I have a problem with big bang theory. It assumes that there was originally an extremely dense amount of material that should have resulted in a gigantic black hole rather than an expanding universe of matter and particles that only later condensed to make stars and eventually galaxies like we see today.

I have a theory.

First, we know that particles and anti-particles are randomly created and destroyed at a quantum level all the time. Every now and then; however, an extra "normal" particle is created.

Second, let's assume a complete nothing, or let's call this "neutral" space for the purpose of this argument (the stuff outside our universe)

Third - inside "neutral space" a normal particle and an antiparticle are randomly created. At this point the normal particle creates a pocket of normal space, and let's assume that the antiparticle creates a pocket of something else. Let's call this "anti-space".

Since the particles are created at the same time, and time moves FORWARD in the normal space universe AND BACKWARDS in the anti-space universe, both particles instantly are in a seperate time where the positive universe expands forwards in time, while the anti-universe expands backwards in time (meaning in the direction it is going through time, it expands. Expanding backwards through time). The only time that both particles exist together are at an infinitesimally small point in both space and time - MUCH like the visualization of the center of the infinity symbol.

In both universes, and in the direction of time, the effects of the particles pushes the fabric of space itself outwards, while continuing to randomly create new particles based on the properties of the fabric of both universes. As more and more particles accumulate in each universe, the speed at which the universes expand begins to accelerate. This starts a snowball effect, where in the beginning of each universe, it is filling with particles as the universe around them expands slightly faster (but accelerating beyond the creation rate) thus creating all the matter we see in the universe today. In the beginning, the particles weren't all bunched together in one big mass, they are instead-- filling, quite literally, the space of each respective universe.

This solves the problem of having so much matter "exploding" in some big bang that didn't result in all the matter collapsing down into a black hole.

Any thoughts? Comments VERY welcome.

---

The only problem with the Big Bang theory (preceded in time by the "Primaeval atom" of Abbe' Georges Lemaitre, soon forgotten because no Fred Hoyle (who coined the Big Bang term to deride) publicized it,is to explain why there is more matter than antimatter in the Universe. They should have been created in equal amounts, according to the time-symmetrical equations of physics.
Tullio

---

Aaron,
In my opinion, don't trouble your mind too much trying to solve the paradox's that are associated with black holes. In time Aaron, new scientific information will surface that will end all the black hole paradoxes. All the problems that are currently associated with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, singularities, the big bang, the big crunch......all of them, they will all go away over night in one fowl swoop!

This new scientific information will be revealed in the next few years. In the mean time, don't worry too much about it. That's my personal opinion.

John.

---

The only problem with the Big Bang theory (preceded in time by the "Primaeval atom" of Abbe' Georges Lemaitre, soon forgotten because no Fred Hoyle (who coined the Big Bang term to deride) publicized it,is to explain why there is more matter than antimatter in the Universe. They should have been created in equal amounts, according to the time-symmetrical equations of physics.
Tullio

It would appear that my theory provides for the platform to which that problem would also be erased as the universes filled with particles. The creation of each would be constant.

---

In the beginning...

We had the big bang.

Which created the Universe as we know it.

When the first bursts of energy were exhausted, particles were created, starting with elementary particles.

Later on came the creation or formation of atoms. Atoms are known to be having protons at its core as well as neutrons. One exception is hydrogen, which may have only one proton at its nucleus as well as an electron orbiting its nucleus occupying a shell.

Protons are known to be positively charged, meaning that they attract each other. Neutrons on the other hand are neutral in charge. Still they coexist with the protons in the nucleus of the atom.

Electrons are negatively charged elementary particles which are known to orbit the nucleus in different shells. For hydrogen and helium, there are one and two such electrons respectively in the innermost shell.

In fact there is not room for any more electrons. For heavier elements an additional shell containing at most eight electrons are possible. An additional shell containing the same number of yet additional electrons comes next. Every new proton for the core as well as electron orbiting the core makes up a new periodic element, of which oxygen is one such periodic element.

