This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

No Big Bang?

edited December 2010 in Science
Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.

Is this really true? I'm definitely not qualified to say. I can say that it scores very low on the crackpot meter when compared to say, Time Cube or Neil Adams' hollow earth.

Whether it's correct or not, I do want to say that I personally like this idea better than the big bang. I've always asked "Why does there have to be a beginning? Can't it just be infinity in both directions?" mostly because I wanted it to be infinity in both directions. I mean, just try to imagine that. The universe always having existed. Crazy shit.
«1

Comments

  • I heard about something like this on the Skeptics Guide today. Some of the stuff makes my head hurt, like the idea that time requires matter.
  • edited December 2010
    I mean, just try to imagine that. The universe always having existed. Crazy shit.
    Something always being anything kinda bothers me. It may just be the limitations of my human intellect and perceptual abilities but, to me, things have beginnings, middles and ends. Nothing is always what it is; It was something before what it is now and will eventually become something else.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • I like the Big Band better, it sounds exciting and it is great name :D
    Also it is also weird that the "constant" speed of light changes through the evolution of the universe, that would mean that in one time something could be able to approach the speed of light from a different time.

  • Whether it's correct or not, I do want to say that I personally like this idea better than the big bang. I've always asked "Why does there have to be a beginning? Can't it just be infinity in both directions?" mostly because I wanted it to be infinity in both directions. I mean, just try to imagine that. The universe always having existed. Crazy shit.
    I would agree, it's a human concept to believe everything has to begin and end..
  • Don't make arguments from personal incredulity, y'all.
  • I like the Big Band better, it sounds exciting and it is great name :D
    Also it is also weird that the "constant" speed of light changes through the evolution of the universe, that would mean that in one time something could be able to approach the speed of light from a different time.
    Problem is, as long as Special Relativity is still right (and this new hypothesis doesn't necessarily invalidate it) then that means everything else has changed also, in order to keep the speed of light constant.

    Or else something from a time where light is faster is just automatically slowed down when it is in a time where light was slower.
  • I like the Big Band better, it sounds exciting and it is great name :D
    Also it is also weird that the "constant" speed of light changes through the evolution of the universe, that would mean that in one time something could be able to approach the speed of light from a different time.
    http://bigbandtheory.com/

    A big band made from 19 scientists that work at NASA jet propulsion labs.
  • edited December 2010
    Is this really true?
    No. But it may be a nice idea nonetheless. The way I read it, Shu proposes to fix a small theoretical nuisance (conservation of energy in an expanding Universe) by exchanging one explanation of Type Ia Supernovae (Dark Energy) for another (Space-Time and Mass-Length interchangeability). In the process he throws out a lot of very solid experimental evidence like the cosmic microwave background and the constancy of physical constants.

    The fact that this is not peer reviewed, that the author doesn't seem to have any other papers published, and that it is published in the "General Physics" section of the arXiv, lead me to think that this is more of a mental exercise than actual research. If this guy were famous, there would probably be a couple of grad students somewhere being given assignments to check this out, as it stands I am very sure this will sink into obscurity unless Shu pursues it further.

    Finally, the original article for this was posted on the Technology Review arXiv Blog, which I can heartily recommend for anyone interested in Science. The arXiv holds approximately all of what is published in Physics, in addition to being a sort of high level bulletin board for ideas such as the one we are discussing here, and every week the TR blog picks the weirdest/funniest/most interesting submission and explains some of the background in a way laymen can understand.

    Edit: E.g. last week's Big Bang Parallel Universe Bubble Collision fit's the theme here.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • I've always asked "Why does there have to be a beginning? Can't it just be infinity in both directions?" mostly because I wanted it to be infinity in both directions. I mean, just try to imagine that.
    There is some weirdness when you start playing with all those infinities.

    If the universe is infinite in time then you have been here on this, or a really really close version there of, earth before and will be again.

    If the universe is infinite in space there exists another you, someplace else, right now. There also exists more yous, a word I don't think was ever meant to be pluralized, that are not quite you. One who's an Olympic swimmer, one who was born in africa, one who is a ladies man (sorry couldn't resist ^__^), All of whom exist right now on slightly different earths, or perfectly the same as, from this one.

