The Big Bang never happened

[Q]

A thought provoking documentary. Have fun watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deMPlC1rc7U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf49V9QYU-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILIRSsGyXKM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0KBzipGK4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_8webbsiB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6XAacQuRs

[jake williams]

Could you summarize?

[Q]

Could you summarize?
Can't you just watch?

One of the points made in the documentary is that red shift, an important instrument for astrophysicists to determine how far a stellar object is located from us, is not reliable. It shows quite a few anomalies of stellar objects which show a far higher red shift than should be expected. This then is an indication that the universe might not actually be expanding at all, in which case there never was a Big Bang either.

[vyborg]

Well Q are you sure you had the permission to defend this idea? It was also defended by Alan Woods so it must be very bad!!
Seriously speaking: the theory of big bang implies creation of matters and energy ex nihilo. That's why the Pope and catholic scientists are so keen on it...

Anyway, the book about Lerner on the topic is good. Unfortunately they made a mess translating it in italian...

[Q]

Well Q are you sure you had the permission to defend this idea? It was also defended by Alan Woods so it must be very bad!!
Uh?

Seriously speaking: the theory of big bang implies creation of matters and energy ex nihilo. That's why the Pope and catholic scientists are so keen on it...
Not necessarily. M theory puts forward the possibility that the universe is only part of the vastly larger multiverse, which consists of an 11-dimension plane. In this plane there are many universes (= membranes) which can collide to eachother, events which release a lot of energy. One such collision might have triggered what we know as the Big Bang, creating our universe.

That's how I understand it anyway.


Anyway, the book about Lerner on the topic is good. Unfortunately they made a mess translating it in italian...
Could you summarize the main points or link to a relevant article on it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here's the associated website:

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

and several books:

Lerner, E. (1992), The Big Bang Never Happened (Simon & Schuster).

Mitchell, W. (1995), The Cult Of The Big Bang (Cosmic Sense Books).

--------, (2002), Bye Bye Big Bang. Hello Reality (Cosmic Sense Books).

I'm not saying they are right, but anyone interested in science should keep an open mind, or admit that current theory is a dogma.

[vyborg]

Not necessarily. M theory puts forward the possibility that the universe is only part of the vastly larger multiverse, which consists of an 11-dimension plane. In this plane there are many universes (= membranes) which can collide to eachother, events which release a lot of energy. One such collision might have triggered what we know as the Big Bang, creating our universe.

That's how I understand it anyway.

Yes, this or another way to put it is materialistic. to think that you had something (a universe) that was not there before (before the big bang) is simply incompatible with science

[spiltteeth]

Yes, this or another way to put it is materialistic. to think that you had something (a universe) that was not there before (before the big bang) is simply incompatible with science

It's not incompatible with science, its simply inexplicable by science.

It is incompatible with materialism/naturalism, which is a metaphysical position that says non-material things do not exist.

Of course, like all science, even evolution, the Big Bang could be proven false, or a better explanation may come up.
All the evidence of the past 70 yrs keeps strengthening it so as far as we can tell I think its unlikely but who knows.

Incidentally, the multiverse also requires a singularity, so, even if true, it doesn't solve the whole problem of something coming out of nothing...

Plus it requires the existence of non-material abstract objects, which also goes against materialism/naturalism.

[vyborg]

WHat does it mean non materal thing? Is recession "material", is hanger "material", is class consiousness ",material". So for marxists they do not exists? This is not materialism, this is sensism for dummies

[spiltteeth]

WHat does it mean non materal thing? Is recession "material", is hanger "material", is class consiousness ",material". So for marxists they do not exists? This is not materialism, this is sensism for dummies

"Hunger" etc are not objects.

[Outinleftfield]

What does it mean for something to be "material"? What criteria would have to be met for something to not be considered material?

And if the universe did have a beginning then what ever was there before how would that not be part of the universe when the universe is all there is? Even if it was completely different in composition from the matter and energy we have now I think a good case could be made that it would still be material. Some strange type of matter that doesn't have anything in common with today's matter, but still matter.

Here's a thought what if the "universe"(what we think of as the universe) is an explosion and what if the answer to the creation of the "universe"(or rather our small section of it) is sitting right under our nose. What if we looked at an explosion slowed down to milliseconds and saw little microscopic sparks in the explosion with pieces of debris orbitting them and seeing sparks if examined closely and slowly enough formed patterns looking like galaxies? Then that would mean that our section of the universe is actually part of a much larger world and we're living in a small explosion and in the larger world time goes by much quicker for its inhabitants.

All we'd have to do is examine an explosion very slowly. Could be filmed zoomed up to see a microscopic level and then with frames to view the process at the shortest time intervals possible. If it winds up looking like our "universe" then we've found out where the universe(or more literally our section of the universe) came from.

[Meridian]

"Hunger" etc are not objects.
"Hunger" is a word. You can call words 'objects', though what form depends on the context and way it is uttered. It is certainly never anything non-material about it.

'Hunger', on the other hand, can refer to the state of being hungry, or it can refer to the state of a large group of people being in desperate need of food. But even this is not adequate, it has many different meanings depending on context.

[spiltteeth]

A material object is an object made out of material - ie something that extends into space.

I'm not talking about the word "hunger" but the experience of being hungry.

As Rorty, Searle, and other hard materialists point out, if your a materialist you believe the mind is identical to the brain, and the experience of being hungry is indeed a material - a bunch a neurons firing etc, and if we could locate these patterns of neurons we would see the experience of being hungry (or being in pain or any other subjective phenomena) but since we will never cut open the brain and see sensations etc, then the experience of being hungry or in pain doesn't and can't exist.

I've actually felt pain and hunger so I conclude the mind is immaterial - does not extend into space.
Martialism as a metaphysical position is absurd in my "mind," although I am a Marxist historical materialist.
Thats all for another thread on materialism tho...

Anywho, as to the subject, what I meant when I said that Valenkin's Multiverse theory requires nonmaterial abstract objects to exist, is simply that Vilenkin draws the inference that
"The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe"
Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything, so I personally think this explanation is impotent indeed.

(Although intriguingly, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe, the closest Vilenkin comes to theism)

[pranabjyoti]

The big bang may not be lie at all, because the background radiation, whose existence had already proved well. But, it may be possible that the rate at which the universe is thought to be expanding and the theory of "steadily increasing rate of expansion" may be wrong. It may be possible that the galaxies and clusters, which we thought to far away is also going away from us, isn't that much far away and may be they aren't going away from us.
It may be possible that from this conclusions, the old theory of big crunch may rise, by which the rate of expansion is slowing down gradually and some time in future, the big crunch may start and the whole universe will again end up in a singularity ready for another big bang.

[sanpal]

What about "pulsatory Universe"? i.e. alternation of phases of compression - expansion without any 'big bang'? In my opinion it quite corresponds with materialist view.
Now it could be the phase of expansion.

[Devrim]

Can't you just watch?

I can't I live in a country where 'youtube' is banned. Can you link to an article explaining it, please?

Devrim

[Q]

I can't I live in a country where 'youtube' is banned. Can you link to an article explaining it, please?

Devrim

As I understand it, this site carries the relevant points of the documentary (http://bigbangneverhappened.org/).

[spiltteeth]

The big bang may not be lie at all, because the background radiation, whose existence had already proved well. But, it may be possible that the rate at which the universe is thought to be expanding and the theory of "steadily increasing rate of expansion" may be wrong. It may be possible that the galaxies and clusters, which we thought to far away is also going away from us, isn't that much far away and may be they aren't going away from us.
It may be possible that from this conclusions, the old theory of big crunch may rise, by which the rate of expansion is slowing down gradually and some time in future, the big crunch may start and the whole universe will again end up in a singularity ready for another big bang.

There's not enough matter in the universe to close the universe and make the expansion recontract.
The evidence stubbornly continues to indicate that the universe would have to be ten times denser than what it is in order for the expansion to stop and the universe to recontract. So the model is just observationally untenable.

Also, there are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion.

BUT, even if it were true, since entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle, the thermodynamic properties of an Oscillating Model imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid, so you still have an initial beginning.

[sanpal]

There's not enough matter in the universe to close the universe and make the expansion recontract.
The evidence stubbornly continues to indicate that the universe would have to be ten times denser than what it is in order for the expansion to stop and the universe to recontract. So the model is just observationally untenable.

There is not enough matter till the dark matter will be discovered, the science goes ahead.


Also, there are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion. Effect of spring with two loads? Why not?


BUT, even if it were true, since entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle, the thermodynamic properties of an Oscillating Model imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid, so you still have an initial beginning.If entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle so there will be no effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle. Otherwise entropy must increase from cycle to cycle.

