before the big bang

[DarkStar7]

It is a widely mistaken that the big bang model staarted from a point. In actual fact the big bang model says the big bang happened everwhere at the same time.

My Alternative to the big bang model agrees. However it says that the big bang is continuous and is happening now in the quantum foam. Indeed it has been predicted by the Uncertanty Principle and has actually been observed.

There was a recent TV program on the BBC by Professor Jim Al Khalili who explained clearly that the void of nothing contains an almost infinite amount of energy. The uncertainty principle states if we know the position of a particle with any accuracy then we can not know how much momentum a particle has with any accuracy. Momentum is energy so in other words if the big bang occured in one place it would have approx infinite energy. But even by the big bang model it happened everwhere, therefore the energy was spread everywhere. If we slowed time down so virtual particles and antiparticles did not have time to annihalate themselves we would see the big bang all around us now.. thanks for the antiparticle to neutralise the effect!

He's a prediction of my hypothesis, where it is the negative energy of the antiparticle remaining in a superposition state in the void that pushes the universe apart, where all produced matter particles are in equal balance to all antiparticles. Where the big bang is still happening in the sub atomic and always has done all around us everywhere, where the smooth horizon problem is solved by the CMBr being produced directly from the void...from the energy of nothing!

Energy conservation insists that the universe is in balance, in total equilibrium. All particles produced in the void must have a antiparticle partner.

Inflation of space would cause inflation in time. The hot big bang would look cool as all the antiparticles would have time to annihalate all the positive particles. Space would be neutral...like we observe

Right here goes the prediction....drum roll please..

The big bang model says that the universe formed 13.7billion yrs ago. So If we look 13.7billion lyrs away we would see the big bang, and CMBr. In other words for every 100 Mpsc of space the hierachy of largest masses would decrease with distance, galaxies should be low mass young diffuse, active...different from today.

My theory where by universal expansion of space is balanced by an equal increase in mass of atoms in the void, wherby old space is recycled through blackholes into new space, whereby the net effect is the universe looks the same, predicts..

For every larger and larger areas of space the hierarchy of the largest masses increases, galaxies get more and more massive, supermassive blackholes get bigger and bigger with increasing distance.

Newly discovered mature galaxy cluster, revised big bang theory? | Scitech | The Earth Times

[DarkStar7]

Marmite... you either love it or hate it... kiss kiss

[Marmite]

It is a widely mistaken that the big bang model staarted from a point. In actual fact the big bang model says the big bang happened everwhere at the same time.

That's because "everywhere" was a point.

Have you written up your conjectures and submitted them to suitably experienced and qualified people and organisations for peer review?

Banging on about your thoughts here at a forum for amateurs won't do you much good if you're hoping to see those thoughts propagated and recognised beyond SGL.

[Ptarmigan]

What a hoot !

I think we are getting a little confused between an hypothesis and a theory, not to mention experimental evidence

Professor Jim Al Khalili who explained clearly that the void of nothing contains an almost infinite amount of energy.

Is that the same Al Khalili that offered to eat his boxer shorts to lend weight to the anti-faster-than-light neutrino brigade? yea, thats good science.

Ok, now this before big bang stuff and the currently accepted 13.8(give or take) Byear for when it happened,,,

that assumes a linear time scale.

However,

if time progressed more slowly the further back you observe, (logarithmically even) then the BB would never have had an origin. (a bit like looking down an infinitly long trumpet !)

As for the point and/or everywhere stuff,

well the now observable universe is STILL that point, which may mean that either our measuring sticks are getting shorter rather than the universe expanding,

or that we are still a miserable point when viewed from the Mbrane.

Zbedee -> time for bed.

[ScubaMike]

I thought that there was, by definition, no "before" the big bang.

As time & space were created at that moment, there can be no concept of before.

[DarkStar7]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall

Is this an expanding HyperGalaxy spiral arm observed like we see the MilkyWay across the sky. Does it lead to, and rotate around a hypersupermassive blackhole?

[JulianO]

Sloan Great Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this an expanding HyperGalaxy spiral arm observed like we see the MilkyWay across the sky. Does it lead to, and rotate around a hypersupermassive blackhole?

No

[Ptarmigan]

As time & space were created at that moment, there can be no concept of before.

What you say is true if time progresses at the same rate "back then" as it does now and in the future ie linear.

BUT if time progressed more slowly "back then" perhaps that moment of creation is longer ago than we thought, and as I said previously (a little tongue in cheek I must admit just for the sake of discussion) time may have been so slow that the moment of the big bang receeds into the infinite past.

Then LO! we are back to a universe that has always existed, which would remove quite a few anomalies.

Here is an analogy, there is a clock on a spaceship that is aproaching a black hole and there is a telescope here on earth that is powerful enough for us to watch that clock (a standard thought experiment). As it gets near to the event horizon we see it slow down and the closer it gets the slower it gets, in fact it gets so slow that we can never be sure when the ship has passed the horizon because it gets infinitely slow.

So as the universe was infinitely dense at the big bang that is one heck of a black hole so time (our clock) might have been running infinitely slow infinitly long ago.

