Big bang or cosmic cyclus ; a new theory

For years and years now the big bang theory is a well known and accepted 'fact' how the universe and time began. But how did the big bang started ?

First a look at the beginning of time ; the big bang :

The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model). According to the Big Bang model, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today. Based on the best available measurements as of 2010, the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago,[1][2] which is often referred to as the time when the Big Bang occurred.[3][4] The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.[5][6]

en.wikipedia.org...

Lately scientist have discovered that the big bang of 13.7 biljion years ago was actualy not the beginning of time and universe. No, now there is a new theory wich claims that the big bang is part of a cyclus :

He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe."

According to Penrose and Gurzadyan, as described in arXiv: 1011.3706, these circles allow us to "see through" the Big Bang into the aeon that would have existed beforehand. They are the visible signature left in our aeon by the spherical ripples of gravitational waves that were generated when black holes collided in the previous aeon.

www.dailygalaxy.com...

With this new information in mind there is also another interresting question to be asked : If there were indeed multiple big bang's, are there also multiple dimension's or multiple universe's excisting at the same time ?

For years, Einstein hoped to unite the contemporary ideas of relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, he could not unite these theories because he limited his parameters for a unifying equation to the four dimensions that humans consciously experience. The first physicists to truly pursue the theory of additional dimensions were Kaluza and Klein. They noticed that if a fifth dimension were to exist in the universe, there would be fields of angles between all of the existing dimensions. By applying this to Einstein’s geometric model of gravity, Kaluza and Klein noticed that gravity, the force that relativity is concerned with, and electromagnetism, one of the forces that quantum mechanics deals with, showed similar properties. Therefore, by adding a fifth dimension to the universe, the same equations that apply to electromagnetism could also apply to gravity. It was later shown that not only is one additional dimension required for this link to be solidified, but six more dimensions. Even further down the road, it was discovered that the formulas used to determine this number (which are actually mathematical methods of approximation, since the actual formulas are unknown) we slightly off, resulting in yet another necessary dimension. Therefore, our three physical dimensions plus one time dimension plus seven additional dimensions results in there being eleven dimensions!

library.thinkquest.org...

Verry interresting to know that the universe we see with our eye's as we look up at the night sky is just a small part of a verry big picture indeed.

I like the idea of angles between angles.

For an alternative of the big bang or cosmic cyclus, see also Inflation theory

Originally posted by css1981
now there is a new theory wich claims that the big bang is part of a cyclus

I'm not so sure that's a new theory, I've heard it for a very long time.

It may be a newly published paper with a different slant, but I think it's a concept that's been around quite a while.

Anyway it's pretty speculative to talk about what happened before the big bang when we don't even understand the big bang yet (specifically, while inflation has been proposed as a solution to some of the problems with the big bang theory, even inflation is pretty speculative, and that's since the big bang or part of it).

So my request to the scientific community is, please explain inflation and the big bang better before telling me what happened before the big bang.

So, just to be clear, in your opinion, you're saying the big bang is not a 'fact' then?



Because another fella on a different thread here has said repeatedly that it was a fact.

Obviously, it is not. But I just wanted your take on it.

I think that this new theory is really amazing.

If you think about it ; if the big bang was not the beginning of space and time but just a part of a eternal cycles. That would mean that there is no end.

I don't really think this theory is new. Might be the first time somebody talks extensive about it, but I think everybody that knows how the universe works with expansion and contractions have tought about it at some time.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
So, just to be clear, in your opinion, you're saying the big bang is not a 'fact' then?

Are you asking me?

Evidence for the big bang is pretty strong, however I'd stop short of calling it a fact.

Inflation is part of the big bang theory and it's pretty speculative.

Scientists prefer to call them "theories" and I think some theories have enough evidence to be called "facts" like it's a fact that evolution occurs, even though we still call it the theory of evolution because there are some things about the history of evolution we don't understand.

Here is the Wikipedia description about which parts of the big bang theory are speculative, and I pretty much agree with this assessment:

en.wikipedia.org...

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. ...
After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons.

And a big part of the earliest phase of the big bang theory that is so speculative is inflation, which they call an "unsolved problems in physics"

inflation and baryogenesis remain somewhat more speculative features of current Big Bang models: they explain important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.[notes 7] Discovering the correct explanations for such phenomena are some of the remaining unsolved problems in physics.