The atom which is thought of as being a natural component in the Universe is the hydrogen atom. In the core of stars like the sun, hydrogen is continuously being fused or merged into helium by means of nuclear fusion. Tremendous pressure is the main reason for the possibility of such a fusion process.

Stars much heavier than our sun also creates new periodic elements, probably as heavy as oxygen and silicon. But when iron atoms are fusing together in a star which either is too heavy or has become evolved and aging, this process goes terribly and ultimately wrong. The sudden chain reaction which follows is called a supernova. In such an event, the amount of energy which is being produced by our sun during one billion years of its lifetime is suddenly being released in maybe only a couple of seconds. The result of this cataclysmic chain reaction leads to most of the mass of the star being ejected out into space, leaving only a neutron star or possibly a black hole back.

An example of a neutron star is found in the remnant of the Crab Nebula (or Messier 1, M1 for short).

A probable black hole (Cygnus X-1) is orbiting a 9'th magnitude supergiant star in the constellation Cygnus. This star is a quite strong radio source, but definitely because of natural processes.

Well I don't believe we had a big bang where there was this infinitely dense material at the beginning in a very small space. It's impossible, considering the laws of physics. The matter would have condensed down into a gigantic and hypermassive black hole rather than expand and create all the galaxies and objects in space that we see today.

My theory provides for a way around the gravity problem, and even adds a way to account for the accellerating expansion of space -- That there is some force at work in matter that pushes space outwards, but pulls matter inwards (gravity, and another force). As more and more matter fills the universe, it will continue to expand the fabric of space at an ever increasing point, until the fabric of space and the force that creates particles randomly reach an equilibrium. The fact that the universe is still accellerating/expanding would only mean that we are still in the phase where the universe accrues more and more matter.

---

The general idea or assumption among scientists is that gravity is only one of several forces which exists in nature and possibly was created by means of the big bang.

If the big bang was not an event of its own, but as a result of the currently known forces which created it, it is speculated that gravity is only one part of the so-called "superforce" which possibly may have existed earlier and may have created the big bang. This force lasted only a fraction of a second after the big bang occurred before vanishing out of existence.

The other forces which are known are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism.

The theories behind the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism has been merged into one single force by means of both theoretical work as well as experiments having been carried out in practice.

More recently, back in 1987, the combined theory for electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force was merged into the theory for strong nuclear force as well by means of nuclear physicist Steven Weinberg.

What a great accomplishment by means of scientific work and possible work collaboration among scientists!

But apparently no-one really seems to bother about this achievement having been obtained by physicists.

Still gravity as a force is being left out of the puzzle. Time has not been incorporated as a theory either, only that it relates to gravity itself.

If time possibly relates to gravity, the strong nuclear force could perhaps be a part of the "superforce" which apparently does not exist anymore.

One may be able to assume that gravity is proportional to mass. The more mass present in a specific area, the more gravity is present as well. If enough mass is present in a specific area or field, time slows down relative to its surroundings.

Visit the event horizon of a black hole and your grandchildren have become very old when you return back home.

Therefore one may assume that either mass or gravity or possibly both, together with time, is the reason for why the universe exists. Still one may be pondering about why the big bang made the universe expand or inflate as it is currently being observed.

In the end, gravity is supposed to be the strongest force of all, maybe except for the force which is behind the expansion of the universe and has yet to be explained in full detail.

Very good comment.

One glaring absence is regarding "energy":

Indirectly, energy is mass, or at least a manifestation of mass. Or vice versa... Could that all be tied up with gravity and time...?


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Remember, (or rediscover) the point that there was no 'explosion' in the big bang.

It was an expansion of space itself, not a 'blast' of our matter into nothingness.

We think of explosions as things that occur outside of ourselves...like dynamite like a bomb. The Big Bang isn't presented properly as such a thing even though many cosmologists lapse into that habit of metaphor.

Truly nothing 'exploded'. It only expanded. It's just a stretching of things and a cooling.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Remember, (or rediscover) the point that there was no 'explosion' in the big bang.

It was an expansion of space itself, not a 'blast' of our matter into nothingness.

