Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum An alternative theory to the big bang

one theory that i heard a long time ago is that a black hole is basically the door to another dimension whose time is flowing the opposite direction. scientist have not been able to explain dark matter, but according to this theory, its the energy that is falling into the black holes on the other side of that door. their big bang will be far into our future at a time when our universe is all pulled into the final black hole. and the final in flow of material into their black hole will be at the time our big bang occured. that would mean everything was in a closed cycle with the material and energy going from one side to the other and back endlessly. talk about daja vue.

no one knows, but speculations abound as to what could be on the other side of the big bang.

Big Bang is losing support, time for a new theory.

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time ?The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.(24)
Hawking thinks that the inflationary model of the universe cannot explain the present state of the universe. He is troubled by two questions which he does not think the traditional theory of the Big Bang can answer: 1) why is the universe so homogenous and isotropic on a large scale, whereas there are "local irregularities" such as galaxies and stars; 2) why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?(25) The appeal to an initial singularity is, for Hawking, an admission of defeat: "If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?"(26) To admit a singularity is to deny a universal predictability to physics, and, hence ultimately, to reject the competency of science to understand the universe. He claims that the "no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."(27)
John Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex in England. In The Origins of the Universe (1994), Barrow observes that the no-boundary condition of Hawking's quantum cosmology has become increasingly attractive because it "avoids the necessity for . . . a cataclysmic beginning." Barrow thinks that the traditional Big Bang picture, with its initial singularity of infinite density "is, strictly speaking, . . . creation out of absolutely nothing."(31)

Such alternative Creates New Physics, the laws are the same the elements are the same, but there cosmological interactions and functions must be interpreted differently.
There is a theory which takes this no-boundary view of the universe into account. You can find it here http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ if you care to check it out.

Aireal wrote:
"Big Bang is losing support, time for a new theory."

Nonsense. Utter. Complete. Total. Nonsense.

Provide a reference.

If you are going to post nonsense ... expect to be challenged.

DA Morgan

So you do not see any problems with the Big Bang Theory? Do you believe that it is a near perfect representation, soon to become a law of science?

Do you not see the increase in sites and postings, questioning the theory? Or see science looking at other possibilities, like brane theory. The big bang is not proven yet, why should we not look for a theory that might fit the facts better.

I guess I could provide all the referances to these many sites, comments and forums, but most places would consider that spamming. On the other hand you could do a simple web search and come up with a comprible list, and I would not have to spam this site with a hord of so-so links. I did provide author, book title and page number for the quotes I did use. I guess people don't bother to read much anymore, and would rather just have a convenent web link.

Science should always look for a better theory, if they can find one that fits the observed facts better than the current theories. My comment at the start of my post. "Big Bang is losing support, time for a new theory." was meant to draw attention to my post, and suggest that not all is fine with the big bang theory, and that we should look at, or consider the possibility it may not be 100% correct.

Now if you are a supporter of the big bang theory, and back it as the only possible solution, that if fine, more power to you. I however am trying to be objective, and looking for any theory that might fit the observed facts more closely than the big bang does. This is part of the scientific method is it not? Do not pass such efforts off as "Nonsense. Utter. Total Nonsence" I was offering a link that gave a theory I had not heard of before. Why, so people could look at the theory and evaluate on its own merits. I did not pass judgement on this theory myself in the post.

My mistake was in thinking that a science forum, on a thread devoted to "An alternative theory to the big bang" might be interested in a link to alternative theories. Forgive me for being so clueless. It is now obvious that this thread is really meant to support the big bang theory, and belittle anything else.

So I bid you adue, and will not bother you any more with links to new theories you don't want to hear about anyway.

so far as i can tell from reading about it, the theory involving the brane (string theory) did not discard the big bang, just it points to how it occured.

if you have any referece to where people are saying that the big bang did not happen, please post them. the one i read said that it was a reoccuring event, happening every so often (if i remember correctly, something on the order of 100 billion years or more). that theory did not destroy the big bang theory, merely changed a bit.

Aireal writes:
"So you do not see any problems with the Big Bang Theory?"

What I see is that you don't believe in using google to provide references. Nor apparently do you have a book on astronomy or physics or a copy of Scientific American, Space and Telescope, or Astronomy magazine. Because if you did you'd have found that you are incorrect.

