Revised Big Bang Theory??

Question

Universe infinite etc;

Although we haven’t proved at this moment universe is finite or infinite; based on all current physics and scientific principles it has to be infinite. It is impossible to imagine something to end without something beginning. If universe ends at some point something has to be there after that. Otherwise it cannot end. Period.

People come out with all these 4 dimension or 5 dimensions. But so far no scientific basis for these dimensions. It is just imagination. No body can explain what are these dimensions. Science so far has explained only up to 3 dimensions. I really do not understand this more than 3 dimensions. So far none of our physics related principles could explain what is 4th or 5th dimension. Science and physics are facts. Nothing imaginary there. I doubt there can be anything like 4th or 5th dimension of universe which can produce a finiteness of this universe. Based on all scientific thinking so far universe cannot end it has be infinite and continuous. It cannot have a center. It cannot have a beginning or ends. Things might change time to time, new galaxies, stars etc form etc etc but the whole universe will always be same.

It is possible a sub compartment of the universe had an explosion of mass. And this mass was very huge to start with. The mass was so huge and made up of fire like our sun or stars. This mass was billion and billion of light years in size. So huge and unimaginable for our estimation. It exploded one fine moment. It was so huge that the pieces of it produced all the galaxies and everything we see in the observable space today. After explosion it is spreading now in all directions. This is what we see now as big bang. It really doesn’t make any sense to think that big bang started as a small point. Everything is possible who knows ? we haven’t proved anything. But it is easier to explain scientifically a large mass exploded for some reasons and the pieces of this mass went in all directions and the momentum produced by the explosion was so huge that the pieces are moving away from each other still. It might have occurred several billion years ago and pieces are still moving away from each other.

This theory has another advantage to accept. When we talk about how solar system was formed this is what we talk. A large fire ball, the parent of sun, all 9 planets and all other solar system members ( comets, asteroids etc etc etc ) exploded which produced Sun and other members of the solar system. When solar system parent exploded there was a main piece remained to form Sun and all the planets etc started rotating. When, how solar system was formed we talk about a huge mass exploded which produced several solar systems ( star systems ). In other words a huge galaxy like mass exploded producing several star systems. But when we talk about how universe was formed we talk about a small pin point area produced it?? It doesn’t make sense. Why not similar to formation of galaxy system, solar system etc, it is the bigger mass exploded producing all we see around.

But when the Huge mass described above ( parent mass of the observable universe ) exploded probably no residual big chunk was left in the center and that may explain why we do not see any residual big mass around which everything what we see rotates. The same thing could have happened if while solar system parent mass exploded if no big chunk left to form our sun all the scattered mass would have been moving away from each other like a big bang observation ( they would have moved away until hit another star or pulled by the gravity of another galaxy system )

I do not believe in curved universe etc. People give example of balloon expanding. When give analogies it should make perfect sense. The problem with balloon analogy is ; the balloon actually expands into the surrounding region. So how can we use this analogy for universe expanding. I agree all points on the balloon go away from each other while balloon expands but balloon still expands into surrounding area, agree? So universe must be expanding into surrounding area, means there is space out side this expanding observable universe. Can somebody give an example where balloon expands also doesn’t expand into surrounding space??? No body agree? Balloon expands is equivalent to it spreads into the surrounding place.

Means if universe expands it automatically is spreading into the area out side its spreading edge. Otherwise it doesn’t maker any sense.

Another analogy given: earth has no edges. Universe is similar to earth without edges. It is finite because of this. People start walking on the surface of a circular object like earth and make comments like earth has no edges. Does it make any sense?? Why we go on the surface to find edge?? Why don’t move into the surrounding atmosphere or away from earth‘s surface ?? Everywhere earth has edges. The moment earth ends the surrounding atmosphere begins. A circular object will have edges all over its periphery. Unlike a rectangle etc.

Universe curves on itself??? What exactly it means??? Why does it curve?? Can it curve unless something outside it??

Looking from any angle if we use our current physics and scientific knowledge, theories and principles Universe has to be Infinite. We come out with all explanations to prove it is finite but no explanation can be accepted so far as none of them make any sense. Just hell-bent on proving universe is finite we are coming out with all analogies which have no meaning at all.