If the Universe is a closed system without any exchange of energy outside so it is 'a perpetual motion machine'.

[mikelepore]

Also, there are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion.

Conservation of momentum. If the initial condition is to have any two momentum vectors to the right and to the left, collapsing to a point, a solution in that axis would be a final condition with new momentum vectors to the right and the left, now expanding. Even if all the mass in the universe is transformed into energy for an instant, the total can be conserved because a photon has momentum.

[spiltteeth]

Conservation of momentum. If the initial condition is to have any two momentum vectors to the right and to the left, collapsing to a point, a solution in that axis would be a final condition with new momentum vectors to the right and the left, now expanding. Even if all the mass in the universe is transformed into energy for an instant, the total can be conserved because a photon has momentum.

But the termini of a closed universe must be singularities and no space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity.

Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems
"led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

Beatrice Tinsley described such a scenario:


If the average density of matter in the universe is great enough, the mutual gravitational attraction between bodies will eventually slow the expansion to a halt. The universe will then contract and collapse into a hot fireball. There is no known physical mechanism that could reverse a catastrophic big crunch. Apparently, if the universe becomes dense enough, it is in for a hot death.

In time,
"All the black holes finally coalesce into one large black hole that is coextensive with the universe," from which the universe will never re‑emerge.
- Duane Dicus

There is no known physics that would permit the universe to bounce back to a new expansion prior to a final singularity or to pass through the singularity into a subsequent state.

It's really only a moot point anyway, and I'm really not interested in theory, I want to know what ACTUALLY happened, not what might be possible etc, - of theoretical interest only since it still requires a beginning having a finite past even IF there were enough mass in the universe for it to contract (which apparently there isn't)


"The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle. . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor then [sic] the cycle that followed it."

Zeldovich and Novikov therefore conclude,
"The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past."

In fact, astronomer Joseph Silk estimates on the basis of current entropy levels that the universe cannot have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations.

I'll rest my case on the facts (i) there is no known physics which could cause the universe to oscillate, (ii) the density of the universe appears to be far below the critical level needed to bring about re-contraction, and (iii) the thermodynamic properties of oscillating models reveal that while they have an infinite future, they possess only a finite past.

[sanpal]

I'll rest my case on the facts (i) there is no known physics which could cause the universe to oscillate, (ii) the density of the universe appears to be far below the critical level needed to bring about re-contraction, and (iii) the thermodynamic properties of oscillating models reveal that while they have an infinite future, they possess only a finite past.

To rest on facts is more reasonable position for you, me or someone else. The question is how these facts are interpreted. I have a doubt concerning role of entropy in the quotes you gave in your post, may be some later I'll back.

[vyborg]

So the time didnt existed before the big bang...and how it was creted? coming from where? The genesis is a lot more reliable vis a vis this crap..and a lot more interesting...

[anticap]

If by "universe" we mean "all that there is" (and that's what I mean by it), then the idea of "multiple universes" is nonsense. And if we call them "the multiverse," then we've arrived back at "universe."

[Q]

So the time didnt existed before the big bang...and how it was creted? coming from where? The genesis is a lot more reliable vis a vis this crap..and a lot more interesting...
The universe is a four-dimensional time-space continuum. When the Big bang theory is correct and the universe began at this point, it makes no sense to talk about "time" before it. This is indeed unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view because it doesn't answer where the Big Bang itself comes from. The multiverse explanation gives a possible answer.


If by "universe" we mean "all that there is" (and that's what I mean by it), then the idea of "multiple universes" is nonsense. And if we call them "the multiverse," then we've arrived back at "universe."

By universe we don't mean "all there is", but mean our time-space framework we live in. If outside our universe there exist other universes, with their own laws of physics, etc, then it makes no sense to talk about them being part of our "universe", it would be very confusing. So the term multiverse is better.

[Tower of Bebel]

That's why the Pope and catholic scientists are so keen on it...One of the first to confirm the theory of big bang was an amateur scientist. A Belgian catholic, conservative priest.

[Coggeh]

It's not incompatible with science, its simply inexplicable by science.

It is incompatible with materialism/naturalism, which is a metaphysical position that says non-material things do not exist.

Of course, like all science, even evolution, the Big Bang could be proven false, or a better explanation may come up.
All the evidence of the past 70 yrs keeps strengthening it so as far as we can tell I think its unlikely but who knows.

Incidentally, the multiverse also requires a singularity, so, even if true, it doesn't solve the whole problem of something coming out of nothing...

Plus it requires the existence of non-material abstract objects, which also goes against materialism/naturalism.
It does not. Quite simply the big bang could have been the result of a big crunch is a past universe .

[Coggeh]

Uh?

Not necessarily. M theory puts forward the possibility that the universe is only part of the vastly larger multiverse, which consists of an 11-dimension plane. In this plane there are many universes (= membranes) which can collide to eachother, events which release a lot of energy. One such collision might have triggered what we know as the Big Bang, creating our universe.

That's how I understand it anyway.


Could you summarize the main points or link to a relevant article on it?
The existence of the multiverse doesn't prove the big bang theory wrong.
And also its already widely concluded that the universe has not existed forever their was a point of "creation" i.e. The steady state theory has been blankly thrown out apart from some scientists who won't accept their theory was wrong and the IMT.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3038527161142211875&ei=W52rS7S7H9iT-AaCnLjdBg&q=big+bang+horizon&view=3#
History of the big bang debate.

[spiltteeth]

It does not. Quite simply the big bang could have been the result of a big crunch is a past universe .

I guess you didn't read any of my posts. Velenkin's multi-verese theory DOES require the existence of abstract objexts AS I'VE already said :

Vilenkin draws the inference that


"The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe"
Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything, so I personally think this explanation is impotent indeed.

(Although intriguingly, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe, the closest Vilenkin comes to theism)

And I'll repeat myself again about the big crunch -

the termini of a closed universe must be singularities and no space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity.

Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems
:

"led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

Beatrice Tinsley described such a scenario:


If the average density of matter in the universe is great enough, the mutual gravitational attraction between bodies will eventually slow the expansion to a halt. The universe will then contract and collapse into a hot fireball. There is no known physical mechanism that could reverse a catastrophic big crunch. Apparently, if the universe becomes dense enough, it is in for a hot death.

In time,

"All the black holes finally coalesce into one large black hole that is coextensive with the universe,"
from which the universe will never re‑emerge.
- Duane Dicus

There is no known physics that would permit the universe to bounce back to a new expansion prior to a final singularity or to pass through the singularity into a subsequent state.

It's really only a moot point anyway, and I'm really not interested in theory, I want to know what ACTUALLY happened, not what might be possible etc, - of theoretical interest only since it still requires a beginning having a finite past even IF there were enough mass in the universe for it to contract (which apparently there isn't)

Quote:

"The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle. . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor then [sic] the cycle that followed it."
Zeldovich and Novikov therefore conclude,
Quote:

"The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past."
In fact, astronomer Joseph Silk estimates on the basis of current entropy levels that the universe cannot have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations.

I'll rest my case on the facts (i) there is no known physics which could cause the universe to oscillate, (ii) the density of the universe appears to be far below the critical level needed to bring about re-contraction, and (iii) the thermodynamic properties of oscillating models reveal that while they have an infinite future, they possess only a finite past.

[Wolf Larson]

I posted this on another forum and was called a conspiracy theorist, a christian fundamentalist and a quack. It [the video] is about plasma cosmology. Google plasma cosmology. I wasn't even preaching or advocating plasma cosmology either I posted it saying if this was true it would destroy everything we think we know about the universe [which is why so many cosmologists are aggressively opposing this]. Our so called intellectual arena is in fact ridged and dogmatic partly because all of the various fields are separate. I think we should combine all of the sciences into one. I'm not so sure myself dark matter and dark energy even exist - black holes seem more likely but dark matter and dark energy are less likely even though they have circumstantial evidence for dark matter/energy/black holes. You need to understand how and why dark matter/dark energy were formulated to understand why they might be iffy [they're purely theoretical but necessary in order for the big bang to be true]. The thing about black holes is cosmologists [theorists/mathematicians] inability to explain the "singularity" and the impossibility of infinite gravity in a invisible point where matter vanishes. Their excuse for matter not vanishing was that is it on the event horizon the same way a projector would project an image and they have even said perhaps the matter doesn't disappear but goes into a different dimension [if matter can disappear then the theory of relativity is bunk so it's blasphemous to say matter disappears]. String theory just as much of modern [theoretic] cosmology only exists in the heads of mathematicians albeit very interesting. I like the M theory stuff [theory of everything]. Hubble and other different spectrum space telescopes have given them much physical information but when the images are handed to theorists sometimes, I think it's possible, beautiful math doesn't necessarily equate to objective physical reality.

