Scientists offer an alternative to the Big Bang

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hey guys,

I came across an interesting article this evening. A lot of this information was perhaps a bit too technical for me. But what caught my attention was the way they described the implications, which was as follows:

“We are not witnessing the birth of everything from nothing, but rather the continuation of a cosmic cycle, determined by gravity, quantum mechanics and the deep interconnections between them,” the expert concludes.

Here's another part of the article, as published by RT:

The new research seeks to explain these doubts from a different perspective: looking from the inside rather than the outside. Instead of starting from an expanding universe, look at what happens when an excessive accumulation of matter collapses under gravity.

This is not a strange process, as stars collapse into black holes, one of the best understood elements in science, although what happens inside them certainly remains a mystery.

Research by British physicist Roger Penrose and the famed Stephen Hawking demonstrated that gravitational collapse leads to a singularity, thus supporting that events such as the Big Bang are inevitable.

However, the authors of the new model stress that these observations are based on classical physics, which focuses on describing ordinary macroscopic objects.

In their paper, the scientists determine that gravitational collapse does not always end in a singularity.

Their calculations show that as the potential singularity approaches, the size of the universe changes as a hyperbolic function of cosmic time.

Such a mathematical solution shows how a collapsing cloud of matter can reach a high-density state and then bounce outward into a new phase of expansion.

In Penrose's theorems we do not see such results, since the quantum exclusion principle is included, whereby two identical particles, the fermions, cannot occupy the same quantum state.

In their research, physicists show that such a rule prevents collapsing matter particles from compressing indefinitely, causing the phenomenon to stop and reverse. Thus, under the right conditions, rebound is not only possible, but inevitable.

Such rebound occurs entirely within the framework of general relativity, which can be applied in large-scale models, such as those used for calculations related to stars and galaxies.

What emerges on the other side of the bounce is a universe visibly similar to our own.
 
Isn't the current theory that the universe will expand indefinitely until nothing is left in an unimaginably far future, in like billions times billions years?

How would that lead back to a singularity?

From what I've seen lately, the Webb telescope has potentially undermined the Big Bang theory with images of galaxies that seem to be older than the current dating of the Big Bang, as well as the earliest galaxies being much more developed than they "should be".
 
I really enjoy reading scientific theories, but I end up not understanding them because they use words I don't understand.

I don't understand the meaning of the word "singularity" in this theory, nor do I understand the meaning of "bounce outward."
Something that bounces is supposed to be outward; how can something bounce inward?
 
It may be possible that the 'big bang' marks the initial commencement of a really, really (multiple reallys, actually) long cycle. Something along the lines of bang-crunch, bang-crunch, bang-crunch. Unless reality finds an equilibrium and finds it's balance so that the forces of entropy (also known in some circles as STS) and the forces of extropy (STO) hold each other together in balance, forever. I'm actually not sure if that's likely, considering all the other cycles that happen, but this cycle would be a really, really big one.
 
My vote goes to God, also known as the 7th Density Being which encompases all. Maybe we are talking about this "Om" character as previously referenced in Vedic scriptures?


My vote is that the universe IS "God", and that creates itself. Not "created", but ongoing creates. At the same time, we and everything that exists are the universe, just one part and the whole of universe in one. So, this what I write is just one expression of the universe (let call it like that for convenience) communicating with other expressions of the same universe.
 
Isn't the current theory that the universe will expand indefinitely until nothing is left in an unimaginably far future, in like billions times billions years?

How would that lead back to a singularity?

From what I've seen lately, the Webb telescope has potentially undermined the Big Bang theory with images of galaxies that seem to be older than the current dating of the Big Bang, as well as the earliest galaxies being much more developed than they "should be".

Still, who or what created it in the first place?
Black hole singularities supposedly still form within the expanding forever universe and black holes may become stable at the Planck mass and thus stop decaying. Thus there's a Freeman Dyson/Paola Zizzi (Zizzi was a featured speaker at Penrose conferences) idea where the information of a black hole is used to create a new big bang thus the parent universe has lots of children universes. The information of a Planck mass black hole does fit with a big bang beginning entropy calculation.

All the universe states are likely eternal and 7th density God would be the eternal Planck energy state and God could emanate down to an eternal low energy state thus being kind of God with a multiple personality disorder like Bernardo Kastrup says as an analogy. Kastrup was discussed in a couple of MindMatters episodes.

As far as structures formed that seem to not fit with a big bang, there could be electric universe conformal effects that get ignored. Ark uses conformal structures a lot but the mainstream tends to not do this.
 
It's hard to conceptualize from our point of view, since with our human brains we are constrained to see things as a sequence of events, or timeline, when (as we have been told) time doesn't exist.

So the fact that something was created or had a starting point like the big bang is a human brain concept. I try to think of it as an infinitely evolving consciousness
 
It's hard to conceptualize from our point of view, since with our human brains we are constrained to see things as a sequence of events, or timeline, when (as we have been told) time doesn't exist.
In one of the magazines I keep, there's an idea about the universe very similar to what you're talking about. But it's long, I have to adapt it to make it more understandable and shorter.
 
Back
Top Bottom