    While I like the idea of infinite space, It leads to some weirdness that I'm not quite sure I like.

    On the other hand, a finite universe leads to weird questions like, What was "before"?, What happens at the "Edge" of space?
  • I've always asked "Why does there have to be a beginning? Can't it just be infinity in both directions?" mostly because I wanted it to be infinity in both directions. I mean, just try to imagine that.
    There is some weirdness when you start playing with all those infinities.

    If the universe is infinite in time then you have been here on this, or a really really close version there of, earth before and will be again.

    If the universe is infinite in space there exists another you, someplace else, right now. There also exists more yous, a word I don't think was ever meant to be pluralized, that are not quite you. One who's an Olympic swimmer, one who was born in africa, one who is a ladies man (sorry couldn't resist ^__^), All of whom exist right now on slightly different earths, or perfectly the same as, from this one.

    While I like the idea of infinite space, It leads to some weirdness that I'm not quite sure I like.

    On the other hand, a finite universe leads to weird questions like, What was "before"?, What happens at the "Edge" of space?
    I don't think that infinite time in both directions means that everything that can happen has happened, or will happen again. You would think, naturally, that with infinite time that all probabilities become 1. However, think about a number like pi. It goes on for infinity, but it never repeats. If time is infinite in both directions I imagine it to be like an irrational number. It keeps going forever, and is always something new, since there are infinity possible configurations of atoms, it takes infinity time to try them all out.

    As for infinity space, I don't have any issues with that idea because we already know that there is not infinite matter/energy. Even if space goes for infinity in all directions, most of it is empty. Going far away from all the matter could be like going out into the middle of the pacific ocean. Nothing to see here, just more empty space.

    Also, something related that always bothers me, maybe some smarter people can unbother me, is the fact that we can only see so far. The speed of light is constant. The furthest away things we can see are x hojillion light years away. We are seeing them as they were x hojillion years ago. If the universe was infinitely old, then that means that what we see is almost all the matter and energy that has been lit up in some way or another. If there was indeed a firm beginning point, like the big bang, then that means two things. One is that every year we should be able to see things that are one light year further away than before, since that light finally got to us from x hojillion + 1 years ago. It also means that if we fly far enough away into space faster than the speed of light, we should be able to watch the big bang.
  • edited December 2010
    If the universe is infinite in time then you have been here on this, or a really really close version there of, earth before and will be again.

    If the universe is infinite in space there exists another you, someplace else, right now.
    I think you are mixing up infinity with respect to extent, with the (almost) infinitely many different configurations that a universe can have. The simultaneous co-existence of these different configurations then being what is colloquially called the Multiverse, or parallel universes. Within these ideas it is certainly true that a very large number of almost identical copies of you exist, although they are practically impossible to prove to exist and are more the result of a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    EDIT: Scott beat me to the punch.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • edited December 2010
    One is that every year we should be able to see things that are one light year further away than before, since that light finally got to us from x hojillion + 1 years ago. It also means that if we fly far enough away into space faster than the speed of light, we should be able to watch the big bang.
    On count one you are correct, every year we see one year further. The place we are looking at, however, is not at that distance anymore due to the expansion of space. Instead it is some three times further away, so while we see light that has travelled some 14 billion light years, the place it originally left is now some 46 billion light years away.