In order for the big bang to be true cosmologists/mathematicians have had to come up with black holes, dark matter, dark energy and now different dimensions NONE of which can be shown to exist with [I] DIRECT physical evidence. They say the effects of black holes, dark matter dark energy and the higgs boson are visible bit not the actual substance or objects. This is why LHC is so important but it's been up and running with no major announcements. LHC may prove the big bang to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt or nullify it. If they fail to get the results they want how likely is it the non results will be omitted? Right now I'm at a ratio of 90:10 in favor of the big bang being the right path. Who knows if 200 years from now the big bang will be the dominant theory. I think we might be a little over confidant thinking we have the universe figured out in little over 100 years since the science/technology revolution. I can agree with some of the plasma cosmologists points but cant find myself to subscribing to plasma cosmology.

[Meridian]

Am I correct in believing that big bang theoreticians claim gravity is a magnetic force without an electric component, but the idea of plasma cosmologists is that it has an electric component (thus making it electro-magnetic, ie. plasma)?

Can't say I am very well read in astrophysics, alas.

[Q]

The existence of the multiverse doesn't prove the big bang theory wrong.
I didn't say that. I'm not scientifically informed enough to take an explicit anti-Big Bang position.


And also its already widely concluded that the universe has not existed forever their was a point of "creation" i.e. The steady state theory has been blankly thrown out apart from some scientists who won't accept their theory was wrong and the IMT.
Emphasis added.

I wasn't aware you're that well versed in cosmology to make such statements (you're not alone though, many people inhere simply parrot some of what they think entails cosmology consensus, it is pretty laughable really). Anyway, in the OP I posted some video's which puts forward some evidence that refute the whole notion that the universe is expanding, at which point the idea of a Big Bang doesn't make sense either. I don't know if they are right, but they do present their case solidly I think.


Am I correct in believing that big bang theoreticians claim gravity is a magnetic force without an electric component, but the idea of plasma cosmologists is that it has an electric component (thus making it electro-magnetic, ie. plasma)?

Can't say I am very well read in astrophysics, alas.
I'm not sure how you got this idea but magnetism and gravity are two very different forces, together with the weak and strong nuclear forces they form part of the four fundamental forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction). Cosmologists believe that at the time of the Big bang these forces were unified but soon collapsed in four different ones. Maybe you're confused on that point.

[Meridian]

I'm not sure how you got this idea but magnetism and gravity are two very different forces, together with the weak and strong nuclear forces they form part of the four fundamental forces (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction). Cosmologists believe that at the time of the Big bang these forces were unified but soon collapsed in four different ones. Maybe you're confused on that point.
Okay. I got the idea from the plasma cosmology website. I have a very limited understanding of physics. Though this documentary got me interested. :)

[Coggeh]

I wasn't aware you're that well versed in cosmology to make such statements (you're not alone though, many people inhere simply parrot some of what they think entails cosmology consensus, it is pretty laughable really). Anyway, in the OP I posted some video's which puts forward some evidence that refute the whole notion that the universe is expanding, at which point the idea of a Big Bang doesn't make sense either. I don't know if they are right, but they do present their case solidly I think.

Under the steady state theory they believe the universe is expanding too with new matter being created constantly. Showing that the universe isn't expanding isn't what really seperates the two theories but the fact of background cosmic radiation which when discovered in 1965 was predicted under the big bang model and resulted in most of the scientific community backing the big bang model.

Sorry for sounding up myself or w/e i can't make any conclusive arguments on the big bang etc but just throwing my hat into the mix really :thumbup1:

[pranabjyoti]

Actually the density of the universe is determined from distance of galaxies and clusters. But that theory, from where this thread started, says that the galaxies and clusters are not that far away and possible they aren't moving away from us with that speed that we have thought, so the "density of matter in our universe" is a matter of debate now and how we can draw any conclusion from that data.

[spiltteeth]

I posted this on another forum and was called a conspiracy theorist, a christian fundamentalist and a quack. It [the video] is about plasma cosmology. Google plasma cosmology. I wasn't even preaching or advocating plasma cosmology either I posted it saying if this was true it would destroy everything we think we know about the universe [which is why so many cosmologists are aggressively opposing this]. Our so called intellectual arena is in fact ridged and dogmatic partly because all of the various fields are separate. I think we should combine all of the sciences into one. I'm not so sure myself dark matter and dark energy even exist - black holes seem more likely but dark matter and dark energy are less likely even though they have circumstantial evidence for dark matter/energy/black holes. You need to understand how and why dark matter/dark energy were formulated to understand why they might be iffy [they're purely theoretical but necessary in order for the big bang to be true]. The thing about black holes is cosmologists [theorists/mathematicians] inability to explain the "singularity" and the impossibility of infinite gravity in a invisible point where matter vanishes. Their excuse for matter not vanishing was that is it on the event horizon the same way a projector would project an image and they have even said perhaps the matter doesn't disappear but goes into a different dimension [if matter can disappear then the theory of relativity is bunk so it's blasphemous to say matter disappears]. String theory just as much of modern [theoretic] cosmology only exists in the heads of mathematicians albeit very interesting. I like the M theory stuff [theory of everything]. Hubble and other different spectrum space telescopes have given them much physical information but when the images are handed to theorists sometimes, I think it's possible, beautiful math doesn't necessarily equate to objective physical reality.

In order for the big bang to be true cosmologists/mathematicians have had to come up with black holes, dark matter, dark energy and now different dimensions NONE of which can be shown to exist with [I] DIRECT physical evidence. They say the effects of black holes, dark matter dark energy and the higgs boson are visible bit not the actual substance or objects. This is why LHC is so important but it's been up and running with no major announcements. LHC may prove the big bang to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt or nullify it. If they fail to get the results they want how likely is it the non results will be omitted? Right now I'm at a ratio of 90:10 in favor of the big bang being the right path. Who knows if 200 years from now the big bang will be the dominant theory. I think we might be a little over confidant thinking we have the universe figured out in little over 100 years since the science/technology revolution. I can agree with some of the plasma cosmologists points but cant find myself to subscribing to plasma cosmology.

The reason the other forum threw you out for bringing up Plasma Cosmology may be because many Physics forums have a rule that only scientific theory that has appeared in peer-reviewed journals can be discussed.

As far as I know, Plasma Cosmology has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (outside of online ones, which are barley credible, and usually not counted - but thats a gray area)

The reason they called you a 'fundamentalist Christian' is because Plasma Cosmology is popular with them as they claim it can be used to explain miracles, mythology, OT strangeness etc
Usually the ones promoting creationism, the world being 6,000 yrs old etc are the same ones promoting plasma cosmology.

It's certainly fringe science on the very edge of the fringe, many who believe Plasma cosmology also are into Telsa, psychic phenomena, and whatnot

But I agree with you that we ought to keep an open mind.

Also, there are many respected plasma physicist's, which should not be confused with plasma cosmologists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'll rest my case on the facts (i) there is no known physics which could cause the universe to oscillate,

That doesn't mean that there isn't a mechanism allowing oscillation; our models of the very early universe are highly speculative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Very_early_universe), simply because we don't have the equipment to probe physics at the energies present at the time.


(ii) the density of the universe appears to be far below the critical level needed to bring about re-contraction,

At least one hypothesis doesn't require re-contraction in the four dimensions we are familiar with. This "fact" is simply a failure of imagination on your part. For what it's worth, I think that if we ever find out about the very early universe as we know it, the results will greatly surprise us.


and (iii) the thermodynamic properties of oscillating models reveal that while they have an infinite future, they possess only a finite past.

We haven't tested thermodynamics under the sort of conditions present during the very early universe, so you cannot claim this as a "fact" by any definition.

Remember that the initial singularity is simply an extrapolation of what is known (and we're far from knowing everything) meaning it's simply how physicists present their (self-admitted) ignorance.

[spiltteeth]

=NoXion;1704762]That doesn't mean that there isn't a mechanism allowing oscillation; our models of the very early universe are highly speculative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Very_early_universe), simply because we don't have the equipment to probe physics at the energies present at the time.

Yes, Noxian, this is based on facts - KNOWN physics.
Maybe there is a mechanism, yr right. Maybe there isn't. Maybe evolution will be proved wrong tomorrow. Until such a thing is found I have to base my views in reality, not unsubstantiated speculations.

Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems


"led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

Beatrice Tinsley described such a scenario:

If the average density of matter in the universe is great enough, the mutual gravitational attraction between bodies will eventually slow the expansion to a halt. The universe will then contract and collapse into a hot fireball. There is no known physical mechanism that could reverse a catastrophic big crunch. Apparently, if the universe becomes dense enough, it is in for a hot death.

In time,

"All the black holes finally coalesce into one large black hole that is coextensive with the universe,"
from which the universe will never re‑emerge.
- Duane Dicus


At least one hypothesis doesn't require re-contraction in the four dimensions we are familiar with. This "fact" is simply a failure of imagination on your part. For what it's worth, I think that if we ever find out about the very early universe as we know it, the results will greatly surprise us.

I don't know what hypothesis yr talking about, but the oscillating universe theory does indeed require a re-concraction of the universe.

I'll stick to science over yr imagination.


We haven't tested thermodynamics under the sort of conditions present during the very early universe, so you cannot claim this as a "fact" by any definition.

Well, it really is a fact - according to that theory the universe still had a beginning.

entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle


"The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle. . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor then [sic] the cycle that followed it."
-Duane Dicus

Soooo, as one traces the oscillations back in time, they become progressively smaller until one reaches a first and smallest oscillation.

If it helps :
http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/11272.gif

Zeldovich and Novikov therefore conclude,
"The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past."

As i say, astronomer Joseph Silk estimates on the basis of current entropy levels that the universe cannot have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations.


Remember that the initial singularity is simply an extrapolation of what is known (and we're far from knowing everything) meaning it's simply how physicists present their (self-admitted) ignorance.

Noxion, ALL science is based in what is known.
Basically yr saying you don't believe in science because scientists don't know everything therefore anything is possible and yr free to believe anything you want.

Christian fundamentalists always argue the same way - "maybe evolution is wrong, maybe the earth is 6,000 yrs old but science just hasn't proved it yet etc"

If you don't base yr reality on what is KNOWN what do you base it on?

[ComradeRed]

Not necessarily. M theory puts forward the possibility that the universe is only part of the vastly larger multiverse, which consists of an 11-dimension plane. In this plane there are many universes (= membranes) which can collide to eachother, events which release a lot of energy. One such collision might have triggered what we know as the Big Bang, creating our universe. This is not quite true.

The idea of the multiverse originates with Everett, independent of M theory.

(Aside: we call different versions of quantum mechanics "interpretations" -- this is just jargon; it should not be seen as belittling any model. So calling Everett's version the "Many Worlds interpretation" is kosher scientific jargon.)

It was used in quantum cosmology describing the quantum evolution of the early universe.

The reason being is that we can use it to describe measurements as physical interactions, which is really useful for the relativistic setting.

At any rate, the string theoretic notions of p-branes are kind of "stand alone"...you don't need Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In fact, you need quantum field theory -- a beast which is complicated in its own right!

The idea of having branes "colliding" is problematic, there's a no-go theorem restricting the velocity of light if I recall correctly...the reason being is that the extra dimensions are "large" instead of "small".

If they were "small", it'd be like describing spacetime "points" as having extra internal degrees of freedom.

Since they are "large", there are problems with stringy cosmology...well, that's only if you believe in empiricism.

[ComradeRed]

I'm not sure how you got this idea but magnetism and gravity are two very different forces, together with the weak and strong nuclear forces they form part of the four fundamental forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction). Cosmologists believe that at the time of the Big bang these forces were unified but soon collapsed in four different ones. Maybe you're confused on that point.
Not to be picky, but this is not entirely the case.

Cosmologists (well, quantum cosmologists to be precise) are interested in assuming there exists some "grand unified field theory" -- a field theory that describes the standard model (that is electromagnetism, weak, and strong forces) as a single force.

In fact, back during the late 1970s/early 1980s, quantum cosmologists were trained to use the SU(5) model! This turned out, of course, to be wrong.

(The interested, highly mathematically compotent reader is referred to:

John Baez and John Huerta, "The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories." Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (2010) arXiv:0904.1556v1 [hep-th] (http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1556)

This assumes knowledge of Lie Algebras and their representations, of course...)


Yes, Noxian, this is based on facts - KNOWN physics. Uh, well, then you don't really have anything.

Physics "facts" are rules of thumb which we know are wrong...if you have a problem with this, take it up with V. I. Arnold.

However, if we treat such things as axioms, then we may mathematically deduce quite a bit from it.


Maybe there is a mechanism, yr right. Maybe there isn't. Maybe evolution will be proved wrong tomorrow. Until such a thing is found I have to base my views in reality, not unsubstantiated speculations. So your position falls back from "These are the facts!" to "I don't know if there are facts!" :confused:

At any rate, canonical quantum gravity deduces a very general theorem which can be summed up thus:

Ashetekar's theorem. If the spatial area of an event horizon is quantized (i.e. takes discrete values), then there is necessarily a big bounce cosmologically.

This is a mathematical argument based off of very minimal assumptions about gravity at the Planck scale.

You may dismiss it as you like, but if gravity works at the planck scale (which it should) and if it is quantized (as Nelson and Page demonstrate empirically it should), then necessarily Ashtekar's theorem holds.

The rest of your post appears to be philosophical ramblings about "certainty" and "knowledge", so you'll have to take it up with a philosopher :thumbup1:

[spiltteeth]

Not to be picky, but this is not entirely the case.

Cosmologists (well, quantum cosmologists to be precise) are interested in assuming there exists some "grand unified field theory" -- a field theory that describes the standard model (that is electromagnetism, weak, and strong forces) as a single force.

In fact, back during the late 1970s/early 1980s, quantum cosmologists were trained to use the SU(5) model! This turned out, of course, to be wrong.

(The interested, highly mathematically compotent reader is referred to:

John Baez and John Huerta, "The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories." Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (2010) arXiv:0904.1556v1 [hep-th] (http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1556)

This assumes knowledge of Lie Algebras and their representations, of course...)

Uh, well, then you don't really have anything.

Physics "facts" are rules of thumb which we know are wrong...if you have a problem with this, take it up with V. I. Arnold.

However, if we treat such things as axioms, then we may mathematically deduce quite a bit from it.

So your position falls back from "These are the facts!" to "I don't know if there are facts!" :confused:

At any rate, canonical quantum gravity deduces a very general theorem which can be summed up thus:

Ashetekar's theorem. If the spatial area of an event horizon is quantized (i.e. takes discrete values), then there is necessarily a big bounce cosmologically.

This is a mathematical argument based off of very minimal assumptions about gravity at the Planck scale.

You may dismiss it as you like, but if gravity works at the planck scale (which it should) and if it is quantized (as Nelson and Page demonstrate empirically it should), then necessarily Ashtekar's theorem holds.

The rest of your post appears to be philosophical ramblings about "certainty" and "knowledge", so you'll have to take it up with a philosopher :thumbup1:

Noxion says there may be laws of physics that we just don't know about. I agree, but we can't base our reality on them (since we don't know what they are)

Pretty simple I thought.

If you have a contrary to the 3 facts I laid out, don't be so coy, let's hear them.

I don't see how Ashetekar's theorem contradicts anything I've said.
I'm speaking of the Oscillating universe theory.

Does it explain space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity?

Paul Davies, in his article, "Spacetime Singularities and Cosmology," says,


If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.

You know the conjecture would require that information locked up in a black hole could be utterly lost forever by escaping to another universe.
Hawking finally came to agree that quantum theory requires that information is preserved in black hole formation and evaporation. Hawking-
The information remains firmly in our universe. I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes."

Anyway it doesn't solve the thermodynamics problems that I alluded to, that, in fact, you would still have an accumulation of entropy from cycle to cycle, so that this would not solve the problem of having an infinite past.
THe only way to do it is to introduce a sort of ad hoc thermodynamic sink in between the oscillations to try to prevent the accumulation of entropy.
In any case, wholly apart from thermodynamic problems, there’s still the observational problem: namely, there's not enough matter in the universe to close the universe and make the expansion recontract. The evidence stubbornly continues to indicate that the universe would have to be ten times denser than what it is in order for the expansion to stop and the universe to recontract. So the model is just observationally untenable.

And finally, I don't know of any physical mechanism that would reverse a Big Crunch and make it bounce back to an expansion again.
There is no known physics that would reverse a Big Crunch to make a universe oscillate.

Besides, all the quantum gravity models all depend on the use of "imaginary time" prior to 1043 second after the Big Bang; these are simply nonphysical solutions. They are nonrealistic solutions. Once you convert the numbers back to real time, the singularity reappears.
Unless yr willing to live with imaginary time and agree that Lincoln could have been executed before he was born...

[ComradeRed]

I don't see how Ashetekar's theorem contradicts anything I've said.
I'm speaking of the Oscillating universe theory. So am I...

