Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Blame on 09/12/2016 21:49:19
-
My New improved theory of how it all started:
About 14 billion years ago the universe started and there was a bang. The rest, well, don't know. The bang was part of everything that happened in the year dot but what is cause and what is effect is up for grabs.
Big bang Theory VS New improved version:
1) The big bang created the universe's matter VS don't know.
CERN banged an awful lot of particles together and there is one clear result. They had no trouble converting energy into matter but always exactly as much matter as anti-matter. What we have is matter without the anti-matter. So what's the odds - a theory that the evidence denies or something else even if we don't know what?
Now I am not going to pretend that I have the true answer here but to show that another can be made, how about this? Perhaps we got it the wrong way round. I'm thinking that maybe the universe started sort of charged with whatever it is that matter has and anti-matter has the opposite. That would force matter to crystallize out with release of however much energy the big bang needed. Maybe it dropped out in the simplest form of neutrons, decayed to protons plus electrons and then, if the smaller universe was a tight enough fit, some fused to helium. That would warm things up.
Would that produce enough heat to explain the CMB? Well there ain't much energy left in it now. It depends on how much the universe has cooled since the energy was released. So how much cooling? Well, easy enough to just fudge the model to fit.
2) The big bang caused the universe to expand VS don't know.
The big bang doesn't explain the Hubble red shift. It can only explain part of it. That's why dark energy has to be added to explain the rest. And what is dark energy? - it's a very clear don't know. So why not just a don't know doing it all rather than a don't know plus a bang? I know what Occam would say.
Let's be clear on something. That a bang moves the contents of the universe around is obvious but that isn't the big bang theory. The theory requires the universe itself to be moved by an explosion of it's contents. Not self-evident. No problem creating a model of the universe where it won't.
-
I'll answer this from a layman's perspective.
If you know the relevant laws and formulas, you can predict future events based on what you observe now. You can also use that to predict the history of events based on what exists now, and you can observe records of the past to see if your history-predictions are correct.
That's how we arrived at the big "bang" theory. We basically played out time in reverse, and saw that (going backward through time) the universe was collapsing (corresponding to the universe expanding going forward through time).
But the further back in time you go, the less certain we are about what happened, because there are fewer and fewer observable records of those earliest times. What we know for certain is that approximately 13.7 billion years ago, during what is called the "Recombination Epoch" the universe was really small, dense, hot, and expanding. The "bang" portion of the name doesn't necessarily imply that there was an actual explosion.
There are lots of big bang theories that predict what happened before the Recombination Epoch, but I don't think we have many direct observations of those. We do have the experiments in particle accelerators, though, which re-create the same conditions.
About 14 billion years ago the universe started and there was a bang. The rest, well, don't know. The bang was part of everything that happened in the year dot but what is cause and what is effect is up for grabs.
Actually, we know exactly what the effect was. The effect was us, and everything we see today, and all of our history from then until now.
In fact, the "bang" portion of the big bang theory (the moment of near-singularity of the universe) is the least solid part of the theory. Despite it's name, the "bang" isn't really what the big bang theory is about.
CERN banged an awful lot of particles together and there is one clear result. They had no trouble converting energy into matter but always exactly as much matter as anti-matter. What we have is matter without the anti-matter.
That is an open-ended question. There are some theories about why we had more matter than anti-matter. But that really only casts doubt on our understanding of the Hadron Epoch and Lepton Epoch. It doesn't make any later part of the theory (such as the Recombination Epoch) less likely.
The big bang doesn't explain the Hubble red shift. It can only explain part of it. That's why dark energy has to be added to explain the rest. And what is dark energy? - it's a very clear don't know. So why not just a don't know doing it all rather than a don't know plus a bang? I know what Occam would say.
It's true, there are a lot of unknowns. But it sounds like you're saying we should replace a theory with nothing. While that would result in fewer assumptions, that is useless, and Occam's razor is a guide for developing theories.
-
My New improved theory of how it all started:..
This is the wrong forum for personal/"New" theories. There's a special forum here for that.
-
My New improved theory of how it all started:..
This is the wrong forum for personal/"New" theories. There's a special forum here for that.
