Alternative theories to Big Bang

[kamil]

Besides the Big Bang, what are some other physical theories of how the Universe was created.

Doesnt steady state theory propose that there was no birth of the Universe?

[virtualmeet]

It's called String Theory or M-Theory. According to this theory, the birth of the universe (BigBang) isn't an "unique" event. Parallel universes and HyperDimension (up to 11) are some of it's important consequences.

[jambone]

This is a new theory slowly gaining in acceptence but like any theory it will need to explain our present reality and offer a predictive quality.It is called the wave structure of matter,stateing that space is the source of all matter.The one thing which unites all things.Please do check it out it is a delightful theory and one that has been hinted at through out the history of western philosophy.

 

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-wsm-summary-infinite-space.htm

 

Let me know what you think of it! Jambone

[OmegaX7]

:) Hey all. OmegaX7 here. Yea, I know It's a questionable name; kinda gamelike and childish, but it sounds cool. It's my HALO name. Anyway, Latest word is that the Inflationary model of the universe has been confirmed thru gravity waves which we've been workoing on improving detectors for, for several years now. So, I think, this problem has finally been solved. Several things have never been solved with the steady state when compared to the obvious results we see. The "Inflationary" theory has finally been move to the spotlight. It only makes sense anyway. Everything is just too "homogenious" on schales of about 100,00 light years. It's difficult to explain the observed size within the given time sinceT-"0" without some "Huge" expansion involved.

You second answer should be given some creadence. "String Theory" may very well gives us the answers. And there may very well be "multi-universes" and alternitive dimensions; I'll leave that up to you to study that stuff. It's deep. And you'll have to make up your mind whether you go for it or not. As for answer three, this isn't a new theory at all. Look up "Steady state Theory" and see when it was first proposed. I'm 50. it was quite some time ago. "BUT", all is not lost on Jambone, and by the way, thats a precosious name, I like it. You, kamil, must read up on "Wave Structure." Jambone is right. You'll get the connection; waves, energy, e=m, m=e. "e" is where everything we know of came from. Before the big bang, which came after the inflationary period, "There was energy." Pure, cold, black (dark), timeless energy. And here we are.

L8R - - - - Keith. (thats my name)

hope I haven't offended anyones opinion. theories are theories.

[jambone]

OmegaX7,you sound somewhat excited,I wish I knew enough about it to be excited with you.I shall research this inflationary theory,my guess is I am not understand presently,this inflationary theory proceeds the big bang? Indeed do you believe the big bang theory,there is growing opposition to it.I just discovered this wave structure of matter and told a very well educated friend of mine.They simple told me this is all highly mathematical and does not lend itself to a narrative like is found at this site.That was a bit of a downer but I find this theory compelling anyway.

 

You have offened no one,I guess I should simply speak for myself.It is a delightful speculation and anyone whom might help me understand is more than welcome.You really are old though,I am sixty one myself,it just goes to show, it isn't just the young whom have curiousity.I must admit I thought this wave structure of matter was a revolutionary step foreward,but you say it has been around awhile.Thanks for the input----much appreciated!

[Ibbo]

Has anyone ever thought were not thinking big enough when it comes to the creation of our universe? What if the event that we deem 'the big bang' was not the creation of our universe, but just a localised explosion amist a much larger space? It wouldent necessicary prove much if this were the case, but it would mean a) we would still be no closer the finding out what caused our universe to happen, and :eek2: The big bang theory did NOT create our entire universe, just the part of the universe that we as humans exist in.

 

This isn't much of a scientific possibility, but when you think that up too 1000 years ago we thought the universe was a sphere, a little larger than our planet with little lights twinkling around its edges, 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat and the universe little big bigger than previously mentioned, with other planets in it, and only recently found out that the part of space visable to us is millions of light years across- Whats to stop scientists suddenly going: "Uhh, the big bang wasnt large enough to create everything... were even smaller and insignificant than we previousally imagined!"

 

Just a though ;) !

[Tormod]

The big bang theory did NOT create our entire universe, just the part of the universe that we as humans exist in.

 

We don't even know if that is the case. The questions you pose are questions which the standard theory have to deal with, and have dealt with for decades. They are not new. The big bang theory came out of Hubble's observations of redshift and the predicted cooling of the background radiation, neither if which would explain *why* the Big Bang occured.

 

However, recent news indicate that we can see back to the first trillionth of a second (see http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/5815-new-big-bang-evidence.html for more), which means that we are indeed closing in on the Big Bang.