Ashtekar's theorem basically says due to quantum corrections, the universe oscillates. That is, it goes through a "big bang" and a "big crunch" -- or more succinctly, a "big bounce".



Does it explain space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity?
Uh, well, you are using incorrect scientific terminology.

There is no such thing as a "space-time trajectory"...what you are probably thinking of is geodesic motion in spacetime.

At any rate, Hawking and Penrose note in Large Scale Structure of Space-Time that there is no good definition of a singularity in general relativity.

For example, the event horizon in the Schwarzschild metric is singular, but that's really just a poor coordinate choice...it's not a "real" singularity. When we work in e.g. the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, this singular behavior is no longer present.

So, which is it: is the event horizon singular or is it not?



Anyway it doesn't solve the thermodynamics problems that I alluded to, that, in fact, you would still have an accumulation of entropy from cycle to cycle, so that this would not solve the problem of having an infinite past.
THe only way to do it is to introduce a sort of ad hoc thermodynamic sink in between the oscillations to try to prevent the accumulation of entropy.
In any case, wholly apart from thermodynamic problems, there’s still the observational problem: namely, there's not enough matter in the universe to close the universe and make the expansion recontract. The evidence stubbornly continues to indicate that the universe would have to be ten times denser than what it is in order for the expansion to stop and the universe to recontract. So the model is just observationally untenable.
Well, the problem here of course is that the thermodynamic derivations of these concepts are nonrelativistic in nature.

The heat equation has "action at a distance" built into it, for example.

(I'd also love to see some citations for these criticisms; not that I doubt you, it's just I think the rigor would appeal to me more than the prose.)

Additionally, you overlook a critical fact: namely, Bekenstein Hawking entropy. As the area is directly proportional to the entropy of the region, or is at least a bound to it, if we merely require that "area is conserved" then everything is kosher thermodynamically. At least with the Spin foam formalism...


And finally, I don't know of any physical mechanism that would reverse a Big Crunch and make it bounce back to an expansion again.
There is no known physics that would reverse a Big Crunch to make a universe oscillate. Sorry, but this is an unacceptable response...work is already out there on this subject.

For a rudimentary expository example of Ashtekar's work on the "big bounce" in canonical quantum gravity, see:

Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski, Parampreet Singh, "Quantum Nature of the Big Bang" arXiv:gr-qc/0602086v2 (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602086)

Abhay Ashtekar, "Singularity Resolution in Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Brief Overview" arXiv:0812.4703v1 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4703) [gr-qc]

Abhay Ashtekar, Alejandro Corichi, Parampreet Singh, "Robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology" arXiv:0710.3565v3 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3565) [gr-qc]

The latter is probably most satisfactory as a review.


Besides, all the quantum gravity models all depend on the use of "imaginary time" prior to 1043 second after the Big Bang; these are simply nonphysical solutions. They are nonrealistic solutions. Once you convert the numbers back to real time, the singularity reappears.
Unless yr willing to live with imaginary time and agree that Lincoln could have been executed before he was born... Sorry, but this is plain wrong.

Canonical quantum gravity avoids the use of Wick rotations...so there is no "imaginary time" in that model.

Furthermore, your pseudo-witticism kind of exposes your ignorance of the Wick rotation.

It turns out that if you "believe" in particle physics as has been known mathematically since the 1940s, you kind of need the Wick rotation to perform any calculation.

The functoriality of the Wick rotation pretty much allows its use without a problem...

[spiltteeth]

So am I...

Ashtekar's theorem basically says due to quantum corrections, the universe oscillates. That is, it goes through a "big bang" and a "big crunch" -- or more succinctly, a "big bounce".

Uh, well, you are using incorrect scientific terminology.

There is no such thing as a "space-time trajectory"...what you are probably thinking of is geodesic motion in spacetime.

At any rate, Hawking and Penrose note in Large Scale Structure of Space-Time that there is no good definition of a singularity in general relativity.

For example, the event horizon in the Schwarzschild metric is singular, but that's really just a poor coordinate choice...it's not a "real" singularity. When we work in e.g. the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, this singular behavior is no longer present.

So, which is it: is the event horizon singular or is it not?

Well, the problem here of course is that the thermodynamic derivations of these concepts are nonrelativistic in nature.

The heat equation has "action at a distance" built into it, for example.

(I'd also love to see some citations for these criticisms; not that I doubt you, it's just I think the rigor would appeal to me more than the prose.)

Additionally, you overlook a critical fact: namely, Bekenstein Hawking entropy. As the area is directly proportional to the entropy of the region, or is at least a bound to it, if we merely require that "area is conserved" then everything is kosher thermodynamically. At least with the Spin foam formalism...

Sorry, but this is an unacceptable response...work is already out there on this subject.

For a rudimentary expository example of Ashtekar's work on the "big bounce" in canonical quantum gravity, see:

Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski, Parampreet Singh, "Quantum Nature of the Big Bang" arXiv:gr-qc/0602086v2 (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602086)

Abhay Ashtekar, "Singularity Resolution in Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Brief Overview" arXiv:0812.4703v1 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4703) [gr-qc]

Abhay Ashtekar, Alejandro Corichi, Parampreet Singh, "Robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology" arXiv:0710.3565v3 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3565) [gr-qc]

The latter is probably most satisfactory as a review.

Sorry, but this is plain wrong.

Canonical quantum gravity avoids the use of Wick rotations...so there is no "imaginary time" in that model.

Furthermore, your pseudo-witticism kind of exposes your ignorance of the Wick rotation.

It turns out that if you "believe" in particle physics as has been known mathematically since the 1940s, you kind of need the Wick rotation to perform any calculation.

The functoriality of the Wick rotation pretty much allows its use without a problem...


imaginary time is the consequence of Canonical quantum gravity models, to avoid a singularity you cannot revert back to actual time, as I say, the behavior re-presents itself then.

Introducing imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's equation has the peculiar effect of making the time dimension indistinguishable from space. But in that case, the imaginary time regime prior to the Planck time is not a space-time at all, but a Euclidean four-dimensional space. Construed realistically, such a four-space would be evacuated of all temporal becoming and would simply exist timelessly.

Barrow observes,
"physicists have often carried out this 'change time into space' procedure as a useful trick for doing certain problems in ordinary quantum mechanics, although they did not imagine that time was really like space. At the end of the calculation, they just swop [sic] back into the usual interpretation of there being one dimension of time and three . . . dimensions of . . . space."

As pointed out by Christopher Isham, "Quantum Theories of the Creation of the Universe," in Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature, ed. R. J. Russell, N. Murphey, and C. J. Isham (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1993), p. 56.

the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models.

This precludes their being construed realistically as accounts of the origin of the space-time universe in a timelessly existing four-space. Rather they are ways of modeling the real beginning of the universe ex nihilo in such a way as to not involve a singularity.

Loop Quantum Gravity theories do not require an eternal past, plus trying to extend them to past infinity is hard to square with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and seems to be ruled out by the accumulation of dark energy, which would in time bring an end to the cycling behavior.

Besides being highly speclative Ashtekar says the bounce problem is resolved only in the context of homogeneous isotropic models with a scalar field..,and thats not speculative?!

His theorem still discloses that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for inhomogeneous and non-isotropic universes.

I agree there isn't a good definition of a singlarity, in that same book you quote, Hawking and Penrose note in Large Scale Structure of Space-Time the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems
"led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

Thank you for the links, the 'math looks solid' so to speak, nevertheess,
the oscillating model may be theoretically, but not physically possible.

As the late Professor Tinsley of Yale explains, in oscillating models
"even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seems to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end."

The oscillating model seems to be observationally untenable.

Two facts of observational astronomy appear to run contrary to the oscillating model.