The "New theory" was tongue in cheek. What I am really doing is questioning whether an old one still fits the evidence.
-
1) The big bang created the universe's matter VS don't know.
CERN banged an awful lot of particles together and there is one clear result. They had no trouble converting energy into matter but always exactly as much matter as anti-matter. What we have is matter without the anti-matter. So what's the odds - a theory that the evidence denies or something else even if we don't know what?
First off, it's incorrect to say that energy is converted to matter. The correct way to say it is that the form of matter changes. The total energy in any reaction is always the same. Second, why are you referring to anti-matter? Whether anti-matter is created in a reaction in a particle accelerator will depend on the particular reactions. Not all reactions produce anti-matter. Third, the Big Bang didn't create matter. Matter was created at the moment of the Big Bang. There's a difference.
The amount of energy present at the moment of the Big Bang and ever since then could quite possibly be zero. The amount of energy in the universe after the Big Bang is a function of both the energy associated with matter, which is positive, and the energy associated with gravity, which is negative, the sum being zero for all time.
2) The big bang caused the universe to expand VS don't know.
Modern theory holds that the Big Bang didn't cause the universe to expand. It holds that the universe expanded at the time of the Big Bang. In fact the term "Big Bang" is the name given to the expansion of the universe at the beginning of time.
The big bang doesn't explain the Hubble red shift. It can only explain part of it.
That's not true at all.
That's why dark energy has to be added to explain the rest.
That's incorrect. The presence of dark energy has been postulated to describe the rate of the expansion, not the actual fact of the expansion itself.
-
"The Big Bang/Bit Bang - a supermassive white hole: explosion of energy & information - 13.8 billion years ago was the result of a supermassive black hole in another universe. Our Universe & that SBH share the same event horizon. That SBH & SWH formed an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole). This duality combines these two singularities in a birth-life-death-transformation cycle in The Conglomerate of universes (similar to multiverse). This 'simple' cause-and-effect explains both infinite space and eternity. Self-replication is the simplest plan for everything from a cell to a universe to a mind." - part of Seal #1 (of 7)
-
At the speed of light, space-time becomes discontinuous. At the speed of light, the fabric of space-time separates into separated threads of space and separate threads of time. This allows movement in space unhindered by time and movement in time unhindered by space. At a speed of light reference, the material universe will appear contract to a point-instant. This allows one to be anywhere and everywhere in space, simultaneously, since the universe appears overlapped as a point-instant.
If you could more in space, without time, you can anywhere in the universe in zero time. This is called omnipresence. If you can move in time, without the restriction of space, you can know the history of the universe at any time. This is called omniscience. To form the primordial atom for the BB, all we need to do is link some of the independent space and time threads, to begin forming the fabric of space-time. Omnipresence (space) become limited by omniscience (time) and omniscience (time) becomes limited by omnipresence (space).
When time and space are separated, since you be anywhere in space at any time or anywhere in time, in the same space, entropy is maximized. All things are possible, simultaneously. When we connect some threads of time and space, to make space-time, entropy has to lower, since restrictions are placed on omniscience and omnipresence. The lowering of entropy, due to the formation of space-time, provided the energy, for the primordial atom of the BB.
If you look at the forces of nature, they all create accelerations. An acceleration is d/t/t or is one part distance and two parts time. This is equal to space-time, plus extra time threads embroidered into space-time. For example, the universe is integrated by gravity over great distances, even though gravity is limited by the speed of light. This is possible because of the extra time threads. Universe moving forward in time, connected by gravity, is not limited by the speed of light in space; omnipresent field.
Forces can also generate pressure, such as gravitational pressure. Pressure is force/area. If we write pressure in terms of accelerate d/t/t/d/d. The result will be just d or distance threads. These can also embroidered into space-time. Pressure integrates a zone so it all has the same history; works as a unit. We don't have just space-time, but we also have space*-time*. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is impacted by space*-time*, since the integrating factor does not necessarily equate to a specific instant of space-time. Dark energy is has a connection to space*-time* and is connected to impact of threads of space and time. While the second law heads the universe back to C.