Has the big bang theory stand up to all experimental challenges? Yes! Is it perfect? Of course not. But a theory is intended to be a map, an analogy, and it is an extremely accurate one.

To claim that it is losing support among astrophysicists who are searching for a replacement is wholesale nonsense. There is a search for minor improvements not a replacement. The theory is remarkably capable of predicting everything down to the level of the most minor fluctuations in the microwave background.

And while we are on the subject my step-daughter just completed her work at ESO:
http://www.macalester.edu/astronomy/courses/physics440/anneandmaggie/wuma.htm

And I've good reason to believe she IS a subject matter expert.

In the future please verify your "facts." The job at SAGG of posting psuedoscience has already been filled.

Sorry to be harsh ... but if anyone believed what you wrote you could have found a supporting reference. And if not then you should have just said "Oops" and acknowledged your error.

DA, do you know anything about the string theory (brane), and if so whats your view on it.

String theory is not a theory in the classical meaning of the word. I think it has done a good job of moving theory forward and, in the end, will likely prove a dead end as currently formulated.

Money needs to be put into experimentation to allow our ability to test to catch up with our ability to think. We are not ready for string theory, branes (branes are not string theory ... they are a branch of string theory), and many other equally interesting (though less well publicized) proposals.

sorry, i cant agree with it not being a valid theory. IMHO, its interesting, but still rather weak. that does not make it invalid as a theory. i wonder how many theories are disproven every year. Unfortunately it is not old enough to have had the proof to support or discard it. I do agree that there needs to be more money put into proving and disproving theories.

.

dehammer wrote:
"sorry, i cant agree with it not being a valid theory."

Again your inability to understand what you read is truly amazing. I did not write that string theory is not a valid theory. I didn't. What I wrote was that it is "not a theory in the CLASSICAL meaning of the word."

it is either a theory or its not. If your going to split hairs with a new definition not normally used, then you need to give that definition when you make such a claim. on the other hand, what does your post have to do with an alternative to the big bang theory. OR is it just chit chat. As i said the theory still needs work, which if you read what the people that came up with it says, they say it needs more work.

DA Morgan

I did give referances to BOOKS on physics and astronomy, which you keep overlooking. The first qoutes were from Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, and page numbers for each one, thats a physics book by the way. I then gave supporting referances about Hawking statments from John Barrow, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Sussex in England from his book Origins of the Universe, thats an astronomy book by the way. I then gave a link to a site where more info and links could be found as support for increased doubts about the big bang amoung non-professionals.

Sorry I did not have a google referance for you to click on for everything. If you are unable to go to a libary because you are handicapped, or there is not a decent libary availible where you live, you should just say so. I would try and find a web link for your use. If it is because you are too lazy to get off the computer and due some research, I am not going to go to the trouble of spoonfeeding you information in easy web bites. But that is still no reason for throwing a tantrum and slandering others just because a referance is not in the form you want.

As for your rude swipes at me and my poor reading habits, I have a about 600 or so books in my personal libary, not counting publications like the American Journal of Physics which I feel are worth keeping . I do read the magazines you mentioned, but I generally don't keep them around for long. As they are wrote for a more general public. They tend to gloss over details, when compaired to professional publications that is. They are fine reading material for the average person with an above average knowledge of the subjects covered by them. The sites you list as referances are much the same as the magazines you read, they tend to gloss over the subject. So you do post referances with your posts that have a web link, but overall many of them lack the detail for serious researchers. You should avoid the mud slinging you blame others of, and the lack of their reading material. So DA Morgan, by the way, What is your education level, seeing how you even belittle professers and professionals in your posts on this forum?

As I stated before, if you are supporter of the big bang theory, thats fine. To refer to anything that does not agree with you as "psuedoscience" without support or reason, and I qoute you "If you are going to post nonsense...expect to be challenged."
It only makes you look petty and vindictive. Worse it shows that you are not OBJECTIVE, one of the main requirments of a scientist.

If you did not throw a fit from the start, you may have noticed these things from my first post. I have meet all your so-so standards except haveing a google referance for everything under the sun. Sorry you can't google everything.

I came here for a little light hearted conversation as a break from my research. As it is clear that is not going to happen, I am out of here. Back to doing some science instead of these less productive pastimes. So feel free to bash me some more as I won't be back to trouble you with details that would hurt your finite view of the universe.