My head hurts

[ScubaMike]

So as the universe was infinitely dense at the big bang that is one heck of a black hole so time (our clock) might have been running infinitely slow infinitly long ago.

My head hurts

That is one of the things I have difficulty in getting my head round.

If the entire universe was a black hole originally, how did expansion occur?

Are we still in a black hole?

If so, what about tidal forces?

My head hurts too!

[ScubaMike]

Here is an analogy, there is a clock on a spaceship that is aproaching a black hole and there is a telescope here on earth that is powerful enough for us to watch that clock (a standard thought experiment). As it gets near to the event horizon we see it slow down and the closer it gets the slower it gets, in fact it gets so slow that we can never be sure when the ship has passed the horizon because it gets infinitely slow.

I thought time slowed for the object approaching the event horizon. For an *external* viewer, time passes *normally* and the object is observed crossing the event horizon.

[George Jones]

there is a clock on a spaceship that is aproaching a black hole and there is a telescope here on earth that is powerful enough for us to watch that clock (a standard thought experiment). As it gets near to the event horizon we see it slow down and the closer it gets the slower it gets, in fact it gets so slow that we can never be sure when the ship has passed the horizon because it gets infinitely slow.

I thought time slowed for the object approaching the event horizon. For an *external* viewer, time passes *normally* and the object is observed crossing the event horizon.

No, Ptarmigan has it right.

So as the universe was infinitely dense at the big bang that is one heck of a black hole

The early universe wasn't a black hole.

[Ptarmigan]

I thought time slowed for the object approaching the event horizon. For an *external* viewer, time passes *normally* and the object is observed crossing the event horizon.

No, 'fraid not, tother way round ! (unless Wikipedia has got it wrong as well )

Quote from Wikipedia :

"any object approaching the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses. The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper time."

Event horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not too sure about their "proper time"

I wonder what improper time would be !

what about tidal forces?

At a massive black hole the tidal forces are only severe near the central singularity. If the black hole is massive enough and therefore the horizon is large and well spread out, you could cross the horizon without noticing much tidal stress. (I think I have read )

The analogy between a black hole and the universe is not all that good, there is no central singularity. Well, not that we've found so far !

EDIT: ooops, xxed in the post with George.

[Ptarmigan]

The early universe wasn't a black hole.

Yes you are right, I was careless.

We often unscientifically say "such and such is like a black hole" for descriptive purposes and then unforgivably slip into saying that it is a black hole. Thanks for the correction.

[George Jones]

As all the superposition states of the positron would collectively have negative mass, in free space this would produce expanding space.. dark energy

Maybe the hidden antimatter (perhaps in superposition all around us) may have a forward time arrow and be responsible for our feeling of time, particularly as I think it is responsible for the expansion of the universe (has negative mass so good candidate for the elusive Dark Energy).

A positronic field has a combined negative mass and therefore behaves as dark energy.

the negative energy of the antiparticle

No matter how many times you post this, it's still not true. Antimatter (e.g., positrons) has positive energy and positive mass.

[ScubaMike]

Thanks Guys,

As usual I didn't think long enough about it.

Appreciate the correction.

[DarkStar7]

No matter how many times you post this, it's still not true. Antimatter (e.g., positrons) has positive energy and positive mass.

George Jones,

I don't think there is conclusive proof of your statement. It is controvertial. Does an antimatter planet repel a matter planet? It is assumed that the positron has positive mass... no one likes negative energy. Please show me if you can emperical evidence of your statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't it depend on your interpretation of the Dirac Equation?

Dirac sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia...

Gravitational interaction of antimatter

Main article: Gravitational interaction of antimatter

Virtually every modern physicist suspects that antimatter has positive mass and should be affected by gravity just like normal matter, although it is thought that this view has not yet been conclusively empirically observed.[7][8] It is difficult to directly observe gravitational forces at the particle level: at such small scales, electric forces tend to overwhelm gravitational interactions, especially since the methods of antimatter production currently in use typically generate very energetic particles. Furthermore, antiparticles must be kept separate from their normal counterparts or they will quickly annihilate. It is hoped that the ATRAP antimatter experiments will be able to make direct measurements.

Bubble chamber experiments are often cited as evidence that antiparticles have the same inertial mass as their normal counterparts, but a reversed electric charge. In these experiments, the chamber is subjected to a constant magnetic field which causes charged particles to travel in helical paths; the radius and direction of which correspond to the ratio of electric charge to inertial mass. Particle–antiparticle pairs are seen to travel in helices with opposite directions but identical radii, implying that the ratios differ only in sign; but this does not indicate whether it is the charge or the inertial mass which is inverted. However, particle–antiparticle pairs are observed to electrically attract one another, often as the prelude to annihilation. This behavior implies that both have positive inertial mass and opposite charges; if the reverse were true, then the particle with positive inertial mass would be repelled from its antiparticle partner.

George Jones, If your statement is not conclusively true, then my view, my opinion, is still worthy. In which case my hypothesis from my point of view is still valid.