    Now to answer your second question, imagine that you could instantly travel to that point. Just open a door here on Earth and arrive on a suitable planet somewhere 46 billion light years away. There is no big bang there! That place is just as old as this particular spot in the universe is. In fact you could travel 400 billion light years and it'd be the same (probably, the real size of the universe is debatable).
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • If there was indeed a firm beginning point, like the big bang, then that means two things. One is that every year we should be able to see things that are one light year further away than before, since that light finally got to us from x hojillion + 1 years ago. It also means that if we fly far enough away into space faster than the speed of light, we should be able to watch the big bang.
    This is basically what the cosmic microwave background radiation is. The farther away you look, the farther back in time you're looking, and eventually all you see is the "fireball" of the big bang.
  • Now to answer your second question, imagine that you could instantly travel to that point. Just open a door here on Earth and arrive on a suitable planet somewhere 46 billion light years away. There is no big bang there! That place is just as old as this particular spot in the universe is. In fact you could travel 400 billion light years and it'd be the same (probably, the real size of the universe is debatable).
    Wait, what? If the universe started with a big bang, and is expanding, then there is some spot in the universe that must be the center of that expansion. Sort of like the North Pole of the universe, all directions are South. If the big bang was x years ago, and I go to a spot that is x light years + 1 light minute away from that spot, and look at the spot, I should be able to wait one minute and then watch the big bang.
  • I don't think that infinite time in both directions means that everything that can happen has happened, or will happen again. You would think, naturally, that with infinite time that all probabilities become 1. However, think about a number like pi. It goes on for infinity, but it never repeats. If time is infinite in both directions I imagine it to be like an irrational number. It keeps going forever, and is always something new, since there are infinity possible configurations of atoms, it takes infinity time to try them all out.
    We don't know if pi repeats or not, only that it has not repeated yet. Unless you know of a proof that shows that it will never repeat? My math knowledge is not so great.
    As for infinity space, I don't have any issues with that idea because we already know that there is not infinite matter/energy. Even if space goes for infinity in all directions, most of it is empty. Going far away from all the matter could be like going out into the middle of the pacific ocean. Nothing to see here, just more empty space.
    We can't know that if space is infinite in all directions that it is mostly empty. We can only see so far away. If there is space beyond that it could have mass and we really wouldn't know it, nor could we infer that there is, or isn't, anything there.
    Also, something related that always bothers me, maybe some smarter people can unbother me, is the fact that we can only see so far. The speed of light is constant. The furthest away things we can see are x hojillion light years away. We are seeing them as they were x hojillion years ago. If the universe was infinitely old, then that means that what we see is almost all the matter and energy that has been lit up in some way or another. If there was indeed a firm beginning point, like the big bang, then that means two things. One is that every year we should be able to see things that are one light year further away than before, since that light finally got to us from x hojillion + 1 years ago. It also means that if we fly far enough away into space faster than the speed of light, we should be able to watch the big bang.
    Space is still expanding, so while yes light from 13.(i forget what decimal point they have it to now) billion + 1 years ago will be just reaching us, we too are moving away from that light at the rate at which space itself is expanding.

    As for watching the big bang, IF i'm getting the theory right, its been a long time since I were in college, every point in the universe is still 13.whatever billion years away from the big bang. There was no one point from which the big bang happened, it supposedly happened everywhere at once. We really can't model what would happen if you go faster than the speed of light, mostly because current theory states that local time stops/doesn't exist if you are going at the speed of light and your mass goes towards infinity.

    my brain hurts ><

    As to the multiverse, I mean that these places would have to be in the same space, as it were, but beyond what we can see. It does require that with space, matter and energy are infinite as well. None of those things I am comfortable with.
  • I go to a spot that is x light years + 1 light minute away from that spot, and look at the spot, I should be able to wait one minute and then watch the big bang.
    This spot may not physically exist. It would be over the edge of reality. You could wait for the radiation to "echo" off of something and measure that.

    Time is insubstantial and thus infinite. Matter has substance and is thus finite.
  • This spot may not physically exist. It would be over the edge of reality. You could wait for the radiation to "echo" off of something and measure that.
    Ok, so if the universe expands at the speed of light, that's ok. I can still go to the very edge of the universe, where brand new space is coming into existence. Then I should be able to turn around and see the big bang as it was after 1 second of time has passed.
  • Ok, so if the universe expands at the speed of light, that's ok. I can still go to the very edge of the universe, where brand new space is coming into existence. Then I should be able to turn around and see the big bang as it was after 1 second of time has passed.
    I don't think the space is coming into existence at that edge, I believe it's coming into existence everywhere. Everything is moving away from everything else.