First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe seems unaccountable on an oscillating model. During the contraction phase of such a model, black holes begin to gobble up surrounding matter, resulting in an inhomogeneous distribution of matter. But there is no known mechanism to "iron out" these inhomogeneities during the ensuing expansion phase.
Thus, the homogeneity of matter observed throughout the universe would remain unexplained.
Second, the density of the universe appears to be insufficient for the re-contraction of the universe. For the oscillating model to be even possible, it is necessary that the universe be sufficiently dense such that gravity can overcome the force of the expansion and pull the universe back together again. However, according to the best estimates, if one takes into account both luminous matter and non-luminous matter as well as any possible contribution of neutrino particles to total mass, the universe is still only about one-half that needed for re-contraction.
(David N. Schramm and Gary Steigman, "Relic Neutrinos and the Density of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal)

Moreover, recent work on calculating the speed and deceleration of the expansion confirms that the universe is expanding at, so to speak, "escape velocity" and will not therefore re-contract.
According to Sandage and Tammann,
"Hence, we are forced to decide that . . . it seems inevitable that the Universe will expand forever"; they conclude, therefore, that
"the Universe has happened only once."

plus

"The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle. . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor than the cycle that followed it."
Duane Dicus, et.al. "Effects of Proton Decay on the Cosmological Future." Astrophysical Journal 252

Novikov and Zeldovich of the Institute of Applied Mathematics of the USSR Academy of Sciences therefore conclude,
"The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past."
I.D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zeldovich, "Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 11


the oscillating model of the universe thus still requires an origin of the universe prior to the smallest cycle.
-john Gribbin, "Oscillating Universe Bounces Back," Nature 259

[mikelepore]

Remember that the initial singularity is simply an extrapolation of what is known

The only aspect I'm familiar with is the stars are moving apart, so if we "play the movie backwards" all that matter seems to have comes out of a point about 13 billion years ago. That and the microwave background. How they arrive at the specifics is baffling to me. But they have a timeline for what happened when the age of the universe was one nanosecond, etc., how old the universe was when quarks merged into nucleons, what time it was when plasma merged into atoms, etc. It baffles me. I was fine with the idea that the Doppler effect shows the galaxies moving apart, and we can run it backwards to a point, but after that they lost me. I find it hard to accept things on faith.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, Noxian, this is based on facts - KNOWN physics.
Maybe there is a mechanism, yr right. Maybe there isn't. Maybe evolution will be proved wrong tomorrow. Until such a thing is found I have to base my views in reality, not unsubstantiated speculations.

Unsubstantiated speculations... like your idea that the Big Bang means that existence had a beginning in the everyday sense of the term?


Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems

The truth is not decided by consensus, otherwise the Earth would be flat simply because it looks that way to everyone who doesn't know better.


I don't know what hypothesis yr talking about, but the oscillating universe theory does indeed require a re-concraction of the universe.

I'll stick to science over yr imagination.

The Ekpyrotic universe (http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/) hypothesis is not a product of my imagination. :rolleyes:


Well, it really is a fact - according to that theory the universe still had a beginning.

Only if you accept that thermodynamics works that way under conditions present during the very early universe, which we don't know since we've been unable to perform experiments or undertake observations thus far.


entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle

I accept that's likely to be the case in traditional oscillatory models, but since physics is incomplete that doesn't mean that's the end of the matter.


Noxion, ALL science is based in what is known.
Basically yr saying you don't believe in science because scientists don't know everything therefore anything is possible and yr free to believe anything you want.

I'm saying I don't know, and nobody else knows. Until we have worked out of quantum gravity (and tested it!), we're all guessing.


Christian fundamentalists always argue the same way - "maybe evolution is wrong, maybe the earth is 6,000 yrs old but science just hasn't proved it yet etc"

If you don't base yr reality on what is KNOWN what do you base it on?

Evolution accounts for how life develops, but not how it started (abiogenesis). Similarly, the Standard Model of cosmology accounts for how the universe got to be the way it is today, but not how it began, if it did.

[ComradeRed]

imaginary time is the consequence of Canonical quantum gravity models, to avoid a singularity you cannot revert back to actual time, as I say, the behavior re-presents itself then.

Introducing imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's equation has the peculiar effect of making the time dimension indistinguishable from space. But in that case, the imaginary time regime prior to the Planck time is not a space-time at all, but a Euclidean four-dimensional space. Construed realistically, such a four-space would be evacuated of all temporal becoming and would simply exist timelessly.

Barrow observes,

"physicists have often carried out this 'change time into space' procedure as a useful trick for doing certain problems in ordinary quantum mechanics, although they did not imagine that time was really like space. At the end of the calculation, they just swop [sic] back into the usual interpretation of there being one dimension of time and three . . . dimensions of . . . space."
As pointed out by Christopher Isham, "Quantum Theories of the Creation of the Universe," in Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature, ed. R. J. Russell, N. Murphey, and C. J. Isham (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1993), p. 56.


the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models.


Okay, so you haven't learned any relativity from books written in the past century or so.

There is this trick, which is called "Wick rotation". What happens is we work with the Minkowski spacetime (or if we are general relativists, Lorentzian spacetime) which has an inner product of two 4-vectors defined by (in TeX)

$$ \langle{\bf x},{\bf x}\rangle = -t^{2}+x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} $$

This fellow, Minkowski, saw that if we work with an inner product that is "split signature", there is a beautiful geometry behind it. We can still "rotate" space into time, and vice-versa. This is Lorentz boosting.

However, the holonomy group is not compact (nor is it simply connected)! This is bad, since nice Lie groups are simply connected and compact...that way we can use the Lie algebra for every calculation.

To work with a compactified Lie group, we can Wick rotate. This is good, since change of coordinates in the Feynman path integral no longer produce trivial infinities. We still could've worked in the noncompact setting without changing coordinates however!

It seems like all of this is kind of above your head, since your reasoning is appeals to authority as opposed to...well, reasoning mathematically or physically.



Loop Quantum Gravity theories do not require an eternal past, plus trying to extend them to past infinity is hard to square with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and seems to be ruled out by the accumulation of dark energy, which would in time bring an end to the cycling behavior. Uh, the "eternal past" notion is just a conformal transformation that generalizes stereographic projection...

It is becoming increasingly evident that your arguments are not reasoned out, but they consist of a sequence of appeals to authority.

Furthermore, you don't even cite sources when asked. How unfortunate!



Besides being highly speclative Ashtekar says the bounce problem is resolved only in the context of homogeneous isotropic models with a scalar field..,and thats not speculative?! If you bother reading the literature, the Standard model of cosmology boil down to a homogeneous isotropic perfect fluid being the source of the field.

That's actually fairly good as an approximation.

The "minor inhomogeneities" (e.g. you or me) are taken care of perturbatively, and only play a role after perturbatively expanding to roughly 30 or 40 powers in epsilon.

In non-math speak: the approximation is good enough for cosmological purposes.

So to answer your question, no that's not "speculative" in cosmology.


His theorem still discloses that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for inhomogeneous and non-isotropic universes. Ashtekar's work indicates that due to quantum corrections, a "Big Bounce" accurately describes the "long term" dynamics of the universe.

The "singular" nature of the "Big Bounce" is another matter entirely...



Thank you for the links, the 'math looks solid' so to speak, nevertheess,
the oscillating model may be theoretically, but not physically possible.
Yep, because nothing has changed in the past 35 years in physics...oh, wait... :rolleyes:

You may make a good social scientist, appealing to authority, but in real science consensus is not the same as mathematical reasoning or empirical evidence.

This minor detail is something you neglect to comprehend, sadly enough...

[black magick hustla]

to the devil with cosmologists. i was in a big conference with lots of professors and one guy called david turok from the perimeter institute, and i asked that if that whole dark energy black magic deal was true then that means that energy is not conserved. people stared at me wildly

[black magick hustla]

cosmologists are mathematicians not scientists

[ComradeRed]

to the devil with cosmologists. i was in a big conference with lots of professors and one guy called david turok from the perimeter institute, and i asked that if that whole dark energy black magic deal was true then that means that energy is not conserved. people stared at me wildly
Probably they "stared wildly" because the stress-energy tensor for dark energy is famously conserved...it is really just a scalar field.

That's basic general relativity though...

So, perhaps something is learned from this.

[Wolf Larson]

Although I find the sciences both important and fascinating we should be spending more time spreading class awareness :) Just a thought.

[Lynx]

So did the Big Bang happen or not?

[ComradeRed]

So did the Big Bang happen or not?
I think it is safe to say that there was some beginning to the universe. This is uncontested by everyone.

The time since the universe began, however, is "up for grabs".

Usually, the "Big Bang" indicates that there was a beginning in some finite time period ago.

On the other hand, the "Big Bounce" indicates that there is an oscillating behavior, and there is a finite time period since the oscillation began...but ultimately the universe has an "eternal past".

In this way, one could conceive of the "Big Bang" as a node during the oscillatory behavior of the universe.

So in either case...I think it is safe to say "Yes, there was some sort of bang behavior".

[black magick hustla]

Probably they "stared wildly" because the stress-energy tensor for dark energy is famously conserved...it is really just a scalar field.

That's basic general relativity though...

So, perhaps something is learned from this.

Turok answered that it is true the total energy is not conserved but said something along the lines you say.

The energy density of dark energy is constant. Radiation and matter energy "dilutes" as space expands.

[Lynx]

Speaking for myself, with the Steady State theory it was easier to assume the universe had an 'eternal past' as there was no particular event to ascribe a 'beginning' to.