So to qoute you "Sorry to be harsh.." and "Oops" I don't care if you acknowledge your error for I know you are far too biased and closed minded for that to ever happen

My apology Aireal ... I was looking for references where I could verify what you wrote and didn't see them. Hawking has since acknowledged that he was incorrect about quite a number of things in those books. I'd have to reread them to see whether these statements are part of what he has recanted.

dehammer wrote:
"If your going to split hairs with a new definition not normally used"

I'm not splitting hairs. You saw a word or phrase you didn't understand and rather than trying to learn about it or make sure you comprehended what you were reading you replied with rubbish. YOYO!

You are completely out of line. This forum is specifically for asking the question... AND I QUOTE FROM THE FORUM BOARD...

"Where did our Universe come from?"

RM's suggestion not only asje this question. He or she suggest a perfectly good scientific explanation.

You... are not being scientific. SCIENCE is not being scientific.

You are trying to say that just because youare not capable of actually physically seeing what happened before the Universe emerged: that there is no point in exploring what happened BEFORE it emerged?

In that case: every court of Law on Earth should throw out every murder case... since they did not have a chance to actually SEE if the person was murdered!

You have this notion that the Universe merged out of nothing by magic? That there is no need to explore futher than what we can physically see?

In that case: heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty should ALSO be thrown out of all science text books... because he did not actually PHYSICALLY see how electrons acted... he merely thought about the problem long enough to make logical deductions... which turned out later to be completely verified.

If Science was run by the likes of you... then EINSTEIN should akso be disregarded as nothing more than a 'K-9' student. Since he also used logical deduction to predict how light acted around stars. he did not actually SEE how they acted. He thought about the problem and came up with some logical deductions... some of his predictions turned out to be true...

yet YOU!!! Sneer at an attempt to logically explain the Big Bang... and furthermore LIE about it and claim there WAS no Big Bang....

WHO ARE YOU???

You have NO training in the physical sciences whatsoever. Why are you setting yourself up as an expert in the field, when all you are doing is spewing scientific lies and scientific misinformation on this forum?

Newton found that for every action: there has to be an equal, and opposite reaction.

To this date... NOBODY has been able to disprove his discobery.. . NO scientific study ever doone has EVER found a loophole in his famous Law of Physics.

yet YOU!! sneer at the most basic of all scientific laws that every engineer and every NASA engineer and every laboratory scientist USES daily!

WHAT are you ralking about, eh?...

You have a LOT of explaining to do in front of this forum for posting your NON-scientific lies in public.

Also I find the way you treat RM's question offensive in the extreme.

If you can't be civil, don't post here.

Amaranth

turak was right. The universe had to have had a starting point. Newton's law says that for every action, there is a reaction. The reaction was the universe being formed. The action: God speaking it into being. The universe had to have had a beginning at some point. DA, that is very unscientific of you to think what you think and turak was right. There is a God.

not if it never had a begining. there are many theories that it is a continual contraction and expansion. There is no proof that there is a god, and especially that it is only the christians god.

You are mistaken. The logic of Newton's third Law does not prove the existence of God.

But it does prove that something had to exist before the Universe exploded out in a 'big bang'.

This does not mean that what came before the Universe was finite. The concept of God is the concept of the absolute, which is the concept of the finite. It comes from closed minds. Only an open mind can conceive of infinity. A closed mind cannot.

A closed mind thinks in finite, closed, absolute terms.

An open mind thinks in open, relative, intelligent terms.

"The concept of God is the concept of the absolute, which is the concept of the finite. It comes from closed minds. Only an open mind can conceive of infinity. A closed mind cannot."

"A closed mind thinks in finite, closed, absolute terms. An open mind thinks in open, relative, intelligent terms."

This is pretty funny stuff. You could put Dave Barry out of business.

God is love. Love is blind. Therefore God is blind.

Can't be CIVIL??!!!!

The rudeness of this person just chased a very mature and intelligent poster named AIREAL out of your forum... and you don'y CARE??

You don't CARE? that this ASS called DA MORGAN, has been acting rudely and calling posters here K-9 children??!!!

You don't CARE how rude this DA Morgan is, because he has been here LONGER than others whom he is so RUDE to, that they never come back because of HIM???

Well in that case... I AM OUTA HERE!!

You can KEEP this rude person....

But you will LOSE all intelligent mature people who will not tolerate HIS rudeness.

GOODBYE.