For once someone has questioned my hypothesis in a truelly scientific manner. I appreciate that. You got me thinking... cheers mate

[NeutrinoWave]

What is the relationship if any between AntiMatter and DarkMatter, or do we even have the possibility of AntiDarkMatter

[NeutrinoWave]

I thought time slowed for the object approaching the event horizon. For an *external* viewer, time passes *normally* and the object is observed crossing the event horizon.

You may have got your reference points mixed up.

From a remote observers perspective objects appear to take forever to cross the event horizon due to relativistic Time Dilation

[JulianO]

What is the relationship if any between AntiMatter and DarkMatter, or do we even have the possibility of AntiDarkMatter

Antimatter is the a general category of matter. Almost every matter particle has its own antimatter particle. So we have

proton - antiproton

electron - anti-electron (positron)

neutron - anti-neutron

up-quark - anti-up-quark

etc etc

Some like the Z particle and the photon are their own anti-particle as you can't tell them apart.

Dark matter is something missing from the universe that we can't see because it doesn't really like interacting with everything else, so it appears dark - it doesn't reflect (or interact) with light. Its not really clear what it is yet, although we can detect it and feel it (gravitationally).

The current candidate is a particle called the neutralino - one predicted by supersymmetry which is also just a hypothesis. They are probing for this amongst other things at the LHC. I think in the case of the neutrlino its another case of it being its own anti-particle (although there are probably 4 different types of neutralino to make up for it).

[NeutrinoWave]

Antimatter is the a general category of matter. Almost every matter particle has its own antimatter particle. So we have

proton - antiproton

electron - anti-electron (positron)

neutron - anti-neutron

up-quark - anti-up-quark

etc etc

Some like the Z particle and the photon are their own anti-particle as you can't tell them apart.

Dark matter is something missing from the universe that we can't see because it doesn't really like interacting with everything else, so it appears dark - it doesn't reflect (or interact) with light. Its not really clear what it is yet, although we can detect it and feel it (gravitationally).

The current candidate is a particle called the neutralino - one predicted by supersymmetry which is also just a hypothesis. They are probing for this amongst other things at the LHC. I think in the case of the neutrlino its another case of it being its own anti-particle (although there are probably 4 different types of neutralino to make up for it).

So what would you class as AntiBaryonicMatter to be precise:icon_confused:

[JulianO]

So what would you class as AntiBaryonicMatter to be precise:icon_confused:

Baryons are made from 3 quarks, so protons, neutrons and some more exotic things. Therefore antibaryonic particles would be anti-protons, anti-neutrons etc, which are made from anti-quarks.

[NeutrinoWave]

Baryons are made from 3 quarks, so protons, neutrons and some more exotic things. Therefore antibaryonic particles would be anti-protons, anti-neutrons etc, which are made from anti-quarks.

I recollect from somewhere that they made Anti-Hydrogen in the lab, using Anti-Quarks as you mentioned.

Still would be interesting to hear about AntiDarkMatter + DarkMatter convergence with AntiBaryonicMatter and BaryonicMatter.

What physical processes would entail these interactions and where in the universe's timeline would such physics take place :-)

[JulianO]

I recollect from somewhere that they made Anti-Hydrogen in the lab, using Anti-Quarks as you mentioned.

Yes - you make some anti-protons, cool them down - store them, then mix them with anti-electrons to make anti-hydrogen. The trick is not have any regular matter present or it will annihilate and destroy what you just made.

Still would be interesting to hear about AntiDarkMatter + DarkMatter convergence with AntiBaryonicMatter and BaryonicMatter.

What physical processes would entail these interactions and where in the universe's timeline would such physics take place :-)

Dark matter interacts hardly at all with itself or with regular matter, it does occasionally but its very rare. Therefore you'd only see significant interaction if there was a high density of dark matter. Its suspect that billions of dark matter particles are passing through you right now.

So the only real interaction is that dark matter clumps together under gravity, which sucks in regular baryonic matter to form stuff we see like galaxies.

[NeutrinoWave]

So the only real interaction is that dark matter clumps together under gravity, which sucks in regular baryonic matter to form stuff we see like galaxies.

So gravity is key here. Also interesting is that it is a weak force and suspected to leak into higher\other dimensions, by virtue of its "closed strings" fundamental consituents that cannot attach to our world brane.

Could DarkMatter similarly link our Universe into higher dimensions Other Universes...

The more I read into this thread's title "Before The Big Bang" the more I begin to think conceptually about The Multiverse and how

facets of our universe (Gravity, Dark Matter, Neutrinos) can leak out into higher dimensions within The Multiverse.

So before the Big Bang maybe a topological region of The Multiverse was becoming unstable and in order to stabilise this excess energy leaked out through some higher dimension and thus created our Universe as a result.

Discuss ...

[ScubaMike]

There is also the Axion as a candidate for Dark matter, something which might get some more research if supersymmetry fails to be confirmed.

Even if the higgs boson is seen, if there are no other particles detected supersymmetry might just fail.