his theory of a primordial explosion, and it is now accepted as the simplest piece of observational evidence supporting the Big Bang model.

http://en.wikipedia....rs'_paradox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought I have had recently, and forgive me if it is already someones theory is this:

What if the Universe really is already infinite? just empty space going on forever, unending. What if what we live in and observe is in fact simply ONE such 'big bang' within that infinite space, all we can see is what was ejected into the universe because outside of that is simply nothing? BUT! On top of that what if what we call 'the observable universe' isn't the only one, that there are many many such objects in the infinite space, we however are completely unaware of these other objects because the light from these other objects simply hasn't reached us? Say for instance our closest neighboring object was a mere 50 billion light years from us, but only exploded into existence 15 billion years ago? As far as we would be aware, it simply didn't exist as the light form it wouldn't reach us for another 36 billion years or so, more if we were traveling in the same direction as the light coming from it.

To put simply, what if the observable universe is simply that, only the observable universe, with millions of such objects spread across inconceivable distances within an infinite empty void that is the 'actual universe'?

Again, my apologies if this theory already exists and I just havnt heard of it.

Please ignore me if I am just being thick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "observable universe" is exactly that: the bit we can presently see, and which therefore has some present influence on us (gravitational etc). If the observable universe is "flat" then it implies that the rest is infinite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of the above statements are of course true, Acey, yes if the observable universe is flat then the universe is infinite, so outside what we can see? Well who knows... And if the universe is infinite, then what I posted above is entirely possible. The test used that I saw about this was the triangle test, taking distant objects as the points to create a triangle, the angles equaled 180 degrees implying the universe is flat and therefore in fact infinite. Local space can be warped of course but when used over massive distances gives the more accurate result.

Kropster, yep, the observable universe is seen to be expanding and accelerating, so finding out why is important. Currently I believe dark energy and dark matter are being researched as the likely cause.

All interesting stuff, I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a mathematical basis / representation of this stuff?

There is a well known saying, "that all biology is chemistry. All chemistry is physics and all physics is mathematics."

I think that mathematics is at the heart of everything but there are few, or no humans intelligent enough to understand or invent the maths.

The good thing about being a chemist is that if you have an idea it can easily be proven one way or another by a trip to the lab. With cosmology there are only questions with few or no ways of obtaining an answer. I think that I would be driven insane if I were a cosmologist.

One thing that I've never understood about The Big Bang Theory is the notion that the more powerful the telescope that you have, the closer that you can see back in time toward the beginning (purportedly). Surely this impossible as at a much earlier time we would have been a lot closer ourselves to the point of origin and the light from that time would have overtaken us (at the speed of light) and be off somewhere at the edge of the universe.

I hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the comment "What if the Universe really is already infinite?"

The best descrioption I recall is that the universe is probably boundless but not infinite.

The subtly being it has no end, but isn't full up. Most of it appears very not full up.

The term infinite has to be refered to a condition, it is I think used too often and in aspects to which it may not apply.

Also wasn't this all part of the latest BB theory on Ch 4 at least 3 times over the last 3 or 4 years. Program called something like What was there before the Big Bang.

And the latest evidence is that we are expanding and accelerating, in which case not sure where a crunch will come from. Also this is based on observational evidence, and confirmed, so not exactly easy to disregard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 'Inflation' cove3rs that..... very rapid expansion of the early universe,,,, faster than speed of light.

Also, the universe is expanding at all points, so everything is moving away from everything else in all directions.... the relative rate increases with the distance between two points.

A common analogy, but in two dimensions, is to see the universe as the surface of an expanding balloon.

Nowhere is the centre, but everything is moving away from all other points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good thing about being a chemist is that if you have an idea it can easily be proven one way or another by a trip to the lab. With cosmology there are only questions with few or no ways of obtaining an answer. I think that I would be driven insane if I were a cosmologist.
Personally, had I not done a JOINT degree in Physics & Chemistry, I might have gone "nuts" too! LOL.

Anyway, Physicsists are a tad STAID [teasing]! Chemists had more fun... Better "student discos" etc. :D

But an important point raised too. Not to poke fun at the OP, for there is a significant concern that "clever

maths" may obscure a theory that is complete rubbish! Indeed, with a maximum of *half a dozen* theorists

who might actually understand the stuff, how can (us) mere mortals ever be convinced by many a theory? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a concept I really struggle with, how did the beginnings of the universe happen faster than the speed of light?

There are two kinds of reshift, Doppler and Cosmological. So far as I know they are follow the same equations but the difference, I think, answers your question. The Doppler is caused when objects leave their rest frames and are accelerated towards or away from each other. They are 'moving' in the normal sense of 'moving' which arises from an input of energy. The cosmological redshift will be seen between objects at rest, not accelerated. They are not 'moving' in the normal sense, not having had an input of energy. But space is expading between them, driving them apart.

The first kind of 'moving' must respect lightspeed as the maximum allowable.

The second doesn't have to because the bodies have not been accelerated but driven apart by the expansioon of space, and the expansion of space doesn't have to respect c.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.