 

As to what was before it, who knows. There are some around here who thinks that the big bang was just a local effect in an infinite universe.

[OmegaX7]

;) jambone; Yes, I've become very excited about recent discoveries. Look, think, you can't get something from nothing, right. Mass and energy are "interchangeable", right. The universe is comprised of matter. "Positive" matter. "Some anti-matter" is produced in particle collisions and we've produced about a thimblefull in accelerators, but for the most part it is gone with the "inflationary Period." By the time the energy of the inflationary period "fell down the energy slope", and converted to matter, all the anti-particles were simply outnumbered by the tiniest bit of positive matter, and viola! There was something where there was nothing but energy. "Quantum Energy", or "Virtual Particles", if you will, can simply "pop" into existance from the vaccume of emtey space, as long as they "pop" back "out" of exsistance in a span of time "shorter than the "Plank Length." As soon as just one particle existed for "too long", as predicted in the "Heisenburg Princple", "wait long enough and it will happen", a severe runaway buildup of energy simply spiraled out of controll untill there becomes far too much energy in one vicinity, which "can't get away from itself fast enough", and "bang" mass is created. The "Wave Function" theory just fits inside the "Bigger Plan."

IBBO: read tormod's quote of your's. Read that carefully man. The Big Bang Theory actually didn't create our entire universe, "The Big Bang" itself, in about a trillionth of a second did. And theres no reason to beleive that at some point in the universe, somehow directly opposite us, "IF" that could somehow be determined, would not be "exactly" like "ourside", on schales of about 100,000 l.y. or so. And "that" is what the evidence just uncovered proves. If we expanded much slower, the universe would not be nearly as "homogenious" in every direction we look.:eek_big:

Gotta go; this stuff makes my head spin.

L8R - - - - Keith. ( or OmegaX7 )

[Robert Angstrom]

String theory and M theory appear promising but they are beyond comprehension by us mortals.

 

WSM theory proposes that matter is made up of scalar standing waves and there is nothing 'solid' about solid particles. Particles in WSM theory can interact instantly and non-locally as described by Bell and Aspic and Mach's Principle is also an important part WSM. theory.http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-equation-of-cosmos.htm

 

Robert Duncan’s Aufbau Laws is a non-expansionist theory that combines Ampere’s Law with Mach’s Principle and it has a lot in common with the WSM theories.

http://www.rbduncan.com/

 

The Cyclic Model by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok is one of the recent ‘brane’ theories where the universe is described as a collision between two membrane universes.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/

 

The Cosmic Commode is a cyclic theory in which stars and galaxies from our universe disappear down black holes and emerge from quasars on the "other side". The emerging matter forms stars and galaxies on the other side which eventually go down black holes and return as matter spouting from quasars back on our side. This is not the most credible of theories but it is the best written and most entertaining of all the cosmologies and a good place to start if you are tired of reading about the same old same old BB.

http://www.thecosmiccommode.com/

 

The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta by Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry (brothers) is a General Relativistic cosmology that counters the Special Relativistic view of the Big Bang theory and its dependence on Doppler redshifts.

http://www.creationists.org/robertgentry/abstract3.html

 

John Hunter has a cosmology based the notion that the dynamics of our universe can be explained as a decline in the strength of Newton’s gravitational constant. This seems to be a popular hypothesis because several cosmologies are based on the same idea. Most are extremely dense with math but Hunter’s is the most readable.

http://www.gravity.uk.com/cosmological_model.htm

 

The Eureka theory by Edgar Allen Poe (yes, that Poe) is a sketchy version of the Big Bang theory and it goes to show that even the Big Bang was once a crazy theory way out in left field.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/poe/eureka.html

 

My personal favorite is the Inverse Expansion theory by Russell Rierson but this theory is still in its formative stages.

 

These are a few of many, many alternatives to the Big Bang.

[FRIPRO]

1.Besides the Big Bang, what are some other physical theories of how the Universe was created.

2. Doesnt steady state theory propose that there was no birth of the Universe?

 

2. The Universe was never created and will never end, it is the Steady State Theory.

 

1. Yes: the steady state theory was proposed by Einstine in the early 20's (he since before his death, recanted it, and backed the Big Bang Theory. I was up set that he changed his mind. Perhaps if he were still alive he woud reverse his position. I have reversed my thinking . I now believe in the steady state theory . I call it UNIVERSE's INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©*The reason: I consider the Big Bang a local event in our area of the Universe.