Probably the big bang observation confused everybody. Suddenly scientists didn’t know what to do? How to explain the findings? Then they came out with some explanation.

And they are telling the whole observable universe started at one point. A small point. Is it really possible? ( well I agree we haven’t proved it is wrong, but based on science and physics we cannot accept such statements as one small point exploding and giving rise to much much bigger mass like galaxy and stars which are much much bigger than the original small point itself. That is against our existing scientific principles.

My point is should we really accept this big bang theory??? Is it the only theory which could explain the observation that all galaxies are moving away from each other?? Don’t we have any other explanation??

How about logical or scientific explanation like a huge mass exploded and scattered all around and the force was such that they are all still moving away from each other and from the center of explosion?? This is similar to the existing big bang theory the difference is the size of the initial mass which exploded. With the revised big bang theory the initial mass was huge and its mass = to the collective mass of all the mass of the expanding observable universe so physics principles are not bent. It is difficult to imagine a small point producing all these mass in the observable universe. We need to come out with something new to prove this. Everything is possible when we don’t know about something.

It is possible once the force reduces these galaxies will stop moving and then collapse and return to the center and produce the original parent mass of the expanding universe again. I think then again it might explode. This process may be repeating once in every billion billion years who knows?

It is possible in the infinite universe infinite number such huge masses exist and they periodically undergo this type of explosion and then collapse and the cycle continues. It is possible the distance between such huge parent mass is such that probably the expanding sub compartments of universe probably will never collide with each other in general. Some of them might collide against each other. We know that some galaxies collide, some do not, so that should not surprise us.

A small point exploding and a huge mass exploding both can explain what we see happening now. What we see is everything moving away from each other. But it is easier to explain a huge mass exploded producing all the observable universe rather than a small point exploding. This is contradicting the existing scientific theories. It is a story like or imaginary stuff good for a kids movie.

I strongly believe universe is infinite. Of course if we don’t know then we don’t know. For me it is easier to believe universe is infinite rather than finite based on existing scientific principles, that is all.

Answer 1

Hi SS

With the utmost respect, you should be aware that the universe doesn't run based on what you do or do not understand, or do or do not believe.

Big bang theory is an internally consistent scientific theory with a wealth of strong supporting supporting evidence. In challenging this theory you bring us unsupported statements, beliefs and argument by assertion. You demonstrate minimal or no understanding of the theory you're addressing, its core concepts or its evidentiary support. Your treatise is littered with misunderstandings and errors.

In my experience, the best way to undertake a revision of a physical theory is:
1. first - understand the theory you're addressing. If you don't understand it, then ask about it or try to find out about it. Raging against it from a position of no understanding is only a testament to ignorance.
2. understand the evidence which supports the theory. Anything you propose must account for these supporting observations.
3. test your critique analytically, first yourself, and then with colleagues. At this stage be prepared to accept criticism of your ideas where they are wrong.

I think you need to start at number 1. You need to gain a more accurate understanding of what big bang theory says about the early inflation epoch. You need a better understanding of the models and what the implications of finite or infinite universes are. The question of whether the universe is infinite or finite in extent is a physically arguable proposition - belief has nothing to do with it (it's a conseuqnece of the curvature parameter and density ratio).

I suggest some research on something called FRW (Friedman Walker Robertson) space-time models. These are simple big bang models with identifiable curvature parameters, and will help you make the link between density, critical density, omega ratio, curvature and the cosmological constant lambda. Perhaps you could begin to refine your knowledge by asking a few questions here.

I sincerely you'll be motivated to investigate the subject more deeply, it's certainly rewarding to gain a good understanding of it.