In a similar vein, cyclical theories 'allow' for both distinctive events and an eternal past.

/philosophical ramblings

[ComradeRed]

Turok answered that it is true the total energy is not conserved but said something along the lines you say.

The energy density of dark energy is constant. Radiation and matter energy "dilutes" as space expands.Well, we work with densities in field theory, so when he says radiation and energy "dilutes" he refers to the density decreases as space expands...

Just to clarify his point :)

[Coggeh]

cosmologists are mathematicians not scientists
Mathematicians are scientists

:)

[black magick hustla]

Mathematicians are scientists

:)

No they are not. They are mathematicians. Which is of utmost importance but mathematics is not about empirical data, but finding relationships of syntactical nature, because mathematics is not nature but the relationships between symbolic and syntactic rules we agreed upon.

[ComradeRed]

No they are not. They are mathematicians. Which is of utmost importance but mathematics is not about empirical data, but finding relationships of syntactical nature, because mathematics is not nature but the relationships between symbolic and syntactic rules we agreed upon. This is probably the topic for another thread, but this quote is half true.

I think that mathematics is not so much manipulating syntax, but it certainly would appear so to someone who has not looked at e.g. abstract algebra or differential geometry.

What mathematicians do is they consider "mathematical objects" (in the sense of an Object class in object oriented programming). It is an invention of humans and not a discovery.

Mathematical objects, to be blunt, consists of stuff (e.g. a set, a pair of sets, etc.) equipped with some extra structure (e.g. a binary operator, a special element, etc.) such that some properties hold (i.e. a bunch of equations are satisfied).

This is half of the game. The other half is writing down propositions describing various characteristics and properties mathematical objects have, then proving them in an a priori way.

Sometimes mathematicians are scientists, like Newton. Sometimes scientists are mathematicians, like Archimedes. Sometimes they're exclusive, like Faraday or Bourbaki.

But making any statement about mathematicians as scientists (and vice versa) is simply correlation, not causation.

[black magick hustla]

This is probably the topic for another thread, but this quote is half true.

[quote]
I think that mathematics is not so much manipulating syntax, but it certainly would appear so to someone who has not looked at e.g. abstract algebra or differential geometry.

Actually, the more advanced you get in mathematics the more you realize it is really all synctatical. Like a proof based course.

All mathematics are tautological.







This is half of the game. The other half is writing down propositions describing various characteristics and properties mathematical objects have, then proving them in an a priori way.


Well the point is that we are obviously not omniscient. In the sense that we have laid the rules of the game (through language) but we have not find all the relationships. If someone knew all the mathematical relationships, one would realize all mathematics are tautological.

[black magick hustla]

The point is to dispell the "mystical aura" of mathematics. There is nothing mystical about men and their languages.

[red cat]

No they are not. They are mathematicians. Which is of utmost importance but mathematics is not about empirical data, but finding relationships of syntactical nature, because mathematics is not nature but the relationships between symbolic and syntactic rules we agreed upon.

This. Mathematics has nothing to do with nature. Scientists check whether the properties of a real system match with the axioms of some mathematical model. If it does, they apply that math to the real model and deduce the consequences.

[red cat]

cosmologists are mathematicians not scientists

That is not true.

[black magick hustla]

that was in jest. i think they are scientists. albet some of them are too up there that sometimes they arent doing science anymore.

[spiltteeth]

ComradeRed;1705856]Okay, so you haven't learned any relativity from books written in the past century or so.

There is this trick, which is called "Wick rotation". What happens is we work with the Minkowski spacetime (or if we are general relativists, Lorentzian spacetime) which has an inner product of two 4-vectors defined by (in TeX)

$$ \langle{\bf x},{\bf x}\rangle = -t^{2}+x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} $$

This fellow, Minkowski, saw that if we work with an inner product that is "split signature", there is a beautiful geometry behind it. We can still "rotate" space into time, and vice-versa. This is Lorentz boosting.

However, the holonomy group is not compact (nor is it simply connected)! This is bad, since nice Lie groups are simply connected and compact...that way we can use the Lie algebra for every calculation.

To work with a compactified Lie group, we can Wick rotate. This is good, since change of coordinates in the Feynman path integral no longer produce trivial infinities. We still could've worked in the noncompact setting without changing coordinates however!

It seems like all of this is kind of above your head, since your reasoning is appeals to authority as opposed to...well, reasoning mathematically or physically.

Ok. I enjoy explaining things too. How could any of this "mathematically reasoning" apply to reality? Do you really think "trivial infinities no longer apply" is a coherent sentence outside of mathematics -in reality? I'm sure you've heard of Hilberts Hotel etc

I'm aware these theories exist, and that mathematically they make sense, as I keep saying, but they are NOT reality descriptive.


Uh, the "eternal past" notion is just a conformal transformation that generalizes stereographic projection...

Oh, it doesn't describe reality at all! The point is that, in actual reality, there would NOT be an infinite series of past oscillations.


It is becoming increasingly evident that your arguments are not reasoned out, but they consist of a sequence of appeals to authority.

Furthermore, you don't even cite sources when asked. How unfortunate!

I'll point yr attention to all that information appearing at the end of the quotes, this information has where the quotes can be found, who wrote it etc I know there easy to miss...


If you bother reading the literature, the Standard model of cosmology boil down to a homogeneous isotropic perfect fluid being the source of the field.

That's actually fairly good as an approximation.

The "minor inhomogeneities" (e.g. you or me) are taken care of perturbatively, and only play a role after perturbatively expanding to roughly 30 or 40 powers in epsilon.

In non-math speak: the approximation is good enough for cosmological purposes.

So to answer your question, no that's not "speculative" in cosmology.

Ashtekar's work indicates that due to quantum corrections, a "Big Bounce" accurately describes the "long term" dynamics of the universe.

The "singular" nature of the "Big Bounce" is another matter entirely...

I speculative nature is a very minor point in all I responded.


Yep, because nothing has changed in the past 35 years in physics...oh, wait... :rolleyes:

Premise one : physics have changed in the past 35 yrs

Premise two : therefore what you've written is wrong ?!

Ah, if only I COULD reason as you do...


You may make a good social scientist, appealing to authority, but in real science consensus is not the same as mathematical reasoning or empirical evidence.

This minor detail is something you neglect to comprehend, sadly enough...

If you have any information to the contrary...(besides stating things like "Wick rotation is a real thing in physics" without explaining how it could possibly, in ANY way, describe ACTUAL reality( especially since every physicist I know of, including Hawkings, clearly says ALL quantum gravity theories involve imaginary time )

[Alaric]

The evidence for the big bang is pretty strong.


The oddness of the event is self-evident, but this man's critique has serious scientific flaws given what we've discoved over the last few decades.

[vyborg]

The evidence of a "bang" maybe are strong. is the "big one" that cannot be explained

[ComradeRed]

Ok. I enjoy explaining things too. How could any of this "mathematically reasoning" apply to reality? Do you really think "trivial infinities no longer apply" is a coherent sentence outside of mathematics -in reality? I'm sure you've heard of Hilberts Hotel etc

I'm aware these theories exist, and that mathematically they make sense, as I keep saying, but they are NOT reality descriptive. *Sigh* It is becoming increasingly evident that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Lets just consider the quantization of constrained systems with path integrals, though this is probably far too advanced for you.

We are choosing some coordinate $\bar{q}$ to label points on the cross section of the constraint surface in the phase space, and variables $\lambda$ to label points on the orbit, thus a point on the constrained surface is given by some pair $(\bar{q},\lambda)$.

Then a path integral measure $[dq]=[d\bar{q}][d\Lambda]J$ where $J$ is the determinant of the Jacobian.

We demand that the action $I[q]$ is invariant under this change of coordinates, that is $I[q]=I[\bar{q}]$.

But then we have $Z[j]=\int[dq]\exp(iI[q]+i\int qjd^{4}x)$ initially. When we change coordinates, we get

$Z[j] = \int[d\bar{q}][d\Lambda]J\exp(iI[\bar{q}]+i\int\bar{q}jd^{4}x)$

We can seperate out the factors to see

$Z[j]=\int[d\Lambda]\int[d\bar{q}]J\exp(iI[\bar{q}]+i\int\bar{q}jd^{4}x)$

However the $\int[d\Lambda]$ gives a trivial infinity. This happens in every gauge theory with noncompact gauge groups...that's basic stuff.


Oh, it doesn't describe reality at all! The point is that, in actual reality, there would NOT be an infinite series of past oscillations. This is a meaningless objection, you need to learn about Penrose Diagrams...