 

 

RECANTING FOR REFERENCE:

Einstein introduced a 'fudge factor' that ensured a 'steady state' Universe, one that had no beginning or end. He then changed his mind and agreed with the “Big Bang" theory! He called his 'Steady State Universe with out end', the “Greatest Blunder he ever made.” (I Believe Einstein should have stayed with his original premise!) *

 

Einstein, in his address delivered on May 5th, 1920 in the University of Leyden, Germany said: Quote: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.“ *

 

The same is true with; Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz, Hertz, and Fizeau, and Tesla's ether (AETHER) concept! It seems that the more humans think they know about the Universe, the more they seem to error in its design theories. *

 

If Einstein had not recanted the “steady state theory”, later in his life, he may have solved his greatest goal, his “Unified theory of the Universe”. * Is it possible that man's brain currently (is not designed to calculate advance designs of the Universe) thus not allowing him to know and understand the Universe? Is this why so may great men of science, constantly change their many theories. Is it why scientists do not agree even among themselves, on any Universal Theory.

 

Is this why we have so many crack-pot theories even among the most respected men? Do they even look at my theories expressed in this string as a crack pot? Will they express among themselves, "he doesn't know what he is talking about", possibly the design of the human brains, can not fathom the possible truth-- even when they see it! (When it comes to the massive Universe he lives in.)

[OmegaX7]

:ebaskbal: Hello all. Well, so far theres nothing I don't feel I can deal with in these two responses. FRIPRO; intresting name; and R. Angstrom, O.K., look, I'm not educated far enough to do equations and formulations. I do see here nothing that I haven't studied to some extent. Would not a cycle with no end in sight be considered a "steady state?" Before moving on I'd like to keep in mind that "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." My thoughts often ramble, but let's move on. The last quote implys that some kind of "steady state" must exist. "e=Mc2 & m=E2"; is that correct?, barring any upper/lower case errors? How can we not be in some sort of "cycle?" (strictly in my questionable opinion) If the mass of the intire universe were to be converted to pure energy, you could in no way destroy that energy. How would you do that???:) And "what is energy without mass", really? Nothing, right? Nothing, mabey, if there is no "object made of matter" to associate the electromagnetic energy to that your trying to measure. How astounded would you be if you were to detect a magnetic field when you were quite sure you were hundreds of miles from the nearest magnet? Even the earth. Well, that wasn't specifically a clear enough analogy, but hopefully you get what I mean. Without mass/matter, there can be no time. Space becomes "1 dimensional" without mass (or 3 dimensionable) depending on how you look at it. "Time" is the forth dimension, and that requires the presence of mass. And Einstein's "biggest blunder" may very well be the latest ophiphany in physical sciences. In a "Quantum Sense", we may very well be in a cyclic motion. As usual, I'm rambling, I think. I hate forums. I'd be more than happy to discuss anything, one point at a time, with any one of you. E-Mail is best. Sometime, everyone sounds like a jerk on line, I know I sometimes do. Without answers, I only have theorys and convictions, like us all. I'm open if proven wrong.

L8R - - - - Keith.

[FRIPRO]

:) Hello all. Well, so far theres nothing I don't feel I can deal with in these two responses. FRIPRO; intresting name; and R. Angstrom, O.K., look, I'm not educated far enough to do equations and formulations. I do see here nothing that I haven't studied to some extent. Would not a cycle with no end in sight be considered a "steady state?" Before moving on I'd like to keep in mind that "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." My thoughts often ramble, but let's move on. The last quote implys that some kind of "steady state" must exist. "e=Mc2 & m=E2"; is that correct?, barring any upper/lower case errors? How can we not be in some sort of "cycle?" (strictly in my questionable opinion) If the mass of the intire universe were to be converted to pure energy, you could in no way destroy that energy. How would you do that???:hyper: And "what is energy without mass", really? Nothing, right? Nothing, mabey, if there is no "object made of matter" to associate the electromagnetic energy to that your trying to measure. How astounded would you be if you were to detect a magnetic field when you were quite sure you were hundreds of miles from the nearest magnet? Even the earth. Well, that wasn't specifically a clear enough analogy, but hopefully you get what I mean. Without mass/matter, there can be no time. Space becomes "1 dimensional" without mass (or 3 dimensionable) depending on how you look at it. "Time" is the forth dimension, and that requires the presence of mass. And Einstein's "biggest blunder" may very well be the latest ophiphany in physical sciences. In a "Quantum Sense", we may very well be in a cyclic motion. As usual, I'm rambling, I think. I hate forums. I'd be more than happy to discuss anything, one point at a time, with any one of you. E-Mail is best. Sometime, everyone sounds like a jerk on line, I know I sometimes do. Without answers, I only have theorys and convictions, like us all. I'm open if proven wrong.