So far I haven't seen anyone come up with a better theory than the big bang about why all the galaxies are moving away from each other (EU folks try but fail miserably), so until that happens I think the big bang will be the most likely explanation. There is more evidence than just the galaxies moving apart, including:

The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, the formation of galaxies—are derived from many observations that are independent from any cosmological model; these include the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae.

So evidence for the big bang is pretty good, though there are aspects about it that we don't understand and are highly speculative. So speculating about what happened before the earliest part of the big bang, like the topic of this thread, is even MORE highly speculative.

Speculating about what happened before the big bang is probably a safe topic to write about because I doubt anyone will ever know so nobody can prove his paper wrong (nor will it ever be proven right). As one physicist posting on ATS said, we might as well speculate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (referring to the parallel universe theories since those are speculative too).

I think this theory is as real as the theory of gravity. More evidence to support this theory:

Renowned cosmologist Roger Penrose said that analysis of this cosmic microwave background showed echoes of previous Big Bang-like events.

- BBC News Article

reply to post by arpgme


Thanks for that link. Even more evidence wich support this theory.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks so much for the response.




Are there any other competing theories that are out there but not as well known?

What was the EU one?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Are there any other competing theories that are out there but not as well known?

Yes, the topic of this thread is one of them, sort of, but they don't really seem to have much support, and they don't make much sense to me, here is an article about 3 theories:

discovermagazine.com...:int=2&-C=

What was the EU one?

EU is electric universe, which is sort of a hodge-podge of different ideas, the wackiest of which is that the sun (and other stars) are not powered by nuclear fusion but by some other process for which there is no evidence. So you can toss the idea that the sun isn't powered by fusion in the trash.

But some other EU areas of interest are still being measured with ever more accurate and diverse instruments, such as raising questions about whether or not the redshift measurements upon which the big bang are based are really telling us what we think, and I'll call these "Tired light models". A physicist on physicsforums said that within the next decade, more accurate measurements will be made with more advanced equipment that will put some of these questions to rest about things like the "tired light" theory, etc. Almost all physicists say the coffin is already shut on the tired light theory, and the new measurements will either nail the coffin shut, or possibly re-open it, so we'll see what happens. If the tired light theory or something like it is shown to be correct then the big bang theory might be in trouble, but there's no evidence for that yet except for a few dodgy papers. Lots of the "tired light" type papers are garbage but there are a few interesting papers. So if you're interested in learning more about this you may want to read up on Tired light

Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship as alternatives to the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies, both of which proposed that Hubble's law was associated with a metric expansion of space.

Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law.

But just because almost no scientist accepts the tired light models, doesn't mean they won't continue to make more and more accurate measurements. And chances are pretty good those will nail the coffin shut on tired light, but you never know if there might be a surprise, like the dark energy surprise, nobody expected that one.

If you read that link, be sure to check the "criticisms" section at the end, that lists some key points that any competing theory must address.

reply to post by css1981


A Change in World (Universe) View, Part II
The Bouncing Universe
The Protouniverse
The Inflationary Theory
The Bubble Universe / Andre Linde's Self Creating Universe
The Hawking-Turok Instanton Theory
web.uvic.ca...



The most common Hindu stories tell that Brahma created the universe,
[...] The universe was created, changes, and then is destroyed.
This cycle is called a kalpa, and has happened an uncountable number of times already. Just as people a born, live, die, and are reborn, so is the universe as a whole.
~google search: universe creation; hindu~


the whole cyclic universe theory has been around since history began, but under different names,
like the 'Bouncing universe' model, or the Hindu model that is essentially a grand reincarnation...


i can't recall the Golden Age in Greece model of a waxing-&-waining universe but they too
thought it grew then contracted in a eternal fluxuation

but for millennia the Papal Authority told believers that the universe was in a 'Steady State' as it
was originally created by God in the beginning...the Earth was the center of the heavens (universe)
and if you did not concur you were a heathen


the Big Bang model has support because of the discovery of the background 'noise' which
emminates equally from every point in space...which is claimed at evidence that a explosion of a single point in non-space began our observable universe some ~14 billion years ago



Buddha, in the Acintita Sutta, is supposed to have said,
“Conjecture about (the origin of) the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.”
~google search: universe creation; buddhism~
so proceed at your own folly

reply to post by St Udio


That is verry interresting. I didn't know about this 'Hindu' view of the universe.

It makes you wonder ; did they knew the truth... while we are still searching for it today ?