I'll point yr attention to all that information appearing at the end of the quotes, this information has where the quotes can be found, who wrote it etc I know there easy to miss... Uh, when asked for additional references to the technical papers about entropy in oscillatory descriptions of the universe, you give this excuse? :lol: How persuasive!


Premise one : physics have changed in the past 35 yrs

Premise two : therefore what you've written is wrong ?!

Ah, if only I COULD reason as you do... If only you could read...

My point is that you are referring to works written 35 years ago, or older.

That's not really kosher in science, since new advances have occurred in the past 35 years that you're obviously oblivious to.


If you have any information to the contrary...(besides stating things like "Wick rotation is a real thing in physics" without explaining how it could possibly, in ANY way, describe ACTUAL reality( especially since every physicist I know of, including Hawkings [sic], clearly says ALL quantum gravity theories involve imaginary time ) Uh, no, all path integral formulations of any quantum theory involves Wick rotation to perform meaningful calculations.

This is not limited to gravity, this is every quantum theory described by path integrals.

There is another approach, which you are completely ignorant of apparently. We take the operator approach, the so-called "canonical formulation" of quantum theory.

This doesn't use Wick rotations, so no imaginary time. But since you are apparently ignorant of basic quantum field theory, you are oblivious to this fact.

Further your argument boils down to appeal to authority (Hawking, the pioneer of the path integral approach to quantum gravity, says that only the path integral approach is valid; spoiler alert: he's biased).

Keep spewing meaningless philosophical nonsense around like "really describing reality", it makes your position even more absurd. :glare:

[cska]

See this is the problem with the naming of "imaginary" numbers. They aren't really imaginary when applied to physical systems. For example, instead of complex numbers, one can talk about vectors in 2-space, or alternatively just two variables, say, x1 and x2. Now, if we reformulated everything in terms of them, we would have a working theory that only uses real numbers. However, everything we are doing in that theory is equivalent to operations in complex numbers. So, for the sake of simplicity, we call them complex numbers.

[Meridian]

Quick, off topic question:

mathematics is not about empirical data, but finding relationships of syntactical nature, because mathematics is not nature but the relationships between symbolic and syntactic rules we agreed upon.

This. Mathematics has nothing to do with nature.
If that is true, that mathematics is just the relationships between symbolic/syntactic rules we agreed upon and has nothing to do with 'nature' (although I honestly don't understand what that word means), how come notes that we find 'beautiful' correspond to certain apparent mathematical ratios in their frequency? Indeed, musical scales are based on mathematical ratios of sound frequencies (vibrations) between the different tones. As far as I know, this was an observation done of the harmonic pitches after our use of harmony was a fact (so it did not start with us finding what tones corresponded to mathematical ratios, but with us liking what we hearing and then making the discovery).

[red cat]

Quick, off topic question:


If that is true, that mathematics is just the relationships between symbolic/syntactic rules we agreed upon and has nothing to do with 'nature' (although I honestly don't understand what that word means), how come notes that we find 'beautiful' correspond to certain apparent mathematical ratios in their frequency? Indeed, musical scales are based on mathematical ratios of sound frequencies (vibrations) between the different tones. As far as I know, this was an observation done of the harmonic pitches after our use of harmony was a fact (so it did not start with us finding what tones corresponded to mathematical ratios, but with us liking what we hearing and then making the discovery).

I know nothing about music. But all real phenomena which display such properties are doing so because they satisfy some basic conditions. If your mathematical system has these conditions as axioms, then of course you will find striking similarities.

[spiltteeth]

*Sigh* It is becoming increasingly evident that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Lets just consider the quantization of constrained systems with path integrals, though this is probably far too advanced for you.

We are choosing some coordinate $\bar{q}$ to label points on the cross section of the constraint surface in the phase space, and variables $\lambda$ to label points on the orbit, thus a point on the constrained surface is given by some pair $(\bar{q},\lambda)$.

Then a path integral measure $[dq]=[d\bar{q}][d\Lambda]J$ where $J$ is the determinant of the Jacobian.

We demand that the action $I[q]$ is invariant under this change of coordinates, that is $I[q]=I[\bar{q}]$.

But then we have $Z[j]=\int[dq]\exp(iI[q]+i\int qjd^{4}x)$ initially. When we change coordinates, we get

$Z[j] = \int[d\bar{q}][d\Lambda]J\exp(iI[\bar{q}]+i\int\bar{q}jd^{4}x)$

We can seperate out the factors to see

$Z[j]=\int[d\Lambda]\int[d\bar{q}]J\exp(iI[\bar{q}]+i\int\bar{q}jd^{4}x)$

However the $\int[d\Lambda]$ gives a trivial infinity. This happens in every gauge theory with noncompact gauge groups...that's basic stuff.

This is a meaningless objection, you need to learn about Penrose Diagrams...

Uh, when asked for additional references to the technical papers about entropy in oscillatory descriptions of the universe, you give this excuse? :lol: How persuasive!

If only you could read...

My point is that you are referring to works written 35 years ago, or older.

That's not really kosher in science, since new advances have occurred in the past 35 years that you're obviously oblivious to.

Uh, no, all path integral formulations of any quantum theory involves Wick rotation to perform meaningful calculations.

This is not limited to gravity, this is every quantum theory described by path integrals.

There is another approach, which you are completely ignorant of apparently. We take the operator approach, the so-called "canonical formulation" of quantum theory.

This doesn't use Wick rotations, so no imaginary time. But since you are apparently ignorant of basic quantum field theory, you are oblivious to this fact.

Further your argument boils down to appeal to authority (Hawking, the pioneer of the path integral approach to quantum gravity, says that only the path integral approach is valid; spoiler alert: he's biased).

Keep spewing meaningless philosophical nonsense around like "really describing reality", it makes your position even more absurd. :glare:

Well, that "meaningless jargon" is how we decide weather or not the math can be reality descriptive.

You argue "the math works out!"

I say, "Nice. Does this have anything to do with reality?"

Reality is meaningless to you. Wonderful.

Quantum isn't my field, but there are at least 10 different PHYSICAL interpretations of the math, which is solid, none of which may be reality descriptive!

For instance, thee model developed by Roger Penrose called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology where he claims that when the universe reaches its ultimate destiny of maximal entropy it somehow "loses" track of time due to the absence of matter and comes into being once again through a new Big Bang. His theory argues that there is only one universe which goes through different phases or eons as he calls them. Each eon begins with a Big Bang and ends with maximal entropy, which in turn implies that entropy goes back to zero and transforms into a new big bang and so forth.

Is this the proper interpretation? Perhaps, however I've heard Jim Sinclair argue persuasively that the phases of the model are not temporally ordered as earlier and later but are instead actually two universes with a common past boundary. Penrose’s model is thus really a model of a multiverse with a beginning.

Is this meaningless?

About the quantum gravity, Barrow observes,
"physicists have often carried out this 'change time into space' procedure as a useful trick for doing certain problems in ordinary quantum mechanics, although they did not imagine that time was really like space. At the end of the calculation, they just swop [sic] back into the usual interpretation of there being one dimension of time and three . . . dimensions of . . . space."
John D. Barrow, Theories of Everything (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 66.

Although most physists are like you - they are not interested in "meaningless" questions of reality :

Hawking himself has recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking model non-realistically.

"I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is."

Still more extreme,
"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."
In assessing the worth of a theory,
"All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements."
-The Large, the Small, and the Human, by Roger Penrose [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], p. 169).

And yet you still haven't answered my questions!

ONE -, in 2003, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

Vilenkin :


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

SO, since it is A fact that the termini of a closed universe must be singularities THEN no space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity - what is yr solution?

By the by, despite the fact that you assume all mathematical concepts exist in real;ity (I would be interested to see actual infinities) Vilenkin candidly calls such exercises in Quantum gravity "metaphysical cosmology."


the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models.Paul Davies, "The Birth of the Cosmos," in God, Cosmos, Nature and Creativity, ed. Jill Gready (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1995), pp. 8-9.

TWO
the observational evidence indicates that the mean mass density of the universe is insufficient to generate enough gravitational attraction to halt and reverse the expansion.

THREE

Due to the conservation of entropy each successive oscillation has a larger radius and longer expansion time.
Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, 2d ed. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1989), pp. 311-12..

soooo the thermodynamic properties of an Oscillating Model imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid.

You seem to apply to other authority than mathematical equations which may have no bearing on reality, fine, but I actually wish to know what REALLY happened.

[gmou3]

the big bang theory doesn't only rely on the lights red shift and also these theories are not proven, the universe is not just expanding, it is accelerating its expansion..

the big bang theory has a great basis (but still could easily collapse) ;)

[Turinbaar]

interesting stuff