    As for getting close enough to see the big bang 1 second after it happened, I am unsure if this is even possible, mostly because we haven't found a way to go back into time, but even more so because we don't know that there was anything to see! The name evokes an explosion but really it could have been nothing but blackness until the first stars started to light up.
  • I'm not sure why the idea of no big bang is that much different than a ball of stuff sitting there and then suddenly exploding. Time seems pretty infinite is either case.
  • I'm not sure why the idea of no big bang is that much different than a ball of stuff sitting there and then suddenly exploding. Time seems pretty infinite is either case.
    If there was a big bang, then there was no time before the big bang. It was the beginning of time. If there wasn't, then you can go backwards in time in your time machine forever, and always see something new.
  • Being 1 minute away from the big bang as it happens seems like a pretty awesome way to die.
  • then there was no time before the big bang.
    I prefer the idea that universe in continually in a cycle of expanding and contracting. The Big Bang wasn't the start of time so much as the beginning of this interval of existence. The Big Bang we're seeing isn't the first and won't be the last.
  • Now to answer your second question, imagine that you could instantly travel to that point. Just open a door here on Earth and arrive on a suitable planet somewhere 46 billion light years away. There is no big bang there! That place is just as old as this particular spot in the universe is. In fact you could travel 400 billion light years and it'd be the same (probably, the real size of the universe is debatable).
    Wait, what? If the universe started with a big bang, and is expanding, then there is some spot in the universe that must be the center of that expansion. Sort of like the North Pole of the universe, all directions are South. If the big bang was x years ago, and I go to a spot that is x light years + 1 light minute away from that spot, and look at the spot, I should be able to wait one minute and then watch the big bang.
    scott, think of it this way. We're flatlanders living on a beachball. Someone's slowly inflating that beachball. Where's the center of inflation? Nowhere on the surface of the ball, that's for sure. From what I've been lead to beleve, that's our univese, just with more dimensions. There is a "center", but not anywhere we can percive.
  • scott, think of it this way. We're flatlanders living on a beachball. Someone's slowly inflating that beachball. Where's the center of inflation? Nowhere on the surface of the ball, that's for sure. From what I've been lead to beleve, that's our univese, just with more dimensions. There is a "center", but not anywhere we can percive.
    As the Beastie Boys put it "Another dimension, another dimension, another dimension, another dimension..."
  • Being 1 minute away from the big bang as it happens seems like a pretty awesome way to die.
    Totally want to use this in a science-fiction story at some point.
  • Now to answer your second question, imagine that you could instantly travel to that point. Just open a door here on Earth and arrive on a suitable planet somewhere 46 billion light years away. There is no big bang there! That place is just as old as this particular spot in the universe is. In fact you could travel 400 billion light years and it'd be the same (probably, the real size of the universe is debatable).
    Wait, what? If the universe started with a big bang, and is expanding, then there is some spot in the universe that must be the center of that expansion. Sort of like the North Pole of the universe, all directions are South. If the big bang was x years ago, and I go to a spot that is x light years + 1 light minute away from that spot, and look at the spot, I should be able to wait one minute and then watch the big bang.
    scott, think of it this way. We're flatlanders living on a beachball. Someone's slowly inflating that beachball. Where's the center of inflation? Nowhere on the surface of the ball, that's for sure. From what I've been lead to beleve, that's our univese, just with more dimensions. There is a "center", but not anywhere we can percive.
    Neito's got it right. The surface of the beach ball represents an "equal time slice" of the Universe. The finite speed of light means that you can not actually see anyone standing next to you on that surface but you can extend the analogy by imagining a second beach ball inside the one you're standing on. If that second surface is one second down you can see everything within a circle with radius one (light)second. But if you look at where a point at the edge of that circle is on your surface (the "now" surface), you'll find that it is more than one (light)second away.

    Going further this analogy breaks down pretty quickly because a sphere is the wrong shape, and, as Neito pointed out, there are more imensions involved.
  • Cue plug for this months Geeknights Book Club Book, Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace".
  • Going further this analogy breaks down pretty quickly because a sphere is the wrong shape, and, as Neito pointed out, there are more dimensions involved.
    Yeah. I stole the analogy from someone I can't remember (it was one of Michio Kaku, Phil Plait, or Carl Sagan).
  • We talking about the boy band, right?
  • RymRym
    edited December 2010
    We talking about the boy band, right?
    Michio's the serious one. Phil is the cute one. Carl is the dreamy one.
    Post edited by Rym on
Sign In or Register to comment.