Good luck
The Chicken

Answer 2

Wow, that is a huge question, or should I say statement. It is very interesting, and you are right, no one is possitive, it is even possible that some place in the universe, the laws of physics do not apply the way we know. But it is like saying "life as we know it", when you think of it, that is a rather small definition of life, carbon based etc... but is it not possible for life to exist in other forms or based from another element? The point is, you could go on forever with any theory if you take away all the rules and leave only unknowns. Is what you said possible, I guess so, but from what we know of physics, there are some major holes in your theory. First, if what material that is here now has always been in a form similar (solid matter) then where did that come from? Thats right, can't explain it. And the problem with the large star theory is this, it would be too massive to support itself, basicly it would create such a huge amount of gravity that it would colapse into itself and create a massive black hole, dead end there. Is space infinite, you have to relize what we define as space, it is the area that we know with all the galixies, stars etc, what is beyond that, as far as we can tell, is empty. There are lots of things envolved in what we cosider our universe, such as dark energy, basicly fills in the space between mater as we know it, this would explain the missing mass in the big bang theory, we also know that space has a tempreture, 3 deg kelvin, meaning that something is there that we can't see. Beyond our universe is nothing in theory, meaning absolute zero, absent of all temp, molecular motion, and thus molecules and atoms, this is what we are expanding into. You sould look into the big bag theory and all the information there is explaning all of those unknowns that you mentioned. Some of this info is not something you can get from a HS class or a simple book, and takes years to understand and comprehent, as well as all the more complex physical laws the govern our universe.
Is it possible that what you said is true? Again, could be to some extent, but you need to get a stronger grasp of the complexities that are involved in that, and many other theories out there. Believe me, there are a few things that I don't agree with in the universe, and galaxy formations and their deaths that most scientist agree on, but like I said, there is a lot you need to understand before you can rule out what has been agreed upon and proven.

Answer 3

Just because you don't understand something, and you obviously don't given all your rambling, doesn't mean it's not true or that it doesn't make sense to somebody else.

The 4th dimension is commonly accepted to be time. The other dimensions are indicated from the mathematics in attempting to figure out what people can measure in the universe.

No, there is a lot that isn't proved, a lot is just theory. But the theories are based on scientific observation.

Answer 4

Gosh! Takes some reading.

I think you have to bear in mind when you discount other dimensions and the universe being finite, that we have Earth-bound minds. These minds tell us for instance, that time is always the same, whereas in cosmic terms, time is not a constant.

For instance, though we assign a finite velocity to light (or any other part of the electromagnetic wave spectrum) of about 186,000 m/sec, from the perspective of the light wave itself, it's speed is infinite. That means if you could ride a light beam, you would get anywhere in the universe instantly.

That's one of the reasons that attaining light-speed for any mass is impossible - if you went the speed of light, you would get anywhere in no time at all. But, and a big but, you need infinite energy to accelerate any mass to light-speed, and if you got it there, it's mass would be infinite. Sorry, Star Trek fans, but it aint on.

As difficult to imagine are these concepts, Einstein proved them mathematically, and it has been observed that time does contract and mass does increase as you accelerate a particle towards light-speed. The observation confirms the math, that time tends towards zero and mass tends towards infinite as you get nearer to light speed.

So, yes it is impossible to imagine curved space and a finite universe, but it is equally hard to imagine space going on forever.

Look at it like this: nobody can visualise what electricty is really like. The electron particles (if they are particles) are negatively charged, but our electric current flows the other way. We cannot possibly conceive of the true nature of electricity, but we use it, abuse it, and cannot live without it.

Answer 5

You say ---

"...When we talk about how solar system was formed this is what we talk. A large fire ball, the parent of sun, all 9 planets and all other solar system members ( comets, asteroids etc etc etc ) exploded which produced Sun and other members of the solar system..."

This is just plain wrong! Also, throughout your rambling dissertation you repeatedly confuse the solar system with the universe.

Pretty hard to be convincing when you don't even get basic facts and/or terminology correct.

Answer 6

The late great comedian and talk show host Johnny Carson said the "Big Bang" was then followed the the "Big Ciggarette."

Answer 7

i personaly believe God created everything....and cockroaches with prevail. they r the only things that can survive a nucleur war. they can survive 3 days(or 3 weeks can't remember) without their heads. i see them taking over our planet after God has taken us.

Answer 8

Very nice work. When's your next book coming out?

Answer 9

Why does the universe have to behave logically and deterministically?

Answer 10

thats a loaded question