We think of explosions as things that occur outside of ourselves...like dynamite like a bomb. The Big Bang isn't presented properly as such a thing even though many cosmologists lapse into that habit of metaphor.

Truly nothing 'exploded'. It only expanded. It's just a stretching of things and a cooling.

This!

The real problem is that most of this stuff can only be understood mathematically. For those of us who are math-impaired, we make do with metaphor. But people often make the mistake of thinking that the metaphor is real.

Another example: it is surprising to see how many people still think that an atom 'looks' like a tiny solar system. Not even close, but it is a useful metaphor to help get your head around it.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

One thing i would like to know is,
In what direction is the centre of the universe ?, where it all came from.
The nearest constalition will do.

One thing i would like to know is,
In what direction is the centre of the universe ?, where it all came from.
The nearest constalition will do.

That one's easy:

Our solar system. "Sol".

From our viewpoint, our universe is expanding equally in all directions around us.


Or more precisely:

The anthropomorphic religions certainly got it all wrong about orbits. However, unbeknown to them, they randomly got it right about us all each individually being at the centre of the known universe (as viewed by each individual)!

Similarly, that is also true for the viewpoint from each atom...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

From our viewpoint, our universe is expanding equally in all directions around us.

Thanks, That is the info i was missing,
I had wondered if there was possibly any tiny variation in observed red shift of the most distant objects,
The James webb telescope will help us see a bit further.

Now for a really good mind bender for the thread:


Is our Universe "rotating"?

And so can we detect/observe some form of Coriolis effect?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Now for a really good mind bender for the thread:


Is our Universe "rotating"?

And so can we detect/observe some form of Coriolis effect?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

I don't think so. In order for something to be rotating, there has to be some outside reference for it to be rotating in. Since the universe is everything, there is nothing outside for it to be rotating in.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

I don't think so. In order for something to be rotating, there has to be some outside reference for it to be rotating in. Since the universe is everything, there is nothing outside for it to be rotating in.

What "frame of reference" is certainly quite a conundrum.

Meanwhile from observation:

What is it or why is it we see so much rotation around us for our own solar system, other star systems, our galaxy, other galaxies, all the way up the scale to galaxy clusters all rotating about their own central point?...

Following the scale up further...?


Rotation all the way up?

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Now for a really good mind bender for the thread:


Is our Universe "rotating"?

And so can we detect/observe some form of Coriolis effect?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

I don't think so. In order for something to be rotating, there has to be some outside reference for it to be rotating in. Since the universe is everything, there is nothing outside for it to be rotating in.

KenzieB, I'm not too sure about your answer here for various physicist's, Prof
Lisa Randall for one, fully suspect that there are many universes around and
about us. To this end there must be a void outside our universe that creates a
gap between us and those other universes about. As regards the universe rotating
my answer will be 'no', else we would see different parts of the universe
expanding as different rates....would we not?

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Now for a really good mind bender for the thread:


Is our Universe "rotating"?

And so can we detect/observe some form of Coriolis effect?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

I don't think so. In order for something to be rotating, there has to be some outside reference for it to be rotating in. Since the universe is everything, there is nothing outside for it to be rotating in.

KenzieB, I'm not too sure about your answer here for various physicist's, Prof
Lisa Randall for one, fully suspect that there are many universes around and
about us. To this end there must be a void outside our universe that creates a
gap between us and those other universes about. As regards the universe rotating
my answer will be 'no', else we would see different parts of the universe
expanding as different rates....would we not?

I think we have differing definitions of what the universe is. When I say universe, I mean everything. If there are other, smaller universes out there beyond ours then they, too, are a part of the universe as a whole.
In that case, our little 'universe' probably does rotate. But the bigger universe (that contains all those smaller universes) doesn't rotate.
All depends on your definition of that word: universe. :)

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

A recent bang.

Scientists record most powerful quasar blast ever

A recent bang.

Scientists record most powerful quasar blast ever

Huge!!
Scientists have reported the largest blast of energy ever recorded from a far-off quasar, some two trillion times more energetic than the sun.

****************************
The universe wastes nothing, it's simply transferred.