L8R - - - - Keith.

 

 

Keith it almost seems like you looked at my science page on the web(fripro)

I am not permitted to give the url here, but you might be able to google it!

 

There are as you say Mass, radiation and gravity they are the main sorces of energy in the Universe and on Earth I agree with you!

 

 

You asked: Would not a cycle with no end in sight be considered a "steady state?" Yes that is correct thus a Universe without a beginning nor and end! I congratulate your understanding of the Universe. FRIPRO

[Harry Costas]

Hello Fripro

 

I like to hear more of your ideas

[FRIPRO]

Hello Fripro

 

I like to hear more of your ideas

 

 

Well I'll be dammed. I though no one wanted to hear about new ideas!

 

If you go to my area under Theology UNIVERSE's INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)© there is considerable threads of information on this . To sumarize:

 

It really means the Universe's Intelligence (as a living organism) is behind its own Design and Evolution. It is man's source of design intent. It is man and other species hands etc. that carry out the evolution through the Universe's evolving plan.

 

The Earth therefore is also a living organism, rapidly evolving into a fantastic inter-connected brain, and we humans merely it’s brain’s synapses -- its builders. The trend is so obvious. If one observed the continued building of fantastic connections, in our telephone and electric wires, strung everywhere on earth. Further including radio, TV, video cables, Internet, air travel, cell phones, pad cells, personal television, photography, robots, satelite systems and highway systems. Certainly this is a demonstration, on a giant scale, of evolution through (UIDE).The Universe may not be called god, although god Like, call it what you may!

 

Such a plan pre-designed by an living Intelligent mind or minds. *(UIDE) Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution*

 

It is not the Mind (ID) of the Universe that is carrying out the work, it is only directing the live species, to do the work through programming, each individuals pre-stored information.

 

It is only when many, even thousands, get together and build on these pre-programmed orders implanted in the individuals mind prior to (or even after) their birth. It's a fact that humans and other species do know what to do, as soon as they are born. For example the horse know it must stand up and walk immediately after birth or be attacked by another species planning to end it life, for food etc.!

 

Why do animals know what to do in order to stay alive? We call it - innate! Then if an animal has pre programming, so does man and any alien species that the Universe created.

 

It always amazes me how man working alone can not do much, but put thousands on the job, working with an intelligent designed plan, then men will, thru evolution, build the grandest of monuments and technological advances.**Men on earth are the hands of the Universe. They will explore and populate the Universe or die trying!

 

We must accept the fact that the Universe always was and always will be!FRIPRO

[InfiniteNow]

We must accept the fact that the Universe always was and always will be!

If it's a fact, show me evidence.

If I must accept this, what happens when I do not?

[FRIPRO]

If it's a fact, show me evidence.

If I must accept this, what happens when I do not?

 

Gosh! Again evidence on such a large scale is not available, that would sell most laymen!

 

Nothing happens if you do not accept the theory,"Universe always was and always will be":

 

Both ancient Indian and Greek Philosophy correctly realized that something is never created from nothing ‘ex nihilo’, thus something has eternally existed! (WSM)

The fact we are here means the Universe eternally exists. I agree no one (not even a God )can create something out of nothing!

 

Even the earth people 500 years ago knew this-- why the problem now?

 

I refer you to the forum:

UNIVERSE's INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©

FRIPRO

[InfiniteNow]

 

We must accept the fact that the Universe always was and always will be!

 

If it's a fact, show me evidence.

If I must accept this, what happens when I do not?

 

Gosh! Again evidence on such a large scale is not available, that would sell most laymen!

 

Nothing happens if you do not accept the theory,"Universe always was and always will be":

 

Thanks. You just proved my point that your statements are consistently without merit and often false. This is what politicians might exploit by calling you a flip flopper and someone who makes unfounded claims. :hihi:

 

 

Even the earth people 500 years ago knew this-- why the problem now?

 

Okay, I guess I need to pivot back to the same issue. How in the vast cosmic expanse would you know what people 500 years ago knew? At best, you may have a personal interpretation OF the interpretation made by other historians and story-tellers... but that's it.